[Official] State of Modern Thread (B&R 07/13/2020)

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 815
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
WOTC being stubborn about how stupid and wrong their past mistakes may have been doesn't make them any less stupid and wrong. Same goes with continuing to uphold stupid and wrong bans to this day. Modern has changed to an absolutely unrecognizable form, and outside of the totally egregiously broken things and T4 violators, most stuff on the list could and should be freed and reevaluated.

But they don't because they "save" the equity so they can use it as apology fodder for the next time their design teams make mistakes and break a format into pieces. There's really nothing in their history of actions and statements that would lead me to believe anything else.
I think people forget that WotC changes their minds quite often. Jace, the Mind Sculptor and Stoneforge Mystic once both had a "grave in Modern" and could be played in "Legacy if that's what players want to play."

Honestly, anything is up for grabs with WotC. I personally have a feeling that WotC is not making as much money off Modern as players think, so they are kind of "giving up" on the format. It's sad.
The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
And it's also here I can play Bant Snow. Scg already shipped cards a few days ago. Excited to fine tune the deck for the local meta.
Whew, Bant Snow lost a LOT with the Oko, Thief of Crowns banning, but it still seems like quite a fun deck. I applaud you for continuing to try to build the deck. :cool:
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - MBA, UB Inverter
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Yawmoth Chord, Uroza
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1940
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

@FoodChainGoblins

yeah, I know.. without Oko the deck is a lot less strong. But I can't really buy Oko, as he is destined to be banned. One person who still have Oko got laughed at in our local fb group on the day of the banning. Well, my local meta isn't super competitive.. best decks you see here are the usual Eldrazi Tron, GDS, aggro tribal Elves, Merfolk, Goblins, and a phyrexian obliterator deck that use chalice of the void to slow down people.
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 815
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote: @FoodChainGoblins

yeah, I know.. without Oko the deck is a lot less strong. But I can't really buy Oko, as he is destined to be banned. One person who still have Oko got laughed at in our local fb group on the day of the banning. Well, my local meta isn't super competitive.. best decks you see here are the usual Eldrazi Tron, GDS, aggro tribal Elves, Merfolk, Goblins, and a phyrexian obliterator deck that use chalice of the void to slow down people.
Oko is already banned, lol. It's good you didn't get him. I paid over $40 each for 2 of my Okos and $30 each for the other 2. Even with price memory keeping it up, realistically the card is worth around $15 now. I'm saving mine for Oko Opposition in Legacy. :)
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - MBA, UB Inverter
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Yawmoth Chord, Uroza
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

Yawgmoth
Posts: 170
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yawgmoth » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote: a phyrexian obliterator deck that use chalice of the void to slow down people.
This sounds fun

Aazadan
Posts: 516
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote: 4. The "Modern 2.0" vision
Unban literally everything and reban things based on format dominance and unfun play patterns. Embrace the fact that the format will be redefined overnight and see what is actually dominant vs. what balances out other strategies. This massive experiment would take the longest to resolve and I wouldn't be surprised if we pushed into that 5-6 month range.
The reason I think this is the way to go, and perhaps I can add a couple more points to justify it, is that Magic is a complex game. The larger the format, the more complex it is. Many cards were banned using certain lines of reasoning, but that reasoning was likely faulty. The best people in the format, those with the rare combination of top tier deck building and playing skills (people like Sam Black and Gerry Thompson) routinely get wrong the impact of a card being banned or unbanned.

When the best minds in the game can't gauge these things, I think the only thing we can do is to admit that the format has been built on a series of assumptions that at least in some part have a high probability of being wrong.

Take Mental Misstep for example. We know the size of the format somewhat impacts how good this card is, due to the number of one drops played. For years it was unrestricted in Vintage where the number of one drops was lower, and it never needed a ban in Standard. In Legacy it was banned almost instantly, and in Modern it was preemptively banned because the card appears at first glance to be broken beyond all semblance of proper card design. So clearly, the number of 1 drops in the format plays a factor.

Perhaps this list is too small but going by MTGTop8, here's the number of 1 drops in the top 100 cards of each format:
Vintage: 16 (and several of these are restricted)
Legacy: 17
Modern: 12

So, would it still be too good? Maybe. But, we do know the card was considered fine in Vintage until very recently, and that it has fewer 1 drops than Legacy. And that Modern also has significantly fewer 1 drops than Legacy. This isn't me arguing for an unban here, but rather simply questioning if the assumptions on the format that lead to a ban are even accurate.

As such, not only would such an experiment help to increase faith in the ban list and the format but it also provides one other massive benefit. When the best players in the world are working on some level of faulty assumptions as to how non rotating Magic works, then it stands to reason that the designers and developers are also working with those faulty assumptions. For years we've seen printings attempted for Modern that don't gain traction, and then an entire year in 2019 that overshot the mark. The results of this experiment would not only be good for the players, but it would be a source of information that can influence Wizards card design for years/decades to come. Not just to improve Modern now, but in how to better develop Pioneer as it matures, and possibly even how to impact Legacy without having to work within the constraints of the RL.

This is a type of data collection for such a large format that has never been done before.

The worst case scenario is Modern dies (which it's going to without a change anyways), but the data collection from it's corpse can be used to help save other formats in the future.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
London Mulligan is great in Limited, great in Standard, great in Pioneer, fine in Legacy, don't care/don't know about Vintage or Pauper.
It is also fine in modern, in every deck except Tron and/or Dredge.
Limited, yes.
Standard, no.
Pioneer, no.
Modern, lol no.

Development is based on principles which have been developed over decades. At least the last 10 years will be under the same basic premise's or guidelines.

The London Mull decrease's variance. It INCREASES repetitive play patterns. It INCREASES the gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2, and it creates more Tier 0 scenarios.

It does these things because Development, and the rest of the rules did not account for 'sculpting' your starting hand. That is what the London Mulligan is doing.

Magic is a game of variance. It is not Chess. The potential to top deck something that swings the game is very much a good thing, and the potential to draw trash, is also a good thing.

A time will come when it is realized that the London Mulligan is the single worst change made for the overall quality and replay ability of the game in actual decades, and it will continue to promote lines of play which drive towards toxic formats and bans.
UR Control UR

Mestremuten
Posts: 4
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Mestremuten » 1 year ago

I've to register to the website to post.
It is absolutelly incredible that YOU players are failing to recognize with the format staled and why is agonizing. It's pretty simple.

First, the main culprit is WOTC. they had an all-star product and with their decisions they are killed it (and maybe killing tabletop magic gaming). I suspect that someone in WOTC follows some professional players guidelines in order to manage Modern format and this is totally terrible.

It is beyond belief and clearly a WOTC fault to not print a DRS substitute in MH1. This was the right place to do it. When DRS was banned in modern they opened the door to a future graveyard bans, happened twice, and will happen again if the format does not die this year.

Bans will always lead to a future bans, trying to estabilize formats with artificial bannings is a very bad decision, basically because people fed up of wasting money and leave formats.
DDT banning is an example of WOTC fears and professional players sodomizing staff minds.
Faithless looting should be a fine card if DRS or other 1 drop competitive graveyard taxing card existed for control or midrange decks.
Birthing Pod banning was a joke and the first blow to players confidence. Splinter Twin was the second blow, someone decided that holding mana turn 2-3 was not good for the format and opened the door to a mass linearity format. Another big big mistake. I'm going to omit here that Splinter Twin was on of the faces of Modern Masters some months before like we say in my zone: "having to pee and not drop".

Finally Mox Opal pushed out the format affinity like players and fed up other players who play fringe decks with mox opal as a glue. All in all because they printed a busted creature in MH1 in another total design failure.

Assume it, Modern is dying and for sure it will die. It has no identity. Their pet cards and pet decks has been banned. It is a total nonsense format.

Have a nice day.

User avatar
Mikefon
Posts: 29
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Modena (Italy)
Contact:

Post by Mikefon » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
1 year ago

Limited, yes.
Standard, no.
Pioneer, no.
Modern, lol no.

Development is based on principles which have been developed over decades. At least the last 10 years will be under the same basic premise's or guidelines.

The London Mull decrease's variance. It INCREASES repetitive play patterns. It INCREASES the gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2, and it creates more Tier 0 scenarios.
Do you have data? Did you see a dramatical raise of mulligan (done by you or your opponent) number in your games? That would be a sign that peoples try to take advantage of that rule.
Wizards collected them during testing time. While you can argue about poor testing for older formats, they had all the interest for testing them accurately for limited and standard. They did online and tested in modern MC. They said
we did not see what we felt were large systemic problems arise in the metagame or in gameplay
(As a side note this feels true even in my experience.)

DarthDrac
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by DarthDrac » 1 year ago

Mestremuten wrote: It is beyond belief and clearly a WOTC fault to not print a DRS substitute in MH1. This was the right place to do it. When DRS was banned in modern they opened the door to a future graveyard bans, happened twice, and will happen again if the format does not die this year.
Death Rite Shaman, in a format with fetch lands is an incredibly strong card. It has too many features on a single card, if you want the graveyard hate then Scavenging Ooze will work, want ramp well there are elves and birds for that...

Sure banning Faithless Looting and Mox Opal outright killed some decks, but arguably WotC tried to provide fairer alternatives in Haggle / Merchant of the Vale and Mox Amber.

Modern doesn't have to die, there is potential to save it, but it needs the Modern communities help. We get stuck in a banning or un-banning loop, never stopping to think that maybe the things that make Modern, well Modern are those things we rail against. Tron, Dredge and Storm, the turn 1 Blood Moon or Chalice on 1... These types of plays will never be an option in Pioneer, this is Modern, we are the format that merges new threats with weird old cards, that is theoretically accessible.

You are right WotC are to blame, they haven't reprinted enough staples, often enough. When they do, they print them in something balanced for draft (essentially meaning you can't reprint too much power) or now as a direct sales gimmick, sidelining our local stores where we actually play.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote:
gkourou wrote:
1 year ago
London Mulligan is great in Limited, great in Standard, great in Pioneer, fine in Legacy, don't care/don't know about Vintage or Pauper.
It is also fine in modern, in every deck except Tron and/or Dredge.
Limited, yes.
Standard, no.
Pioneer, no.
Modern, lol no.

Development is based on principles which have been developed over decades. At least the last 10 years will be under the same basic premise's or guidelines.

The London Mull decrease's variance. It INCREASES repetitive play patterns. It INCREASES the gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2, and it creates more Tier 0 scenarios.

It does these things because Development, and the rest of the rules did not account for 'sculpting' your starting hand. That is what the London Mulligan is doing.

Magic is a game of variance. It is not Chess. The potential to top deck something that swings the game is very much a good thing, and the potential to draw trash, is also a good thing.

A time will come when it is realized that the London Mulligan is the single worst change made for the overall quality and replay ability of the game in actual decades, and it will continue to promote lines of play which drive towards toxic formats and bans.
I would like London Mulligan a lot more if the decks that benefit from it the most were not also the ones that already have the best consistency tools and inevitability.

On one side you have London Mulligan + Ancient Stirrings/ Once Upon a Time.
On the other side you have London Mulligan + Opt/Serum Visions.

The gulf in power level before London Mulligan was already wide enough, now it's an absolute joke.
Ponder and Preordain
A large number of blue-red combination decks kept the field less diverse. One thing that made them so efficient was the cards that would find their combinations. Ponder and Preordain were the most widely used of those cards. Banning these should make those combination decks somewhat less efficient without removing the possibility of playing them.
There is such a terrible disconnect between this ban reasoning back then and the actuality in Modern right now.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1940
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
The Fluff wrote: @FoodChainGoblins

yeah, I know.. without Oko the deck is a lot less strong. But I can't really buy Oko, as he is destined to be banned. One person who still have Oko got laughed at in our local fb group on the day of the banning. Well, my local meta isn't super competitive.. best decks you see here are the usual Eldrazi Tron, GDS, aggro tribal Elves, Merfolk, Goblins, and a phyrexian obliterator deck that use chalice of the void to slow down people.
Oko is already banned, lol. It's good you didn't get him. I paid over $40 each for 2 of my Okos and $30 each for the other 2. Even with price memory keeping it up, realistically the card is worth around $15 now. I'm saving mine for Oko Opposition in Legacy. :)
ah, sorry what I mean is Oko is already banned. My english is sleepy in the morning. :dizzy:
and from what I saw in the facebook post, the reason the guy who owns the Oko got laughed at is because he was trying to get the highest buyer possible for his Oko card.. like keeps delaying to sell, some buyers felt trolled. In the end, he was still holding the card when it got modern banned. :P

well, yeah.. you could still use them in legacy. :)
Yawgmoth wrote:
The Fluff wrote: a phyrexian obliterator deck that use chalice of the void to slow down people.
This sounds fun
have only played against it a few times.. from what I seen the deck has a backup plan of draining people with gray merchant asphodel if the obliterator was dealt with. The guy who owns it is a good mono black player. He also has an 8-rack deck that is pain to play against. :fuming:
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

Yawgmoth
Posts: 170
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yawgmoth » 1 year ago

The Fluff wrote:
Yawgmoth wrote:
The Fluff wrote: a phyrexian obliterator deck that use chalice of the void to slow down people.
This sounds fun
have only played against it a few times.. from what I seen the deck has a backup plan of draining people with gray merchant asphodel if the obliterator was dealt with. The guy who owns it is a good mono black player. He also has an 8-rack deck that is pain to play against. :fuming:
Very cool. I have been working on a similar mono black deck since Yawgmoth, Thran Physician was printed which uses Obliterator and Gray Merchant. However I had not considered using something like Chalice to slow down my opponent. I was treating it more like an aggro deck which also has a combo kill. However, it could be more of a prison deck, almost like a Black Stompy deck...

This is giving me some very interesting ideas to try!

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 1940
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

idSurge wrote: Better, is the Vancouver Mulligan we came from. I believe it was Vancouver that is.

The London Mulligan is absolute worse for the game, but better for the casual majority, which is the problem.
forgot to reply to this as well. Ah, yes that's right it was Vancouver mull. That rule was good too. I was surprised they thought of replacing it. Anyway, none of the people I play with are complaining about the london mull. I'm also on at least 2 facebook mtg groups. Saw no one upset or complaining about london mull. Is it really that bad?

edit: saw your other post now with reasons on why you don't want it. Hmm, I'm neutral on this topic.. if london mull stays, fine. If they change it, fine too.
_________________________

@Yawgmoth

this is turning more into a conversation about mono b, which feels off topic to the thread. So I will further reply in pm. :)

pm sent
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

Mikefon wrote:
Do you have data? Did you see a dramatical raise of mulligan (done by you or your opponent) number in your games? That would be a sign that peoples try to take advantage of that rule.
This would be an amazing data point. I don't have it, but Wizards does.

The resent data throttle however tells me we won't get it. Anecdotal evidence, yes I and those I play with all mull more aggressive to get that synergy driven opener.

Modern is not a card advantage format.
UR Control UR

User avatar
ktkenshinx
Posts: 571
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Post by ktkenshinx » 1 year ago

The conversation is sort of all over the place right now, which makes it hard to respond to overall points people are making. It also makes it hard to have concrete discussion about Modern issues. It's very clear multiple posters in this thread (probably players across the format generally) disagree about Modern's vision. drmarkb wants a pure T4 format even though Modern has always had decks which are capable of winning on T3 in goldfish scenarios. Everyone has different opinions about the London Mulligan's impact on the game as a whole, let alone Modern specifically. No one seems to agree on unbans, with even our enfranchised, veteran group of players running the spectrum from Preordain being too much to handle all the way up to Modern 2.0 "unban it all." In between that, we have disagreements about what to ban, what philosophy to base bans around, and what the end goal of banning needs to be. This is in top of the disputes about whether Modern should be a home to decks like Tron/Dredge/Storm/Infect/etc., should move to Legacy Lite, a higher powered Pioneer, new starting point entirely, and dozens of other visions in between.

For me, this just underscores how fractured the Modern core is right now. To be clear, this isn't entirely players' faults. In fact, I'd say it's mostly not their faults at all. The fault lies largely with Wizards for letting Modern get to this point. Even if there are steps they can take to reverse the decline, there's still a ton of damage and decay that needs to be addresses. Until we get Forsythe's updated article on Modern's vision going forward, it will be incredibly difficult to discuss specific decisions around bans, unbans, new cards, reprints, and ideal metagame. These conversations revolve around the format identity, and if we don't know Wizards' vision of that identity, we can't meaningfully discuss those topics. In that regard, this conversation has been helpful to me because it strongly suggests I should hold off on articles talking about those topics until Wizards releases that vision update. I suspected this would be the case anyway, but the last bunch of pages has doubly confirmed it.

Based on all that, I'm just going to focus on some of the higher-level changes that need to happen, starting with the topic I'm working on now: identifying and maintaining a clear Modern point of communication in Wizards' structure. There needs to be a central place for Modern communication, questions, concerns, and statements. Like my previous proposal about an updated vision statement, this transcends specific in-the-weeds questions like bans/unbans and gets to larger Modern issues. I'm going to keep suggestions in that realm until we have more information to work with so we don't get totally lost in those weeds like the thread has over the past pages.
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010

User avatar
Ed06288
Posts: 160
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Ed06288 » 1 year ago

new london mulligan has been absolutely great, the old mulligan system created so many dud games that i don't see anymore. you guys are also underestimating the drawback of putting back cards on the bottom of the library. if i mulligan twice, that's like getting hit by a turn 1 mind rot.

and yeah, opinions are all over the place. that's to be expected, i think the game has gone through a lot of changes recently. everything from finance, metagames, tournaments, ect

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

ktkenshinx wrote:
1 year ago
Based on all that, I'm just going to focus on some of the higher-level changes that need to happen, starting with the topic I'm working on now: identifying and maintaining a clear Modern point of communication in Wizards' structure.
Which means I assume some sort of goal aimed towards crushing the Reddit monopoly? Honestly Reddit is just cancer and does not support real debates on substantive issues, so long as this is Wotc's mode of community interaction, we are doomed.

I mean just look at what kinds of things make it to the MTG reddit front page, usually alters people have commissioned, some artwork someone made, some cosplay, and maybe, just maybe you might see some low level conversation about the game itself.

The only thing that can actually bring the Modern community together with Wotc itself to have effective communication starts with Wotc abandoning the Reddit quagmire. How likely is this to actually occur though? Are Wotc actually likely to reopen their old forums?

User avatar
pierreb
Posts: 266
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

I think ktkenshinx is being generous here... the last page has reverted to all the reasons I avoid posting.

Now on top of twins ceaseless posters, we have london mulligan ones. Unless you got number showing a difference in win % for, say, Tron pre- vs post-london, you have nothing to show that the new mulligan rule favored one deck over another. Not that I think anyone can have those numbers, because they would be muddied by new cards and new bans in between.

As for many comments about the state and power level, like this one:
Pioneer takes a lot more skill than Modern. It does not create situations where
1) you sit across a Tron opponent, knowing that you lost, if you are on a fair deck
2) the opponent's opener is just so good, that the game does not even matter.
It all comes down to having better, more versatile answers. My fix would be to change the fundamental rules of magic to be able to perma-exile (no coming back ever until the game ends) X cards of any of Y types and Z life (X, Y and Z debatable, down to zero) to counter anything, but I know that won't ever happen. Yes, it is my opinion that Legacy and Vintage work because of FoW and that is how you regulate an eternal format. The game designers should just realize this and make it a rule of the game for all eternal formats. (I'd say all formats.)

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

Ed06288 wrote: you guys are also underestimating the drawback of putting back cards on the bottom of the library. if i mulligan twice, that's like getting hit by a turn 1 mind rot.
And you get to see a fresh 7 and choose the 2 weakest cards to toss.

Which is miles better than having to mulligan twice, seeing 2 less cards and not having that choice.

Under any of the previous mulligan rules you will still be down 2 cards, which is still like getting hit by a turn 1 mind rot.

There's no drawback, only upside. So what exactly is being underestimated here?

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

True-Name Nemesis wrote:
Ed06288 wrote: you guys are also underestimating the drawback of putting back cards on the bottom of the library. if i mulligan twice, that's like getting hit by a turn 1 mind rot.
And you get to see a fresh 7 and choose the 2 weakest cards to toss.

Which is miles better than having to mulligan twice, seeing 2 less cards and not having that choice.

Under any of the previous mulligan rules you will still be down 2 cards, which is still like getting hit by a turn 1 mind rot.

There's no drawback, only upside. So what exactly is being underestimated here?
Exactly. The poor analysis is staggering. The impact of the London Mulligan is huge. Especially in a format with Fetches, who cares if you drop your 2 worst cards to the bottom, you simply shuffle it up after.

In a format where your opening hand is massively important, the London Mulligan is an absolute crime.

I would encourage everyone to go watch the match that forced this trash on us. LSV had a playable hand. He chose to mull to the abyss because he knew that a synergistic opener would seal him the Pro Tour win. He was justly punished for his greed.

THAT IS HOW MAGIC IS TO BE PLAYED.
UR Control UR

User avatar
pierreb
Posts: 266
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

True-Name Nemesis wrote: There's no drawback, only upside. So what exactly is being underestimated here?
That 5 cards is a lot less than 7? That having two cards less than your opponent is a huge disadvantage? That if your opponent kept his 7 it means that his hand was GOOD *and* that he has 7 cards, not 5, like you?

The opponents of the London mulligan all present the situation like: I can mulligan down until I get a great hand by selecting N cards from 7.

But your opponent does that too.

So it all comes down to the claim that some decks are hugely favored because they can gold fish win with very few cards and their opponent can't possibly do anything about it. Which is false, given good sideboard. Which is false, given good answers.

The problem is not the mulligan rule.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

pierreb wrote:
1 year ago
Now on top of twins ceaseless posters, we have london mulligan ones. Unless you got number showing a difference in win % for, say, Tron pre- vs post-london, you have nothing to show that the new mulligan rule favored one deck over another. Not that I think anyone can have those numbers, because they would be muddied by new cards and new bans in between.
Then drop some wisdom on us. What should we talk about that is pierreb approved?
pierreb wrote:
1 year ago
The opponents of the London mulligan all present the situation like: I can mulligan down until I get a great hand by selecting N cards from 7.

But your opponent does that too.

So it all comes down to the claim that some decks are hugely favored because they can gold fish win with very few cards and their opponent can't possibly do anything about it. Which is false, given good sideboard. Which is false, given good answers.

The problem is not the mulligan rule.
This is meaningless when some decks work on card advantage and others work on 1 + 1 + 1 = 7, or 'I drop my hand in the GY and 'draw' 5.
Last edited by idSurge 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.
UR Control UR

Tomatotime
Posts: 197
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Tomatotime » 1 year ago

pierreb wrote:
1 year ago
I think ktkenshinx is being generous here... the last page has reverted to all the reasons I avoid posting.

Now on top of twins ceaseless posters, we have london mulligan ones. Unless you got number showing a difference in win % for, say, Tron pre- vs post-london, you have nothing to show that the new mulligan rule favored one deck over another.
I think at some point if people like Sheridan want more focused discussion we will need to have moderator intervention. It feels like the thread keeps breaking down the moment Twin/Pod get mentioned even, its simply not productive. If Sheridan wants certain topics to be discussed, it would be nice for clarification on where the discussion should be exactly and for the discussion to be somewhat enforced in my opinion.

True-Name Nemesis
Posts: 156
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by True-Name Nemesis » 1 year ago

pierreb wrote:
True-Name Nemesis wrote: There's no drawback, only upside. So what exactly is being underestimated here?
That 5 cards is a lot less than 7? That having two cards less than your opponent is a huge disadvantage? That if your opponent kept his 7 it means that his hand was GOOD *and* that he has 7 cards, not 5, like you?

The opponents of the London mulligan all present the situation like: I can mulligan down until I get a great hand by selecting N cards from 7.

But your opponent does that too.

So it all comes down to the claim that some decks are hugely favored because they can gold fish win with very few cards and their opponent can't possibly do anything about it. Which is false, given good sideboard. Which is false, given good answers.

The problem is not the mulligan rule.
Duh obviously it's best to have a good 7 that you can snap keep.

Are you pretending not to understand the difference in power between

a) You opponent having a good 7 and you having a decent 5(having seen a full 7 and keeping the best 5)

vs

b) your opponent having a good 7 and you have a barely playable 5 and a scry(and having no choice but to keep)

Like honestly i don't care either way if London mulligan stays or goes.

Just stop acting like London Mulligan has some sort of drawback that we don't understand.

Any mulligan is a drawback in the sense that you are down cards.

London Mulligan minimises that drawback by letting you choose what to keep and in certain situations turns that drawback into an upside.

Average 7 card hands can be turned into good 6s or even 5s.

User avatar
idSurge
Posts: 1121
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by idSurge » 1 year ago

I follow a number of magic folks (shocker) on twitter, and the fact you can Mull to 3 in this format and still win is not a positive feature.
UR Control UR

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”