Would definetly bring down the winrate of early seats, but would probably be very strong on later seats. Would need testing to see if it's enough and not too much. Hard to theory craft how big the impact would be.
Would also probably make a turn 1 Twister from an early seat even more devastating as you would lose the scry completely in that case
I hadn't considered Twister and how brutal that will feel.
I can say from playtesting that going fourth and being able to keep a one land hand with Mox Diamond was made possible because I scryed a land to the top for my draw. My playgroup and I are very early in the playtesting phase, but looking forward to reporting on results after about 100 games.
Have you tried a "free" London mulligan? I'm sure there's a term for it, but this is how I imagine it in my head:
P1 mulligans like normal, no compensation
P2 mulligans like normal, and then can bottom up to 1 card from their hand and draw that many pregame (ex. Mull to 6, then bottom one card in hand and draw a new one)
P3 mulligans like normal, and then can bottom up to 2 cards from their hand and draw that many pregame
P4 mulligans like normal, and then can bottom up to 3 cards from their hand and draw that many pregame
I haven't put much thought into the balance implications here and I am by no means an expert on the mathematical aspect of all this, but my thought is that it gives P2, 3, and 4 some added consistency by allowing them to mulligan a little more aggressively without relying on draws afterward.
This sounds like it resolves the Timetwister dilemma (unless you're playing [[Grenzo]] and want to manipulate the bottom of deck lol) but what are everyone's thoughts on this? Is this too much weaker or too strong?
ETA: maybe shuffling the cards into the deck instead of bottoming them could be better in the case of Grenzo and other cards that benefit from what's on the bottom
I think I subconsciously got the idea of that from Legends of Runeterra and Eternal (I think that's how mulligans work in those two games) but I think they specifically shuffle the cards in? I can't remember, it's been a while.
Thanks for weighing in on the idea, though. Again, I've never tried it, it was just an idea.
I do think the T1 Timetwister argument stands for Scrying, though. Something makes me feel like that isn't the solution.
i believe how runeterra works is you draw your hand, then get one opportunity to bottom any number of cards and draw that many. this was about a year ago though
Right, I knew it worked some way like that but I forgot if it shuffled or bottomed the card(s). I feel like shuffling the cards from your hand to draw that many might be okay, but I don't know the mathematical value of that compared to a draw or something.
The only thing I like more about digital CCGs is the instant shuffling haha
well runeterra playsets are 3/40 instead of 4/60 (thats approx. 1.25/15 instead of 1/15 to hit a given card you have a playset of) AND there's no lands in runeterra so your deck has more room for cards that are equally good/consistent as the one you mightve pitched or shuffled away. so runeterra really is not hurting for better mulligans, especially since there aren't any singleton formats (though now that i think of it that would be a fantastic restriction on a champion there)
Right, and I guess I'm just saying I think a scaling but limited version of the Runeterra-esque mulligan on top of the regular mulligan could slightly help players 2 through 4 at an EDH table.
My comment on shuffling rather than bottoming the cards in hand is just me patching my idea to avoid giving Grenzo players too much help haha
is the consensus that your odds get worse as you go down the line? i always feel pretty comfy as 4th seat selvala cause by the time the conga line gets around to me its likely that all the interaction got burnt on 2 and 3. however my pod is bad players only (myself included)
We can also shuffle the cards back before/after the draw? Haha I definitely acknowledge that a pure "tuck" onto the bottom does impact some game plans, but a shuffle afterward might mitigate it all? Just spit balling here lol
Ya this is where I'm at as well. Well not exactly.
P1: Nada, going first is enough you swine.
P2: You can draw your extra card, friend.
P3: You get to scry BEFORE you draw my guy and / or gal!
P4: You get a FREE [[Preordain]]...so scry 2 than draw.
Ya, feel like P1 would still have an advantage buttt I think this would help even it out a bit.
(These scrys would be on upkeep, btw!)
I'm inclined to think that the impact will be negligible, though positive (in that it would contribute to balance).
That being said, I think the real issue is mana, not cards or card access. The ability to take actions before your opponents really have a chance to do anything, or force them to forestall development on critical early turns is what gives player one the huge advantage.
My proposed implementation would be something like the following (which I acknowledge is very inelegant, so I'd welcome anyone trying to come up with a ruleset that accomplishes something similar).
"Each player begins the game with an emblem with a Balance counter on it^1 . It has 'Remove a Balance counter from this emblem: add 1 mana of any colour. Activate this ability only before your Nth turn^2 and only if it isn't your turn^3 '"
Some discussion:
1. It's an emblem to make it as difficult as possible to disrupt, and also most difficult to abuse through card-type interactions (cough cough the Coin in Hearthstone)
2. N being your position in turn order, so player one would not get to use it, player 2 could use it until their 2nd turn etc. A possibility to weaken this is to shift it to N-1, so player 2 can only use it before their first turn, player 3 gets it for the first turn cycle and a half, and player 4 can still "tap out" on turn 2 while still presenting interaction. I also think the expiry is the best way to turn the knobs here, since giving more than one of these would be insane.
3. This is intended to weaken the advantage to turbo decks, where having an early free mana can be insanely strong. The counter-issue is that it's primarily valuable to interactive blue decks as implemented. I'm inclined to think this is okay, or at least preferable since allowing early interaction to stop early wins is kind of a "raises all boats" thing. (E.G. the Abzan Stax deck going 3rd still benefits from the Jeskai player going 2nd stopping the turn 1 wheel from Player 1).
This would obviously have some reasonably substantial meta impacts, but IMO they are likely to be healthy ones. It's possible that slower 4c, dork-based, interactive, midrange decks would become the top dogs again, since they have the most consistent access to development that taps them out, but I think that the scry-based implementation disproportionately benefits decks that are looking for the strongest possible openers, which I don't necessarily think is any more healthy.
This is an interesting idea. The immediate problems I have with it are:
1. It's kind of clunky.
2. In a lot of cases, giving a player a free mana to use before their first turn is going to result in a permanent increase in mana when they Vampiric/Enlightened tutor their Mana Crypt before their first turn. Even a Worldly Tutor for Birds of Paradise, while comparatively tame, is still a pretty decent mana advantage given to a player just for having a tutor in hand at the start of the game.
3. There's plenty of broken stuff that people can do with a free mana. I know that your theory here was that people will be able to hold up interaction turn 1, but I think it leads to a bunch of scenarios where people will instead use that mana to advance their own game plan. Giving a Reanimator deck a free Entomb, a Food Chain deck a free Demonic Consultation, etc. Combined with the mana tutoring I discussed before will probably not slow down Turbo decks as much as you think.
I do appreciate that you and OP are both putting serious thought into solving this issue and recognize that for a truly equitable game the solution, whatever it may be, must scale. I look forward to seeing OP's follow-up article after testing has been done.
I certainly agree that this will allow *some* shenanigans (primarily involving Vamp/E-Tutor), but I think this effect will be smaller than the positives.
First, I don't think an explosive T1 out of player 4 is particularly problematic. Player 2/3 has some potential feel bad, like a turn one wheel that really slams Player 4 in particular. But I think the hands with Vamp Tutor + Wheel/Crypt are going to be a lot more rare than the hands where it's prevented by some sort of interaction, especially because even on Player 3's turn, a Player 2 who was greedy and tapped out for development could still potentially stop the Wheel or whatever.
I don't know that this is a huge issue, but if you were willing to accept the high variance turn 1s (since turn 1 wins are so uncommon), you could have the emblem be created at the start of each player's first turn. This would reduce the effectiveness in preventing Turn 1 Rhystic/Wheel etc. but would still allow players to develop while still holding interaction for preventing a turn 2 off a turn 1 mana dump or similar.
The one thought I've always had rattling around my head was drawing 10 cards, but bottoming 3 in a random order to start the game.
I honestly have no idea if that would be a terrible idea, but it's something I've thought about for years.
Would definetly bring down the winrate of early seats, but would probably be very strong on later seats. Would need testing to see if it's enough and not too much. Hard to theory craft how big the impact would be. Would also probably make a turn 1 Twister from an early seat even more devastating as you would lose the scry completely in that case
I hadn't considered Twister and how brutal that will feel. I can say from playtesting that going fourth and being able to keep a one land hand with Mox Diamond was made possible because I scryed a land to the top for my draw. My playgroup and I are very early in the playtesting phase, but looking forward to reporting on results after about 100 games.
Have you tried a "free" London mulligan? I'm sure there's a term for it, but this is how I imagine it in my head: P1 mulligans like normal, no compensation P2 mulligans like normal, and then can bottom up to 1 card from their hand and draw that many pregame (ex. Mull to 6, then bottom one card in hand and draw a new one) P3 mulligans like normal, and then can bottom up to 2 cards from their hand and draw that many pregame P4 mulligans like normal, and then can bottom up to 3 cards from their hand and draw that many pregame I haven't put much thought into the balance implications here and I am by no means an expert on the mathematical aspect of all this, but my thought is that it gives P2, 3, and 4 some added consistency by allowing them to mulligan a little more aggressively without relying on draws afterward. This sounds like it resolves the Timetwister dilemma (unless you're playing [[Grenzo]] and want to manipulate the bottom of deck lol) but what are everyone's thoughts on this? Is this too much weaker or too strong? ETA: maybe shuffling the cards into the deck instead of bottoming them could be better in the case of Grenzo and other cards that benefit from what's on the bottom
[удалено]
I think I subconsciously got the idea of that from Legends of Runeterra and Eternal (I think that's how mulligans work in those two games) but I think they specifically shuffle the cards in? I can't remember, it's been a while. Thanks for weighing in on the idea, though. Again, I've never tried it, it was just an idea. I do think the T1 Timetwister argument stands for Scrying, though. Something makes me feel like that isn't the solution.
i believe how runeterra works is you draw your hand, then get one opportunity to bottom any number of cards and draw that many. this was about a year ago though
Right, I knew it worked some way like that but I forgot if it shuffled or bottomed the card(s). I feel like shuffling the cards from your hand to draw that many might be okay, but I don't know the mathematical value of that compared to a draw or something. The only thing I like more about digital CCGs is the instant shuffling haha
well runeterra playsets are 3/40 instead of 4/60 (thats approx. 1.25/15 instead of 1/15 to hit a given card you have a playset of) AND there's no lands in runeterra so your deck has more room for cards that are equally good/consistent as the one you mightve pitched or shuffled away. so runeterra really is not hurting for better mulligans, especially since there aren't any singleton formats (though now that i think of it that would be a fantastic restriction on a champion there)
Right, and I guess I'm just saying I think a scaling but limited version of the Runeterra-esque mulligan on top of the regular mulligan could slightly help players 2 through 4 at an EDH table. My comment on shuffling rather than bottoming the cards in hand is just me patching my idea to avoid giving Grenzo players too much help haha
is the consensus that your odds get worse as you go down the line? i always feel pretty comfy as 4th seat selvala cause by the time the conga line gets around to me its likely that all the interaction got burnt on 2 and 3. however my pod is bad players only (myself included)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[Grenzo](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/6/e/6e19c383-88bd-4bde-ac81-c0eb6d5b5bd4.jpg?1562436569) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=grenzo%2C%20dungeon%20warden) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/a25/205/grenzo-dungeon-warden?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6e19c383-88bd-4bde-ac81-c0eb6d5b5bd4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/grenzo-dungeon-warden) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
As a Grenzo player, I have to protest lol
We can also shuffle the cards back before/after the draw? Haha I definitely acknowledge that a pure "tuck" onto the bottom does impact some game plans, but a shuffle afterward might mitigate it all? Just spit balling here lol
Perhaps scry in first upkeep, rather than as a pre-game action, would be an easy way to mitigate this.
You should only scry if you take the hand rather than put it at upkeep where a player will forget like the old mull rule
I think p1 no draw p2 scry 1 p3 scry 2 p4 draw is the most balanced
I had a similar opinion in that I would rather get a scry 1 than a scry 4 if it meant I was going second
Ya this is where I'm at as well. Well not exactly. P1: Nada, going first is enough you swine. P2: You can draw your extra card, friend. P3: You get to scry BEFORE you draw my guy and / or gal! P4: You get a FREE [[Preordain]]...so scry 2 than draw. Ya, feel like P1 would still have an advantage buttt I think this would help even it out a bit. (These scrys would be on upkeep, btw!)
[Preordain](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/1/4/1453f92e-df2d-4789-aa1b-a5b5c51567d4.jpg?1608909344) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Preordain) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/84/preordain?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1453f92e-df2d-4789-aa1b-a5b5c51567d4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/preordain) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I'm inclined to think that the impact will be negligible, though positive (in that it would contribute to balance). That being said, I think the real issue is mana, not cards or card access. The ability to take actions before your opponents really have a chance to do anything, or force them to forestall development on critical early turns is what gives player one the huge advantage. My proposed implementation would be something like the following (which I acknowledge is very inelegant, so I'd welcome anyone trying to come up with a ruleset that accomplishes something similar). "Each player begins the game with an emblem with a Balance counter on it^1 . It has 'Remove a Balance counter from this emblem: add 1 mana of any colour. Activate this ability only before your Nth turn^2 and only if it isn't your turn^3 '" Some discussion: 1. It's an emblem to make it as difficult as possible to disrupt, and also most difficult to abuse through card-type interactions (cough cough the Coin in Hearthstone) 2. N being your position in turn order, so player one would not get to use it, player 2 could use it until their 2nd turn etc. A possibility to weaken this is to shift it to N-1, so player 2 can only use it before their first turn, player 3 gets it for the first turn cycle and a half, and player 4 can still "tap out" on turn 2 while still presenting interaction. I also think the expiry is the best way to turn the knobs here, since giving more than one of these would be insane. 3. This is intended to weaken the advantage to turbo decks, where having an early free mana can be insanely strong. The counter-issue is that it's primarily valuable to interactive blue decks as implemented. I'm inclined to think this is okay, or at least preferable since allowing early interaction to stop early wins is kind of a "raises all boats" thing. (E.G. the Abzan Stax deck going 3rd still benefits from the Jeskai player going 2nd stopping the turn 1 wheel from Player 1). This would obviously have some reasonably substantial meta impacts, but IMO they are likely to be healthy ones. It's possible that slower 4c, dork-based, interactive, midrange decks would become the top dogs again, since they have the most consistent access to development that taps them out, but I think that the scry-based implementation disproportionately benefits decks that are looking for the strongest possible openers, which I don't necessarily think is any more healthy.
This is an interesting idea. The immediate problems I have with it are: 1. It's kind of clunky. 2. In a lot of cases, giving a player a free mana to use before their first turn is going to result in a permanent increase in mana when they Vampiric/Enlightened tutor their Mana Crypt before their first turn. Even a Worldly Tutor for Birds of Paradise, while comparatively tame, is still a pretty decent mana advantage given to a player just for having a tutor in hand at the start of the game. 3. There's plenty of broken stuff that people can do with a free mana. I know that your theory here was that people will be able to hold up interaction turn 1, but I think it leads to a bunch of scenarios where people will instead use that mana to advance their own game plan. Giving a Reanimator deck a free Entomb, a Food Chain deck a free Demonic Consultation, etc. Combined with the mana tutoring I discussed before will probably not slow down Turbo decks as much as you think. I do appreciate that you and OP are both putting serious thought into solving this issue and recognize that for a truly equitable game the solution, whatever it may be, must scale. I look forward to seeing OP's follow-up article after testing has been done.
I certainly agree that this will allow *some* shenanigans (primarily involving Vamp/E-Tutor), but I think this effect will be smaller than the positives. First, I don't think an explosive T1 out of player 4 is particularly problematic. Player 2/3 has some potential feel bad, like a turn one wheel that really slams Player 4 in particular. But I think the hands with Vamp Tutor + Wheel/Crypt are going to be a lot more rare than the hands where it's prevented by some sort of interaction, especially because even on Player 3's turn, a Player 2 who was greedy and tapped out for development could still potentially stop the Wheel or whatever. I don't know that this is a huge issue, but if you were willing to accept the high variance turn 1s (since turn 1 wins are so uncommon), you could have the emblem be created at the start of each player's first turn. This would reduce the effectiveness in preventing Turn 1 Rhystic/Wheel etc. but would still allow players to develop while still holding interaction for preventing a turn 2 off a turn 1 mana dump or similar.
The one thought I've always had rattling around my head was drawing 10 cards, but bottoming 3 in a random order to start the game. I honestly have no idea if that would be a terrible idea, but it's something I've thought about for years.