|
fadam posted:I saw someone float the idea of mulligans being draw 12, bottom 5. I kind of like it but I haven’t tested it. That sounds insanely, ridiculously strong. I'm all for it, let's get weird with it
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
pre game separate out your lands from your spells shuffle both piles face down draw 7 cards in total from either pile players choice how many from each shuffle both piles back together no mulligans
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
Enjoy your hand of three forests and four red cards, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Enjoy your hand of three forests and four red cards, I guess. explain
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
How about we simplify the suggestions so far and just say "The combo player wins automatically"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
Sounds pretty good for a deck with three urza lands only.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
game 1 of every Bo3 match becomes a race to see who can lose first so they get the absolutely nutso busted starts for the 2nd player people are suggesting here
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
Chamale posted:What if the second player started the game with a Treasure token? That's probably too strong. I think any kind of broad solution would involve choice. Like, the player on the draw gets their choice of "scry 2, gain 2 life, create a Treasure/Clue/Food" The problem is that literally every option they could do would enable a degenerate deck, but like, that's just magic after 30 years of cards
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
Each player has hexproof until their first upkeep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:03
|
|
|
They could try not making 1 and 2 drops so insane and pushed Lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Each player has hexproof until their first upkeep. Oh, that's actually pretty nice. T1 Duress is some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Each player has hexproof until their first upkeep. No attacks until turn 5! I mean just play whatever cool casual format you like I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
mossyfisk posted:How about we simplify the suggestions so far and just say Idk people said that about the Vancouver and London mulligans too and they ended up being fine and the current mulligan system is probably the best it’s ever been. I think you can create mechanisms to increase the quality of opening hands without immediately forcing everyone to play combo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
precision posted:They could try not making 1 and 2 drops so insane and pushed How are they supposed to sell cards then! Think of the corporations 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
fadam posted:Idk people said that about the Vancouver and London mulligans too and they ended up being fine and the current mulligan system is probably the best it’s ever been. I think you can create mechanisms to increase the quality of opening hands without immediately forcing everyone to play combo. People were hyperbolic about it being combo wins immediately, but Frank Karsten did an analysis at the time showing the London Mulligan does statistically significantly increase the reliability of decks that rely on specific cards or are combo decks. The impact of the increase in consistency for these kinds of decks is offset by the decrease in games where someone would lose because of bad mulligan results though. To take that mulligan rule to higher numbers of cards would start to flip that math where the consistency of combo decks outweighs the decrease in non-games
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
precision posted:Oh, that's actually pretty nice. T1 Duress is some poo poo jassi007 posted:No attacks until turn 5! I mean just play whatever cool casual format you like I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:I think the fairest one of any that have been suggested that I've seen is the player who is on the draw gets a free mulligan. Not bad but also most places I play we do at least 1 free mulligan anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
 Can someone explain this reference to me? I'm totally lost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
Could someone that plays pioneer give a reality check on this Tyvar sacrifice deck? It's nearly one to one with what I play on arena in explorer and while looking at potential changes I saw the explorer version is basically the same as pioneer (I added deathrite shamans in the sideboard just because I have them) It does have some 5-0 in a league but I'm not sure if that's a real indicator of quality and I'm concerned that in practice it would get hit by incidental graveyard hate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:
Who would be the funniest Ravnica character to pair with Fblthp for MOM? Niv-Mizzet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
fadam posted:I saw someone float the idea of mulligans being draw 12, bottom 5. I kind of like it but I haven’t tested it. iirc the problem with the guy's analysis is that he was thinking of "combo decks" purely in terms of splinter twin combos (or bazaar of baghdad decks) and missing out how this is way better for storm combos (storm also includes burn) (and probably doesn't speed up mulligan decisions as players try to map out how they want their first few turns to play out from the different possible combinations of 12 cards)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Who would be the funniest Ravnica character to pair with Fblthp for MOM? Niv-Mizzet? Borborygmos. They both only have a single eye!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:
Fblthp has the 'did I do that?' look of someone who just accidentally introduced phyresis to an entire plane
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheResleevables/status/1630963363328163840?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Borborygmos. They both only have a single eye! Bah, then you're just copying Zndrsplt and Okaun. The real answer is Massacre Girl 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Who would be the funniest Ravnica character to pair with Fblthp for MOM? Niv-Mizzet? Whenever Feather and Fblthp becomes the target of a spell you control, shuffle Feather and Fblthp back into your deck and put the spell back into your hand at the start of the next end step. MrL_JaKiri fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Mar 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Who would be the funniest Ravnica character to pair with Fblthp for MOM? Niv-Mizzet? Tibor and Lumia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Azusa, nerds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Azusa, nerds. Azusa is from Kamigawa not Ravnica!!!!!! Fblthp, the Lost but Seeking would be a good unset card tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Azusa is from Kamigawa not Ravnica!!!!!! I don't think you understand how lost Fblthp was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
If Fblthp is that lost I'd just as soon see him paired with Lord of the Pit to take down those mean, nasty Phyrexians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Yessss. I thought it was still embargoed behind patreon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Who would be the funniest Ravnica character to pair with Fblthp for MOM? Niv-Mizzet? Bruvac is from Ravnica, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Who would be the funniest Ravnica character to pair with Fblthp for MOM? Niv-Mizzet? I mean the funniest character in general would be Norin, who is/was on Dominaria?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
Fblthp, the Compleately Lost
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
mossyfisk posted:Fblthp, the Compleately Lost oh poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
Are the Phyrexians invading the Unfinity plane? What is the Unfinity plane?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
Fblthp and Ulasht, The Hate Seed
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I don't think you understand how lost Fblthp was. Good point
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
Kashuno posted:People were hyperbolic about it being combo wins immediately, but Frank Karsten did an analysis at the time showing the London Mulligan does statistically significantly increase the reliability of decks that rely on specific cards or are combo decks. The impact of the increase in consistency for these kinds of decks is offset by the decrease in games where someone would lose because of bad mulligan results though. To take that mulligan rule to higher numbers of cards would start to flip that math where the consistency of combo decks outweighs the decrease in non-games Doesn’t the current rule also favor aggro? I think that’s what people were saying at the time of its introduction
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 18:22
|
|
