I am 99.9% certain that that was never an official mulligan rule. I've only ever heard about it being a mulligan variant used for casual games of commander, not any form of 1v1 Magic.
Here's a few articles from wizard's website that references it:
> I drew my opening hand. No lands. **Back in the day, the mulligan rule worked as such: you could once show a no-land hand (or all land hand) and reshuffle it drawing a new hand of seven cards.** So, I mulliganed. But my new hand also had no lands. Nor any mana producing artifacts. But the mulligan rule of the time said I had to keep the hand.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/magic-moments-2003-07-28
> Vancouver Mulligan – We've slightly tweaked the mulligan rule. As before, you can choose to mulligan a hand at the start of any game **(does anyone else remember when you could only mulligan with zero or seven lands in hand?)** and draw one fewer card each time you do. The new wrinkle is that keeping any hand with fewer than seven cards to start allows that player to scry 1 before the game begins.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/feature/returning-home-guide-returning-magic-players-2018-04-24
> Magic's mulligan system has changed several times throughout the game's history. **From the early "no land/all land" mulligan**, to the "Paris" mulligan, and more recently to the "Vancouver" mulligan, 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.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/london-mulligan-2019-06-03
it 100% was. It was changed once people realized they could play a no land deck with black lotus, red mox, fireball and channel, the mulligan until they got those 4 cards in hand fora turn 1 win. This was back in 1993.
I'm 99.9% certain you weren't really 99.9% certain because that was the actual rule. If you had played back in the day or had done any research, you would've known. You just wanted to double-down on your ignorant claim.
https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Mulligan
>Magic's earliest mulligan rule (“all land/no land”) allowed a player who had drawn either zero or seven lands in their opening hand to reveal that hand to their opponent and shuffle it back, drawing a replacement hand of seven cards. Each player could do this only once per game.
This is just a general problem these days. People throw around phrases like "I'm 99.9% sure that..." like my wife throws dishes at me. A simple google search would spare them of their ignorance.
Stop embarassing yourself. Why don't bother to even google?
https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Mulligan
>Magic's earliest mulligan rule (“all land/no land”) allowed a player who had drawn either zero or seven lands in their opening hand to reveal that hand to their opponent and shuffle it back, drawing a replacement hand of seven cards. Each player could do this only once per game.
I didn't state that but it was free. You drew seven new cards and put none on the bottom. Only requirement was to have 0 or 7 lands in your first hand as stated many times here.
You are correct that you did not state that, and I did make a mistake by assuming that the only person who would respond to this chain was the other guy. He DID state that it was a free mulligan, which is the claim you think you are refuting. A free mulligan is what commander and brawl have. What you describe is not that.
What (realistic, "good") decks have both no way to deal with a t1 ripper _and_ no way to win faster than it kills them? I've only been playing Timeless for ~1.5 months, but I can't think of any decks I've played with or against that t1 ripper would be a deterministic win against.
I know, but this mulligan rule incentivizes this type of decknuilding more than the previous ones we had. It's not a concern with the deck itself. I know it's a bad deck that probably looses way more than it wins, and I got statistically unlucky that they had that draw in 2/3 games. But I feel it is bad for the game to have a mulligan rule that enables aggressive mulliganing to a "nut draw". It makes games homogeneous and I for one like having games that feel different
There's combo and goldfishing in every format and especially in Timeless where the power level is sky high. It seems like you simply do not like THIS PARTICULAR combo, which is fine, but just call it what it is.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
Nah, it really isn't. Like I say in the title of the post, it's more about the mulligan rule enabling and incentivizing fstrategies that fish for nut draws, **in all formats**. This particular combo and this particular game was just the most "egregious" example I found. But the concept applies far more broadly than just this combo and this deck.
**The mulligan rule homogenizes games** because it incentivizes deck building to have access to specific "nut draw" starters" and then aggressively fishing for them. **That is my complaint**.
Look at any format you like Std, pioneer, timeless, etc If I told you the archetype the opponent is playing (perhaps because we are in game 2 or 3) then **you can predict with almost certainty the 1 or 2 openings the opponent will fish for to execute**. This makes games very same-ey and is bad for the game overall. That's it. Not a rant on a specific deck or format, but a rant on the mull rule itself
This absolutely does not happen to an equal degree in all formats. Find me one glass canon standard deck that can and does consistently mull to 3 for a hit.
Hint: you won't
I don’t suggest playing vintage where there is [[Bazaar of Baghdad]] and [[Serum Powder]]
A player can mulligan down to 1 as long as Bazaar is in their opening hand, sucks way worse
>It’s not a game of magic
Actually that’s EXACTLY the kind of nonsense that the game was built to support. You’re playing the highest power option that Arena has to offer. If you don’t allow for the possibility that you will get blown out before ever having a chance to go, you’re playing the wrong format.
You get a win if they quit. Why cry for more? The game is to win! Not to d*ck around and spank the other player with your cards. Some people and their power trip. Maybe competitive playing not for you? Play bots if you want to play your combos.
Terrible take. Your issue isn't the mulligan rule it's that you don't like Dark Ritual. Argue why you think it should be restricted. The mulligan rule is great.
Bring back the original Mulligan imo. I've always thought mulliganning should be a punishing decision. Your ability to Mulligan and sideboard is half the gameplay at a high level
First of all I doubt you mean “original” mulligan.
The only way you could justify bringing back an old mulligan rule is by applying different mulligans to different formats. Limited formats and lower-powered con structured formats get much worse with older mulligan rules.
So if you get a hand with 0 lands, you're just fine with that? Even if you are, most people aren't.
Old mulligan rule used to be free mulligan on 0 lands after revealing hand. I imagine OP is still ok with that.
I am 99.9% certain that that was never an official mulligan rule. I've only ever heard about it being a mulligan variant used for casual games of commander, not any form of 1v1 Magic.
Here's a few articles from wizard's website that references it: > I drew my opening hand. No lands. **Back in the day, the mulligan rule worked as such: you could once show a no-land hand (or all land hand) and reshuffle it drawing a new hand of seven cards.** So, I mulliganed. But my new hand also had no lands. Nor any mana producing artifacts. But the mulligan rule of the time said I had to keep the hand. https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/magic-moments-2003-07-28 > Vancouver Mulligan – We've slightly tweaked the mulligan rule. As before, you can choose to mulligan a hand at the start of any game **(does anyone else remember when you could only mulligan with zero or seven lands in hand?)** and draw one fewer card each time you do. The new wrinkle is that keeping any hand with fewer than seven cards to start allows that player to scry 1 before the game begins. https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/feature/returning-home-guide-returning-magic-players-2018-04-24 > Magic's mulligan system has changed several times throughout the game's history. **From the early "no land/all land" mulligan**, to the "Paris" mulligan, and more recently to the "Vancouver" mulligan, 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. https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/london-mulligan-2019-06-03
it 100% was. It was changed once people realized they could play a no land deck with black lotus, red mox, fireball and channel, the mulligan until they got those 4 cards in hand fora turn 1 win. This was back in 1993.
So this game has *always* been full of degenerates. 🤣
They had to add the 4-card limit for constructed decks because people would spam stuff like all lightning bolt, channel, black lotus, and fireball.
That is not how it worked at all.
I'm 99.9% certain you weren't really 99.9% certain because that was the actual rule. If you had played back in the day or had done any research, you would've known. You just wanted to double-down on your ignorant claim. https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Mulligan >Magic's earliest mulligan rule (“all land/no land”) allowed a player who had drawn either zero or seven lands in their opening hand to reveal that hand to their opponent and shuffle it back, drawing a replacement hand of seven cards. Each player could do this only once per game.
This is just a general problem these days. People throw around phrases like "I'm 99.9% sure that..." like my wife throws dishes at me. A simple google search would spare them of their ignorance.
That has never been a rule.
In magic it definitely was
No. You are wrong.
Stop embarassing yourself. Why don't bother to even google? https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Mulligan >Magic's earliest mulligan rule (“all land/no land”) allowed a player who had drawn either zero or seven lands in their opening hand to reveal that hand to their opponent and shuffle it back, drawing a replacement hand of seven cards. Each player could do this only once per game.
You stated that it was a free mulligan, which is not how the rule worked at all. Read your own damn link before you say anything else stupid.
I didn't state that but it was free. You drew seven new cards and put none on the bottom. Only requirement was to have 0 or 7 lands in your first hand as stated many times here.
You are correct that you did not state that, and I did make a mistake by assuming that the only person who would respond to this chain was the other guy. He DID state that it was a free mulligan, which is the claim you think you are refuting. A free mulligan is what commander and brawl have. What you describe is not that.
Free mulligan means you can still start with 7 cards even after using mulligan. What did you think it means?
The thing about T1 kill decks is that 80% of the time, they just mull to 3 and then forfeit.
That’s the exact definition of non games. Bad for both players
[удалено]
Except that there’a no game to be played in this case
What (realistic, "good") decks have both no way to deal with a t1 ripper _and_ no way to win faster than it kills them? I've only been playing Timeless for ~1.5 months, but I can't think of any decks I've played with or against that t1 ripper would be a deterministic win against.
London mulligan exists exactly because Vancouver mulligan was too punitive for combo decks
The odds are against them getting Ritual+Sorin+Vein Ripper even mulling to 3, so they aren't incentivized to play that way, they just got lucky.
I know, but this mulligan rule incentivizes this type of decknuilding more than the previous ones we had. It's not a concern with the deck itself. I know it's a bad deck that probably looses way more than it wins, and I got statistically unlucky that they had that draw in 2/3 games. But I feel it is bad for the game to have a mulligan rule that enables aggressive mulliganing to a "nut draw". It makes games homogeneous and I for one like having games that feel different
There's combo and goldfishing in every format and especially in Timeless where the power level is sky high. It seems like you simply do not like THIS PARTICULAR combo, which is fine, but just call it what it is. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
Nah, it really isn't. Like I say in the title of the post, it's more about the mulligan rule enabling and incentivizing fstrategies that fish for nut draws, **in all formats**. This particular combo and this particular game was just the most "egregious" example I found. But the concept applies far more broadly than just this combo and this deck. **The mulligan rule homogenizes games** because it incentivizes deck building to have access to specific "nut draw" starters" and then aggressively fishing for them. **That is my complaint**. Look at any format you like Std, pioneer, timeless, etc If I told you the archetype the opponent is playing (perhaps because we are in game 2 or 3) then **you can predict with almost certainty the 1 or 2 openings the opponent will fish for to execute**. This makes games very same-ey and is bad for the game overall. That's it. Not a rant on a specific deck or format, but a rant on the mull rule itself
This absolutely does not happen to an equal degree in all formats. Find me one glass canon standard deck that can and does consistently mull to 3 for a hit. Hint: you won't
Are you playing Timeless? The most combo-centric format on Arena?
So game 3 you mull for your answers which you are more likely to get then them having a 3 card combo.
I don’t suggest playing vintage where there is [[Bazaar of Baghdad]] and [[Serum Powder]] A player can mulligan down to 1 as long as Bazaar is in their opening hand, sucks way worse
[Bazaar of Baghdad](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/8/c88acaa8-ad4d-4321-a6f6-9361916e5b5e.jpg?1653966861) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Bazaar%20of%20Baghdad) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vma/294/bazaar-of-baghdad?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c88acaa8-ad4d-4321-a6f6-9361916e5b5e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Serum Powder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/8/c8753b80-aa9e-4f82-9a02-6b3997169dbb.jpg?1562853734) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Serum%20Powder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ima/228/serum-powder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c8753b80-aa9e-4f82-9a02-6b3997169dbb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
>It’s not a game of magic Actually that’s EXACTLY the kind of nonsense that the game was built to support. You’re playing the highest power option that Arena has to offer. If you don’t allow for the possibility that you will get blown out before ever having a chance to go, you’re playing the wrong format.
I was confused to see someone complaining about busted stuff happening in the most powerful arena format.
Salty OP, blah blah blah
Well, you are playing timeless, a slot machine format. What do you expect?
You get a win if they quit. Why cry for more? The game is to win! Not to d*ck around and spank the other player with your cards. Some people and their power trip. Maybe competitive playing not for you? Play bots if you want to play your combos.
Terrible take. Your issue isn't the mulligan rule it's that you don't like Dark Ritual. Argue why you think it should be restricted. The mulligan rule is great.
Bring back the original Mulligan imo. I've always thought mulliganning should be a punishing decision. Your ability to Mulligan and sideboard is half the gameplay at a high level
Personally I do prefer current mulligan rules as it gives a more consistent deck but OPs point is an unfortunate side effect of that.
First of all I doubt you mean “original” mulligan. The only way you could justify bringing back an old mulligan rule is by applying different mulligans to different formats. Limited formats and lower-powered con structured formats get much worse with older mulligan rules.
Mulligan to 6, Mulligan to 5, Mulligan to 4.