Doubling Cube instead of Mulligans
General forum
Posted on Nov. 26, 2022, 12:12 a.m. by estoner
I have been thinking about how to fix the MTG comp rules for a while. My first idea of mixing in Wastes with each player's manabase was interesting but does not work because of the way it negatively interacts with the pre-existing cardpool and mechanics. Instead, I believe we should eliminate mulligans and give the draw player the doubling cube from backgammon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backgammon#Doubling_cube
"To speed up match play and to provide an added dimension for strategy, a doubling cube is usually used. The doubling cube is not a die to be rolled, but rather a marker, with the numbers 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 inscribed on its sides to denote the current stake. At the start of each game, the doubling cube is placed on the midpoint of the bar with the number 64 showing; the cube is then said to be "centered, on 1". When the cube is still centered, either player may start their turn by proposing that the game be played for twice the current stakes. Their opponent must either accept ("take") the doubled stakes or resign ("drop") the game immediately.
Whenever a player accepts doubled stakes, the cube is placed on their side of the board with the corresponding power of two facing upward, to indicate that the right to redouble, which is to offer to continue doubling the stakes, belongs exclusively to that player. If the opponent drops the doubled stakes, they lose the game at the current value of the doubling cube. For instance, if the cube showed the number 2 and a player wanted to redouble the stakes to put it at 4, the opponent choosing to drop the redouble would lose two, or twice the original stake."
Now the doubling cube is usually used in gambling, but you could replace the "stake" with the number of games in a match. It would be trivial to calculate each player's virtual bankroll carried over between FNM or tournament rounds instead of caring about their win/loss record. This theoretically reduces paperwork and prevents collusion, forced draws, and metagaming into Top 8. I think this is a lot of fun and puts an interesting twist on Magic because now a good player with a bad deck can still win a match by catching his opponent on a bad opening hand and offering a double, or even doubling on a bluff with nothing but lands. Let me know what you think and if you have playtested this interesting variant!
I have to admit, I'm not quite understanding this. Are you suggesting people can choose to play a best of 64 match, or get 64 game wins off a single game, or am I misinterpreting something?
November 26, 2022 12:27 a.m.
You could just play Marvel Snap instead, which is built around the concept that once per game each player can double the ladder points that the current game is being played for.
November 26, 2022 12:30 a.m.
Essentially it would be changing the scoring system so instead of winning best 2/3 or 3/5 or whatever, you are pretending each game is worth a staked amount of money (or points, chips, etc.) and it works like a cash game in poker.
So the player on the draw, in order to compensate for the fact that they lose tempo by going second, would begin the match with a doubling cube that allows them to double the stakes (so that that game would count as two games in the set) if they believe they are winning. Declining the raised stakes would count as a concession. If you accept the stakes, you receive the cube yourself and can double from the previous number (so instead of the game counting as two games it would count as four, etc.).
This means that instead of a binary win/loss outcome of a match, you have degrees of success or failure, and instead of counting the number of games won and lost, all you have to remember is each player's remaining bankroll after the match (does not actually have to be money, could be just a number).
November 26, 2022 1:42 a.m.
Working through a hypothetical tournament, let's say one player doubles every chance they get and another player never doubles, and these two never face each other. Maybe one is simply more risk-averse, or is less confident in their play patterns in a new deck.
The doubler wins a 32-point match and loses three 4-point matches, and the non-doubler wins two 2-point matches and two 1-point matches.
Does the doubler, who won one match, have 32 points or 20 points? How does that stack up against the non-doubler, who won four matches for a total of 6 points?
Outside of that, are there restrictions on when you can double? If your opponent's playing Boros aggro and ran out of gas against your full board or whatever, and you're guaranteed a win this turn, can you double before you take your winning action?
November 26, 2022 2:41 a.m.
I wonder if halfway across the world there are backgammon players mulling over the idea of incorporating mechanics from Magic: the Gathering into their game
Edit-Oh darn, the little thinking face emoji doesn’t show up:/
November 26, 2022 8:16 a.m. Edited.
Re #6, during Backgammon you can offer a double only before you roll for the turn. The equivalent in Magic would be during your Upkeep. I think that would be a good idea since WOTC has stopped using the Upkeep step for anything ever since dropping Cumulative Upkeep and cards that require mana payments every turn.
Note that in Backgammon there is no private information or hidden cards. That means that doubling is even more interesting in Magic, because you could theoretically be bluffing with nothing and force your opponent to tank on whether or not you really have it.
The matches or win/loss records do not matter. You're pretending that each individual game is worth one given stake (like a dollar, or one point, or a bag of Skittles) and the winner at the end of the tournament is whoever has the most. So at FNM you would pay for a buy-in of points and then wager those points as a stake on individual games and at the end the winner is whoever has the most regardless of record.
The advantage here is that we avoid all the nonsense with "Are we using the Partial Paris or mulling no-landers? Is the first mulligan free? What about multiplayer?" Instead we just have a mechanic that helps the draw player and gives the upkeep a reason to exist.
You would have to make sure players don't deliberately throw to each other, but collusion is already against the rules. And the word "Mulligan" is in the comp rules 54 times: we could theoretically shave entire pages off and reduce shuffling at the same time.
Some people think I'm trolling, but I just cashed in a league and my current brew's winrate is approximately 66.6% repeating, so even if I am garbage, everyone else on MTGO must be worse. I was posting all the decks I test that ended up with a positive winrate on T/O, but I realized that I'm technically just helping everyone else beat me. https://i.imgur.com/rOCN4G0.png
November 26, 2022 10:02 a.m. Edited.
Daveslab2022 says... #10
So I don’t understand how this would eliminate mulligans. All your doing is changing the scoring system, you’re not changing the rules of the actual game…
Mulligans still need to exist because if I draw an opening hand of 0 lands, I literally just lose the game without even being able to cast a spell.
I’m sorry but what you’re suggesting doesn’t do what you want…
Quote
The advantage here is that we avoid all the nonsense with "Are we using the Partial Paris or mulling no-landers? Is the first mulligan free? What about multiplayer?"
This literally does not happen. In ANY comp REL event, the mulligan rules are exactly the same. It would not be a sanctioned MTG event if whoever ran the tournament allowed this to be the case.
November 26, 2022 11:33 a.m. Edited.
Daveslab2022 says... #11
Another thing I just noticed, you said that WOTC doesn’t use the upkeep step anymore, which is laughably and probably wrong.
Heavyweight Demolisher and Portal to Phyrexia are two cards in the most recent set that care about the upkeep. Ones an uncommon and one is a bomb mythic.
November 26, 2022 11:43 a.m. Edited.
If you look at the Elder Dragons, for example, it is clear that the original vision of bomb creatures like the original Nicol Bolas was that even if you cheated them into play, you still had to pay mana. This wasn't just for flavor: it was intended as a form of balance. Once we stopped requiring upkeep costs, power creep clearly spiraled out of control, as you can see with Questing Beast .
I know people who have taken breaks from the game and still thought that you could scry after a mulligan, for example. I'm saying that instead of updating the current mulligan rules every few years, we should just ditch them entirely and switch to a scoring system with a doubling cube, so that even if you open a hand that's garbage, you have the option of doubling on a later hand that is actually strong and making up for it.
November 26, 2022 12:03 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #13
But the problem is that there’s only a limited number of games.
If I have a shitty hand of 0 lands and automatically lose while my opponent doubles the cube every turn because they see me skipping my land drop, then it’s impossible for me to catch up. Best case scenario, I draw a decent hand, my opponent draws 0 lands and now I get to steam roll them! That’s super fun! And totally removes mana screw/ mana flood! Lmao not!
You’re not doing anything except screwing up the game and making it less fun.
November 26, 2022 12:11 p.m. Edited.
Both players should brick approximately the same amount of the time. It cancels out.
Also, you also can't double the cube every turn, because after you double and your opponent accepts, they now receive the cube instead and retain it until they offer a double and you accept and take it back.
Mana screw/flood is like opening a bad hand in Hold'em, but in poker, you're allowed to bluff and still win. Magic has no such mechanic because you can't bluff your opponent into folding. A doubling cube accomplishes this
November 26, 2022 12:16 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #15
Magic isn’t poker. Magic isn’t backgammon.
You can absolutely bluff in magic. If I have 2 untapped Islands, I’m representing having counterspell. This could be a bluff, or i could really have it.
Mana screw/flood is like having a bad hand in poker you are correct. But you cannot fold in magic. You can’t just say “I’m going to skip this round you guys continue playing.” That doesn’t. Make. Any. Sense.
November 26, 2022 12:20 p.m.
Why can't you fold in Magic, though? How does allowing players to mulligan to zero make more sense than seeing a bad opener and tossing it and starting the next round with both players at 7 cards in hand? I would rather allow players to double down on good hands and reward positive performance than simply encourage people to mulligan in an attempt to not lose
November 26, 2022 12:22 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #17
Because that doesn’t make any sense? Folding works in poker because you’re not playing 1vs1 most of the time. So if you have a bad hand, you lose the initial bet but don’t have to keep playing that round.
It makes sense for poker. It makes absolutely no sense for magic.
You are saying that if a player has a bad hand, they should just automatically lose that game and start over. How does that make sense? How is that good for the game??
November 26, 2022 12:27 p.m.
The only way to eliminate mulligan is to have two decks, one of land and one of playable cards, and allow you to choose which you draw from. Even that doesn't work well, as landfall decks would crush using that system. Unfortunately, mulligans are a part of any deck-construction card game. You could propose different penalties for mulligans, but you can't really eliminate them.
November 26, 2022 1:33 p.m.
I thought about that, paperhead, but it makes more sense to go with a doubling cube/big blind-type system as described in the OP so mana screw is more like folding bad hands in poker. Losing one individual game when subsequent games could be worth 2, 4, 8, or more rounds due to a doubling cube does not really matter. We're diluting the variance by allowing players to double down when they have good hands
November 26, 2022 1:50 p.m.
Original M:TG when I was a kid used to play for ante, usually a random card from your deck. In a gambling situation, your proposal could work, earning you p to an entire play set of cards for a win. In the current state of the game, I don't think so.
November 26, 2022 1:53 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #21
Dude you’re not “diluting the variance.” That’s literally what mulligans already do.
November 26, 2022 3:43 p.m.
we already have DFCs and cycling to reduce variance, why do we need mulligans too? is anyone designing this game even conscious
November 26, 2022 4:16 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #23
Because mulligans are essential to guarantee that both players can play the game?? If you don’t have mulligans then you have games where one player does nothing at all because their opening hand was all lands or no lands.
What you are suggesting does not change the need for mulligans to exist. How many times does that need to be stated?
You also never answered my question from just 3 comments ago.
I will copy and paste that same question here
You are saying that if a player has a bad hand, they should just automatically lose that game and start over. How does that make sense? How is that good for the game??
November 26, 2022 4:50 p.m.
Because you aren't just trying to win a game, you're trying to win a match. In poker you can be loose or tight and read your opponent to know what kind of hands they play. In Magic, you can just get screwed and lose. There should be a way in Magic to "raise" when you're ahead to make up for the bad openers you had before, and a doubling cube would fulfill that condition.
I have a deck that plays 25 lands, 3 of which are double-faced cards I can also play as spells. I get mana screwed probably less than 7% of the time. Mulligans are less necessary to the game than you think.
November 26, 2022 4:59 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #25
We have sideboards to adjust for "raising" your deck to beat the odds.
There is probably no sideboards in backgammon, definitely not in poker, I feel like if you like bluffing bad hands, poker might just be a better game for you to play. If you want a doubling cube, you should go play backgammon. And if you play magic and lose to just variance, play game 2 and 3 with sideboard options and a new chance of variance working out your way.
Because of the way cards interact in this game, there's opening hands possible that don't allow you to play the game. 7-2 is bad in poker, but you can still hit a flop and win with it. In Magic, you need to be a very special deck to do that by missing your land drop turn 1. Because you are in control of how much of your information becomes known information, and your cards can interact with your opponents' cards. Which you should account for in deck building. Which are all factors that make magic a very different game from poker. With very different problems and very different proposed solutions for them.
In poker you also get like 50 hands to build your plan for the table, in Magic you only get up to three games. Folding one will have a way bigger impact on your chances of winning matches. Non-games in Magic lead to bad experiences, meaning players get less invested in keeping the game going. Mulligans are designed to reduce the amount of those, to even the scales for both players, so more magic will be played, games and matches will be more enjoyable. Paris to Vancouver to London mulligan rules is a progression in balancing the costs and benefits of retrying your hand, adding both a way out in emergencies and a tactical aspect to the choice of how low you will go for glory.
It's all been in development since 1994, and to suggest it's completely useless and better replaced with some system from some unrelated game, just so it plays like a completely different unrelated game, is disrespectful to the history of Magic: the Gathering in my book.
November 26, 2022 5:27 p.m.
Mulligans are less necessary to the game than you think.
Competitive players will disagree very hard with this. At high levels players will routinely mulligan way down, especially in game two after side-boarding, just to get the answer to the opposing deck in their opening hand.
Though I agree with all the other reasons given as to why the proposed option wouldn't work, another very compelling reason is that it is completely unworkable in Magic's most popular format. Commander is where most of the players are at and Wizards (and the Rules Committee) have stated that they want to keep the rules between Commander and the rest of the formats as similar as possible. The proposed option breaks down immediately in a multi-player environment where one game is played in a pod (and that game usually takes longer than an hour). Having a completely separate rule to deal with opening hands being bad for two different formats just creates confusion and will be very hard for newer players to understand.
November 26, 2022 5:29 p.m.
I have mulled to zero looking for Leyline of the Void before so I know what you mean, but shuffling multiple times before the game even starts is frankly nonsensical
As for EDH, I think more differences between Commander and traditional formats would be a good thing, not a bad thing
November 26, 2022 5:44 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #28
It’s nonsensical to have a risk v reward system that allows players to actually be able to play the game??
I feel like you’re completely ignoring a huge elephant in the room.
What if, game 1, I draw a hand with 0 lands, and auto lose? My opponent set the cube to 2 so they won 2 games already. Now it’s game 2, and I draw another hand with 0 lands.
What now? What happens?
November 26, 2022 5:50 p.m.
What if Magic was roller derby?
That makes about as much sense as this does.
This guy has a pattern now. He shows up with a half baked idea. He defends it to death. We all get mad and argue. Lets just drop him and his nonsense.
November 26, 2022 5:55 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #30
Hey Guiz!
I have an idea, the comp rules mention cards in 2,479 places. To improve the rules of the game lets play with busts of British monarchs instead of cards.
November 26, 2022 7:44 p.m.
@Gidgetimer There’s a George V/Royal Assassin joke in there somewhere.
Edit—…too soon?
November 26, 2022 8:02 p.m. Edited.
Unless someone has actually playtested this, their criticisms are probably not very informed
You don't even need an actual doubling cube, you can just use a pencil and paper
November 26, 2022 9:58 p.m.
I feel like everything brought up misses a very possible pattern here: you go 4-0 at FNM and lose to the guy who went 0-4 but maxed out the Cube every time.
November 26, 2022 10:07 p.m.
You still have to win the game to take points away from your opponents, if you double without actually being ahead on board, you're only hurting yourself
November 26, 2022 10:19 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #35
So then there’s still the scenario of the guy who went 4-0 losing to the guy who went 1-3. That’s just a terrible mechanic.
And to say that you have to play test it to have an opinion isn’t really valid.
If I said MTG would be better if you started with 1000 life, nobody would have to play test that to understand it’s a terrible idea.
November 26, 2022 10:25 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #36
Wasn't there a fix already proposed? The "French" Mulligan, I believe it was called? Where you draw 7 and, when you decide you'd rather not keep a hand of 6 lands and 1 mana rock, you take those seven cards and throw them at the bottom in a random order. You draw the next seven and decide if you'd like to keep. If you do, you choose 1 of the 7 and that too goes to the bottom.
If you do not keep, all 7 go to the bottom and you draw the next seven. If you keep that, you choose 2 cards and those go to the bottom.
- (They may all get shuffled in, I'm not sure.)
Either way, the best way to end poor draws and needless mulligans is to just adhere to proper deck building techniques, such as land ratios and mana curves. That won't guarantee you 100% of the time that a hand is usable, but it will significantly improve your odds.
Although the BEST method is to implement redundancy. For example, having a "midrange" deck with only 5 removal spells is entirely pointless. You'd want probably 12 removal spells, so you constantly draw back into something new, to keep the midrange game going. Hell, you may want something like 12 instant / sorcery removal spells, a few kill-ability spells such as Steel Hellkite and Meteor Golem, probably like three solid wraths to reset the boardstate, and maybe even a Planeswalker or two that can kill creatures just to have some added and repeatable utility thrown into the mix.
Redundancy. Now when you take a hand, as long as your mana curve is tight and your mana base is fluid, you'll be able to be more flexible in your plays.
We, in Commander, don't get the benefit of running playsets of the best spells in the game. We don't get 4x Counterspell and 4x Lightning Bolt and 4x Mutagenic Growth. So we have to make due with a Dreadbore and a Terminate and a Murder and a Go for the Throat and a Walk the Plank and a Fatal Push. Because now, if you draw a theoretical hand of say, 3 lands, some enchantment, an expensive creature and two of anything listed above, you're probably going to be good. Because you can get your lands out and hold your removal against someone's Commander to buy you time - as is how you'd want Midrange to play. As an example.
But, seeing as this is a General forum, the idea still remains. Redundancy. Run 2x, 3x and 4x of the very best cards. Now, your hand is far more predictable and solid, all the time.
Redundancy is how you win games.
November 26, 2022 11:11 p.m. Edited.
This system is also pretty prone to abuse, I think. If you're a regular, and know what your opponent is playing, if you know you can't win you can just never pass the Cube.
Way back when Baby Teferi was legal in Pioneer, there was a guy at my LGS playing Sultai Flash. I played Esper Control, and he would just concede the match if we got paired. With the Cube system, he could just never pass it, giving me at most a 2x modifier, ruining my score.
November 27, 2022 6:58 a.m.
Scouting to see what decks your opponents are playing is actually not a violation of the rules the last time I checked, it's part of the reason people tell you to make a team
November 27, 2022 8:57 a.m.
I am going to let this thread go on for a little longer, since at least it is staying on topic--OP's prior thread began to deviate significantly from their initial point to the extent it was clearly off topic (and felt a lot like trolling). However, I am keeping a close eye on this. I also want to chastise OP for two specific things they need to avoid in the future--and probably should apologize for--if they want to continue to discuss their idea.
-
You rudely dismissed criticisms without playtesting as "not very informed." The problem with this assertion--you never actually says they playtested their idea, not in a manner that would be useful. This is not an idea that can be playtested by a single person--you would have to organize a tournament with these particular rules and see how different people might actually react to the rule changes. A solo "playtest" gives you nothing of value--it merely shows how you might react to the situation if you also had absolutely perfect knowledge of what the other person had in their hand. You cannot dismiss others' critiques when you are similarly lacking; doing so is hypocritical and rude.
-
You "responded" to counterarguments not by addressing the counterargument, but with non sequitors addressing complains that the post was not actually saying. Normally, I would attribute this to poor reading comprehension, but, between this thread and their prior being filled with such non-responses, it is hard to believe someone could misinterpret what others say with such regularity. Try to actually engage with others in a constructive manner moving forward. Read posts twice if you have to and try to actually comprehend what you are saying--otherwise it looks a lot like you are so stuck in your own head and your own idea that you are correct that you cannot accept other folks might have valid perspectives.
On the other side, everyone else should try to be a bit more polite as well. There are a few folks who are clearly frustrated that OP is flagrantly being dismissive rather than constructive--it is better to leave the thread than engage with it.
November 27, 2022 10:41 a.m.
I am not trying to be rude or troll; my tone is probably not coming across via text. Regardless, you do raise good points. I have not tested the doubling cube with Magic, but I am very familiar with its use in backgammon, and the games are similar enough that I think it could be ported over without severe rules complications.
November 27, 2022 11:21 a.m.
estoner - The belief that you are likely trolling comes not from tonal issues, it comes from saying things like comparing Magic to Backgammon and saying experiences in one are easily transferable to the other. That is not "text loses tone" issue; that's an issue with either ignorance of Magic, stemming from the fact you do not actually play, or trolling. Neither is a good look.
November 27, 2022 11:27 a.m.
https://i.imgur.com/H2Kw0il.png
I literally made the #4 Pioneer aggro deck on this website and my current testing winrate is like 66.6% repeating, but OK
November 27, 2022 11:34 a.m.
"I played from 7th Edition to when they banned Crusade." - You, less than two months ago.
You'll have to pardon me if I am inclined to trust your words over a picture that does not have your username or the deck ranking system of TappedOut (which does not actually measure deck quality or user experience, and could very easily be due to increased traffic from "huh, this person seems to have questionable views on Magic stemming from bad deckbuilding on their part, let me check out their decks to judge their deck quality").
Moving forward, if you want to convince folks you are not just trolling, you need to do a better job actually discussing your idea. Being dismissive? Making statements that seem like nonsense that you assert are true without any actual explanation? Not actually responding to folks' points?
None of those are helping your credibility.
November 27, 2022 11:52 a.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #45
This dude got 5 upvotes on a deck and thinks he's a legend that's here to be the savior of MTG.
To be clear, you absolutely did not "literally make the #4 Pioneer deck on this website", you got the #4 position for a day. If you actually look at all the Pioneer decks on the site, sorted by rating, you'll find Visit Lovely Hanweir! is the 4th highest rated. And Pioneer isn't even a popular format.
This is the second thread I've seen you make recently insisting that the best TCG in the business is somehow fundimentally broken and is desperate need of your oh-so-expert saving. Just stop.
November 28, 2022 12:31 a.m.
Honestly, this is just getting sad. Just...flailing to claim importance, relevance or expertise.
November 28, 2022 3:21 a.m.
All I did was suggest a doubling system similar to Backgammon and half the posts in this thread are people posting off-topic ad hominems while saying I'm the one breaking the rules, very cool!
November 28, 2022 8:40 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #48
Half... the... posts... no.
Just no. There's 2 posts out of 47 that are actually ad hominem (discarding the topic in favor of mocking the OP).
There was one by me, referencing Doubling Cube.
Every other post not written by you was either a question on "How would this even work?" or a simile showing situations where either your system breaks down, or the problem you're trying to solve is already accounted for in the current rules.
The fact that you don't acknowledge those, is why a moderator stepped in to show you how bad your forum etiquette looks.
So... the problem you're trying to solve? I read everything again and I still don't really understand what in the current way of playing upsets you this much. From what I gather:
You hate that, after you get an unplayable opening hand, you need to shuffle up again if you don't want to play it. You already admitted to playing MTGO, so I'm not sure why shuffling is an issue, but that seems to be the thing you're upset about. That, and people who haven't played for a long time might get confused about the current state of affairs, which can be cleared up in less time than it takes to shuffle a deck.
To fix this, you'd like to introduce a betting system so you can "play" or "fold" your hands in favor of striking it big with another, better hand later? You can already do this without having to bet anything btw; rule 104.3a: "A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. He or she loses the game." You could just do it. It works exactly like poker already. Except the price of folding a hand, which is a lot more expensive in MtG.
You advocate for this system because of its use in Backgammon, which is a game I don't know. A quick wikipedia search shows me that the only real comparisons to competitive MtG are that you play 1v1 and there's chance involved. All seemingly non-sequitur arguments like the opening line of #29 stem from here; you're literally comparing a boardgame rolling dice with a cardgame. Everyone else comparing random other games are on-topic arguments. Not great ones, mind you, but that is done on purpose, to show you how your reasoning might be flawed as well.
Yet you put your heels in the sand and state that everyone who doesn't agree or has no experience with the system cannot possibly understand what they are taking about. But we were warned about this, in post #29. That is why it might be hard to take you serious, and easy to mock you back.
I think your suggestion will lead to seeing more hands, but also playing less actual games of Magic. Since the cards are designed to play games and I actually enjoy playing games, it's what I design my deck to do, I think your system will lead to a less enjoyable experience overall. The current rules enable playing the most enjoyable games pretty well, which is why I won't be trying your suggestion.
November 28, 2022 11:37 a.m.
I was not referring to the doubling cube card joke. Obviously humor is still on-topic.
But the fact that people are complaining about my personal record in a thread about a gameplay variant is nonsensical, especially considering the Pro Tour is cancelled indefinitely. Are we supposed to dig up Sheldon Menery's DCI number and look at his ELO before deciding if Commander is a good format?
I think that the current mulligan rules are too consistent and reduce game variety in addition to being an enormous waste of time. Either cards can all be pushed as FIRE must-remove threats or opening hands can be consistent: you can't have both without making the gameplay awful. And having multiple mulligans and fetchlands or even Yorion in the same format is hilarious: at some point you'll have to hire someone part-time to shuffle your deck every few minutes.
Backgammon and Magic are actually quite similar; in Magic you are trying to race your opponent either in combat or to complete a combo, while in Backgammon you are racing your opponent's pieces to reach the opposite side of the board. Drawing one card a turn or rolling 2d6 is comparable considering everyone runs 4-ofs, so the actual number of potential draws each turn is very similar to the different dice results.
Again, a doubling cube works in any game that is played in a match format. I'm merely bringing it to everyone's attention in case it improves their experience. If not, I really don't care. It's a suggestion that I think makes the gameplay better. Your opinion may vary, and that's fine
November 28, 2022 11:54 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #50
So there are several things that I disagree with in this last post.
“ But the fact that people are complaining about my personal record in a thread about a gameplay variant is nonsensical,”
YOU BROUGHT UP YOUR OWN RECORD. You’re the one who brought records into this. So by your own admission, you are making nonsensical argument s.
“ I think that the current mulligan rules are too consistent and reduce game variety in addition to being an enormous waste of time.”
First, how is consistency a BAD thing?? If you want to play a unique game every time, then go play commander? 60 card formats are literally DESIGNED FOR CONSISTENCY.
I’ll use your own deck against you: Grim Parhelion. That deck literally just sits there and does nothing if you don’t have the namesake card and Greasefang in your opening hand. Your deck requires mulligans and consistency and also simultaneously crying about it?? That doesn’t make sense.
As far as being a huge waste of time? That’s just your opinion. It’s not true.
“ Either cards can all be pushed as FIRE must-remove threats or opening hands can be consistent: you can't have both without making the gameplay awful.”
Yeah sorry bro but eliminating mulligans doesn’t change this. The only way to not deal with this aspect is to simply not play. You’re complaining that cards are too good now. Well, you don’t have to play with the good cards if you don’t want to! But everybody else is goin too.
“ And having multiple mulligans and fetchlands or even Yorion in the same format is hilarious”
Once again, mulligans are a choice. You do not have to mulligan if you don’t want to. Also, Yorion doesn’t make you shuffle at all?? So idk wtf you’re even mentioning him for. It’s almost like you don’t even play the game lmao.
“ Backgammon and Magic are actually quite similar; in Magic you are trying to race your opponent either in combat or to complete a combo, while in Backgammon you are racing your opponent's pieces to reach the opposite side of the board.”
Bro you can compare literally any game like this. Chess is like magic because you’re racing to beat your opponent! Mario Kart is like magic because you’re racing to beat your opponent! League of Legends is like magic because you’re racing to beat your opponent! So let’s all take our favorite mechanic from those games and jam them into magic? I pick, the Queen from chess, Bowser from Mario Kart, and minions from league of legends.
I think adding these 3 things would make magic better.
Do you see how nonsensical your arguments are yet?
“ I'm merely bringing it to everyone's attention in case it improves their experience”
Like somebody said earlier, this would have to be tested in a large tournament setting before determining if it would work. If you can gather 10-15 needs to try out your theory, please do. But until then, there is quite literally no reason to believe it would do anything to benefit the game.
Dead_Blue_ says... #2
I think this is needlessly confusing and I even read the full post
MTG rules are confusing enough as is
November 26, 2022 12:18 a.m.