General Magic Tweaks

[VibeBox]

The fact remains, the biggest buzz kill in Magic are games that are non-games because you didn't draw what you needed. It's feel bad all around. Winning feels cheap and losing feels like you had no options.

while i won't argue those aren't awful experiences, it's not like there's nothing weighing against it on the other side. i would feel nearly as annoyed losing to sloppy decks living their dreams on poor mana bases because they got free card selection

If I get an exile/draw step and my normal draw step, he isn't going to beat a competently built deck manned by a competent player. But that kid's odds go up with less consistency.

i don't think this is the case. i would think poorly built decks benefit far more from any form of better card selection than a deck already built to operate well.

 

[VibeBox]

Again, I understand very well the resistance with Magic players to changing the core rules of the game. I've started a couple of these conversations and they always go this way. So I don't expect very many here will be open to the idea. And that's totally cool. It's interesting discussion nonetheless. Cheers.

i'm open to it too because lord knows im critical of the ruleset, but sadly i just feel like there's no significant changes to be made that don't cause as many or more problems as they alleviate

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Well, let me provide an example. This is good, because I think player psychology plays a big role in cube environments as well.

You have your kiddie drafter with his "awesome" G/W ramp deck. He picked all of the awesome monsters he saw, wasn't really building a deck in his head during the draft, and now has a curve that spikes at 5-7 CC. He gets an opening hand like this:



I think that is a pretty stereotypical G/W kiddie hand, and a fair example. Their might be an elf in there, maybe a knight of the reliquary or a courser of kruphix. The hand isn't horrible, it dosen't even look that bad. Its possible they can topdeck a land to hit reach on time, but their is a real danger that they won't hit another mana source, and they will get really far behind due entirely to their bad deck building.

In a world of normal mulligan rules (or even the one free mulligan, though not as strongly) this is probably going to be a keep, since you don't want to run the risk of mulliganing to oblivion. In a world of extensive mulliganing or draw step scry, however, you can either just keep on taking excessive mulligans until the star's allign, or snap keep and use your free scry to all but assure the third land drop. The player gets to avoid the risk of these sorts of hands (or worse hands) sequencing poorly and them losing the game, while still getting the benefit of running a deck filled with green haymakers.

Now what happens when a more spikey play realizes that he can just slant the curve towards higher CC haymakers or go down on land count for more spells and gain an advantage that way? Its going to have a warping effect on the entire game, and probably slant it towards midrange.

Not that I'm saying I disagree with the basic issue (or that experimenting with solutions is bad), just that the effects of solutions can run deep, and have unintended consequences. Player psychology, I think, is an important factor to consider.

 

[VibeBox]

I think that is a pretty stereotypical G/W kiddie hand, and a fair example.

if anything you were a bit generous because like 78% of cards not named cultivate/reach make that much much worse hand, and at the same time it's exactly the kind of card this type of player tends not to value highly enough and may not even have to bail them out in the first place

 

[Eric Chan]

I don't think making small changes to the draw step alters the game so much that deck building lessons are suddenly moot or experience playing the game suddenly doesn't carry over to other formats.

I believe that this is the intrinsic difference between you, and the majority of the Magic-playing populace. You believe that this is a "small change to the draw step"; most people would argue that this is a fundamental change to the game of Magic. You also don't believe that this change affects deckbuilding; speaking for myself, at the very least, I would categorically disagree, on all counts. (For one thing, I'd shave the land count of my aggro decks to 14, and possibly even lower, to maximize my threat density at all points of the game.)

This may be why you find yourself encountering "resistance" to this type of idea. But rather than simply finding ourselves at a dead end, perhaps it would be helpful to spin the questions about non-games back another way.

1. What proportion of your cube environment games are non-games?
2. Of these non-games, how are these divided among your player base? Roughly evenly, or proportionate to a player's level of skill?

For question #1, we've seen that different limited formats have a vastly different proportion of non-games. With the most recent set, Khans, I feel that Wizards has struck a fine balance in providing a slower format, giving people more time to set up their game plan, and in providing late game mana sinks, giving people things do to even when they flood out. With the recent DGR format, though, a lack of sufficient fixing and a spike of power concentrated in some of the aggressive guilds meant that there was a much higher proportion of non-games, especially those in the colour screw category. This provides proof that simply changing the card pool has a strong correlation with the quantity of non-games. And as we have the entirety of the Magic card pool at our disposal, there's no reason we can't achieve a better result than Khans limited.

For question #2, how your non-games are split can inform whether there's continued room for improvement or not. If your more skilled players are mostly playing real games of Magic every time they sit down at the table, and only your newer players are struggling, then there may not be much more that you can tweak as a designer. If, however, like in DGR, all players of all skill levels are finding themselves "screwed" at a roughly equal pace, then we can do better. It may be that only the veterans will be able to take advantage of any format improvements, at first; but if the veterans are consistently hitting rough patches, then it may be time to shake things up.

While I know that you remain a strong proponent of a change to the rules of Magic itself, I'm a fan of exhausting all of the possibilities inside the box before beginning to look outside. Just because we're encountering a hex screw, rather than a simple slot or Phillips screw, it doesn't mean we can't go out and find the appropriate hex screwdriver first, before resorting to a jackhammer and bringing the whole structure down. Similarly, if you're finding that an unsatisfactory number of your cube games aren't amounting to fair, clean fights, it may be useful to do a thorough and exhaustive review of what can be achieved with the entirety of the card pool first.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

if anything you were a bit generous because like 78% of cards not named cultivate/reach make that much much worse hand, and at the same time it's exactly the kind of card this type of player tends not to value highly enough and may not even have to bail them out in the first place

Yeah, you're right about that.

I wanted to show something that could sequence into either a win or a loss, but was a bit of a loose hand due to curve reasons. The deck builder took some risk here with their curve, and its important that the hand have the ability to sequence into a loss, so that the player has the chance to learn that starting your curve at 3, and concentrating it at 5-7, carries an inherient risk with it, a risk easily corrected for via better deck building and drafting. Once you remove that risk of loss, this sort of loose draft/design becomes the norm for the player.

At the same time, its a hand that a spike can win a game with, providing they hit a third land drop. If that risk is removed by getting too loose with the house rules, it can create an incentive to actively draft and build towards those types of hands.

Edit: This is also why I don't like signets. If those players value them highly, they can build their deck around nothing but high curves and the 2cc non-interactive artifacts that bail them out of otherwise unkeepable hands.

 

[VibeBox]

Edit: This is also why I don't like signets. If those players value them highly, they can build their deck around nothing but high curves and the 2cc non-interactive artifacts that bail them out of otherwise unkeepable hands.

not to mention how much easier splashing becomes, even multiple splashes.
it's the same with this card selection issue.

For one thing, I'd shave the land count of my aggro decks to 14, and possibly even lower, to maximize my threat density at all points in the game.

not only would i build with similarly lowered mana source to "action" ratios, but i'd also be more likely to do more splashing
changes like these seem great on the surface, but eventually i think you'd realize you're dealing with gamers who will adapt to possibilities and deck construction will be strongly impacted, granting advantages not only to certain archetypes, but to "greedier" decks in general

 

[CML]

I think CML has a soft mulligan rule that goes like: 7 > 6 + scry 1 > 6 > 5 + scry 1 > 5 > etc.?

Shuffling is a hassle though. Maybe something like "draw 9, then choose 2 cards from your hand. Put any number of them on the bottom of your library, then put the rest on top of your library in any order."?

sure, there is pretty much no argument for 7>6>5 except in constructed where certain decks could abuse this and it would thwart diversity in formats (likely more aggro decks in standard, more combo decks in older formats) ... in cube and limited I've thought about how to best implement mulligans and 7>6 scry 1>6>5 scry 1 is in practice very good because nobody really goes below 6 except very rarely this way, and the only reason they don't do this for retail limited is the old rules have momentum when in reality we don't need to care and can make a simple fix.

 

[VibeBox]

7>6 scry 1>6>5 scry 1 is definitely the most reasonable tweak i've seen

 

[ahadabans]

I believe that this is the intrinsic difference between you, and the majority of the Magic-playing populace. You believe that this is a "small change to the draw step"; most people would argue that this is a fundamental change to the game of Magic. You also don't believe that this change affects deckbuilding; speaking for myself, at the very least, I would categorically disagree, on all counts. (For one thing, I'd shave the land count of my aggro decks to 14, and possibly even lower, to maximize my threat density at all points in the game.)

It fundamentally changes the game, yes. But it doesn't suddenly make the game not Magic. Is it a more fundamental change to the game than introducing another permanent type? Or removing damage from the stack? Or completely rewriting how much power a creature has at a certain mana cost? All those changes were introduced and the game evolved just fine. I bet most here would argue the game is better today than before M10. So why the fear of additional changes? The game isn't perfect. It can be improved even today.

Being able to play one or two fewer lands and still not encountering mana screw would make the game play better IMO. More business cards and less space wasted ensuring you don't lose to screw. So I don't see how this is an argument against this idea honestly.

This may be why you find yourself encountering "resistance" to this type of idea. But rather than simply finding ourselves at a dead end, perhaps it would be helpful to spin the questions about non-games back another way.

1. What proportion of your cube environment games are non-games?
2. Of these non-games, how are these divided among your player base? Roughly evenly, or proportionate to a player's level of skill?

I believe the resistance is largely driven by the concern already expressed in this thread - that changing a rule would alter the game to a degree that wouldn't translate to other formats. And while I can see the argument, I think it's largely overstated. The 4 of rule in constructed has a much larger impact on how Magic plays compared to say limited or cube because of how much more consistent a deck can be built. It impacts the game way more than this draw step rule change would. Yet I don't think anyone argues that playing constructed means you can't apply what you learn there to other formats or that the game fundamentally becomes broken (well, I might argue that second point so disregard).

With respect to 1 and 2.. as we play mostly multi-player, non-games pretty much don't happen. If someone gets mana screwed/flooded, they typically have time to work through it while everyone else is dealing with other players and durdling. It's a much more forgiving format obviously. The times we do play two player, it can vary quite a bit honestly. As a player, I can often tell when a game is un-winnable either for my opponent or for me (especially true after the first game when you know what you are playing). I wouldn't say this is common, but it certainly can be a factor especially if you get really experimental with your deck as I am often guilty of doing.

I don't disagree though that it skews more towards the weaker players though. I just think the situation could be improved is all.

While I know that you remain a strong proponent of a change to the rules of Magic itself, I'm a fan of exhausting all of the possibilities inside the box before beginning to look outside. Just because we're encountering a hex screw, rather than a simple slot or Phillips screw, it doesn't mean we can't go out and find the appropriate hex screwdriver first, before resorting to a jackhammer and bringing the whole structure down. Similarly, if you're finding that an unsatisfactory number of your cube games aren't amounting to fair, clean fights, it may be useful to do a thorough and exhaustive review of what can be achieved with the entirety of the card pool first.

Having played this game for over 10 years, I feel like I've been all over the box honestly. Many will argue because I haven't played competitively I don't know what I'm talking about. And that's cool. For me though, all that is left is looking outside the box. I want a framing hammer, and the box does not contain one. I've looked and it's simply not in there.

 

[Eric Chan]

not only would i build with similarly lowered mana source to "action" ratios, but i'd also be more likely to do more splashing

Right, this is something that came to mind as well. Today, if I make a Mardu aggro deck, I'd probably do, say, heavy black (12+ cards), medium red (8-10 cards), and very light white (2-4 cards). But with any kind of change to the draw system, I'd go much heavier on the splashes, possibly to the point where I had as many white and red cards as black (i.e., simply the best 9-10 cards in each of black, red, and white).

 

[VibeBox]

Is it a more fundamental change to the game than introducing another permanent type? Or removing damage from the stack? Or completely rewriting how much power a creature has at a certain mana cost? All those changes were introduced and the game evolved just fine. I bet most here would argue the game is better today than before M10.

i loathe all three of those changes and think nothing has been "just fine" since lorwyn, but i realize i'm in a fairly small minority on those counts, even around here.

 

[Eric Chan]

Is it a more fundamental change to the game than introducing another permanent type? Or removing damage from the stack? Or completely rewriting how much power a creature has at a certain mana cost?

None of those changes affect the variance that's inherently built into the game of Magic, though. To put it another way, we can say that Magic's gotten a new coat of paint, its seats have been changed from textile to leather, and its tires have been replaced - but fundamentally, Magic is still the same four-door sedan that it's always been, and hasn't been swapped with a pickup truck, nor a two-door sports car.

The only rule change that has affected variance is the change from the original mulligan rules, to the current Paris mulligan system. That, to my mind, is a much smaller change that what you have proposed.

Being able to play one or two fewer lands and still not encountering mana screw would make the game play better IMO. More business cards and less space wasted ensuring you don't lose to screw. So I don't see how this is an argument against this idea honestly.

There are many existing commercial games that address what they see as the the variance "problem" with Magic already, taking great pains to ensure that players can't be mana screwed, mana flooded, or colour screwed. Hearthstone is probably the leading example of this category of games, though there have been many previous attempts as well. Do any of these games "play better", as you posit? After all, Hearthstone allows you to run all business cards; there are no lands to speak of, either in your deck or on the board. Is Blizzard's game, then, the ultimate ideal - where enough variance has been removed, to the point that non-games should cease to exist?

 

[Eric Chan]

Having played this game for over 10 years, I feel like I've been all over the box honestly.

Also, this next statement will sound like it's meant to put you on the spot, or antagonize you - but I assure you that I mean no ill will whatsoever:

Someone who isn't willing to break singleton in their own cube environment doesn't sound like they are even close to finished exploring inside of the box yet.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I will say, as someone that does both multi-player games and single player games, that multi-play really warps things, and that might be a factor here. I have the night structured where we play multi-player and then at the end of the night, play single player. The reason is that you can get away with a lot of bad gameplay and deck building in a multi-player setting, and I don't want those lessons to sink in.

For one thing, multi-player formats are already naturally geared towards midrange and control, so I could see in those settings how shifting towards deep house rules for the mulligan system, wouldn't be seen as a big shift. Multi-player games also tend to be more forgiving, and give people time to draw out of bad hands, since you have to be focused on controlling the player with the most developed game plan. Having a bad curve isn't as crippling. I don't see any real loss in implementing a system here, since all of the negative consequences are already seen as features of a very casual (but fun) format.

Once you shift to single player though, that all changes, and you have to play and build much tighter. In that setting, really deep mulligan or scr based house rules can really change the fabric of the game, and would warp it in a way that rewards poor deck building, or could be easily abused by competitive players in a way that would make the format feel solved; in the sense that building to abuse the system becomes the best strategy.

 

[ahadabans]

Also, this next statement will sound like it's meant to put you on the spot, or antagonize you - but I assure you that I mean no ill will whatsoever:

Someone who isn't willing to break singleton in their own cube environment doesn't sound like they are even close to finished exploring inside of the box yet.

No offense taken.

And my last build did break singleton for the record. Triple brainstorm, double gravecrawler (baby steps man). And I'm going to do double fetch and double shock lands now that I can buy another set for less than a small fortune.

With that said, I've shy'd away a little from breaking singleton simply because I don't want super efficient decks to be too easy to build. I also don't want guys trying to build "the pod deck" or "the gravecrawler deck". There's a line there I don't want to cross and I'd rather error on the side of less.

It probably sounds like a contradiction since I'm arguing for more consistency via a modified draw step. But there's a difference in my mind between efficiency and consistency. Most of my experience is in constructed. That's largely all I've played historically, so I know all the things I dislike about it. I've played some limited, but I never really enjoyed it due to the lower power level. I did like the drop in efficiency though as it felt like it was more about game play decisions and less about meta decisions. Cube was somewhere in between and for me it's the only way this game should be played. Best of both worlds for the most part.

With that said, I've been cubing for several years now. And while I certainly don't get to do it as much as I'd like, I've logged enough time with the format to where I see things about it I don't like (even if it blows away constructed for me). Being that I have full control over the card pool, my ability to make tweaks to the environment is considerably larger than in constructed where I just couldn't fix what was broken because guys played whatever and that was that. Even still, there remain for me fundamental things about the game (even in cube) that I don't think work well. And no amount of breaking singleton or hand picking card pools is going to get around that. And that's why I'm looking outside the box.

 

[ahadabans]

Once you shift to single player though, that all changes, and you have to play and build much tighter. In that setting, really deep mulligan or scr based house rules can really change the fabric of the game, and would warp it in a way that rewards poor deck building, or could be easily abused by competitive players in a way that would make the format feel solved; in the sense that building to abuse the system becomes the best strategy.

I suppose I'm looking at this slightly differently than you. You see a change to the draw step as warping the game. You aren't wrong. But you can flip the argument and say the same thing about the existing rule set. Because you only get one draw a turn, the game is warped into what it is today (it heavily favors redundancy). If you love absolutely everything about how Magic works, then there is no reason to even consider changing anything (this whole discussion becomes moot really).

For me though, I don't think it's a perfect game in it's current state. Only having a starting hand of 7 cards and getting one card a turn (minus cards which draw more), it means you see a very small percentage of your deck each game (unless the game drags on forever). In limited (or cube), that means each game will play differently unless you find a way to double and triple up on similar effects (iredundancy). IMO this presents a problem, particularly for strategies that do not have a surplus of similar effects. In effect, it reduces the number of viable competitive strategies. Because if you can't build redundancy into your deck, you aren't going to win. In power max cubes, you can just play goodstuff.dec, but that doesn't really apply to most cube lists on Riptide which are so focused on synergy versus raw power (your cube in particular).

But if you introduce a mechanic that adds consistency across the board, that helps to level the playing field a little bit. Consistent decks may improve a little bit, but not by much. Fringe decks however get better. While on the surface this might appear to favor bad players who build poor decks. In practice, it is very unlikely going to play out that way. And that's because adding this mechanic increases decision density at all stages of the game. In other words, it increases the opportunity for bad players to do something wrong and for good players to capitalize and make smart plays. In short, removing luck from this game is going to favor the better player as a general rule. This really only isn't true if you are power-maxing, in which case your meta is broken anyway IMO.

Your cube in particular is heavily focused on synergy (it's a great list actually). Can you even build goodstuff.dec in your cube (and I mean one that actually wins)? Adding a mechanic that increased consistency would greatly reward those players that built more synergistic effects. I can't imagine bad Magic players doing well in your cube honestly, and I think they'd do even worse with an opt draw step or exile/draw.

Awesome discussion. Very much enjoying this.

 

[spicewitch]

i loathe all three of those changes and think nothing has been "just fine" since lorwyn, but i realize i'm in a fairly small minority on those counts, even around here.

Planeswalkers are shit, there I've said it! I'm out of the closet on just hating planeswalker cards.

 

[spicewitch]

A thread about this thread and other threads: http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/non-hostile-takeovers.723/

 

[ahadabans]

i loathe all three of those changes and think nothing has been "just fine" since lorwyn, but i realize i'm in a fairly small minority on those counts, even around here.

I missed this reply. If I could up-vote this to the moon, I would. I couldn't agree more (include mana burn in this as well). So 6th edition rules for life?

And just in case it wasn't clear, I am in no way arguing that these changes were good either. Simply that you can make very big changes to any game (including Magic) and it will still be the same game for the most part. You have to make some very serious changes that are totally stupid to straight up break a game like this. Rule changes are simply going to evolve it in a different direction. Maybe adding exile/draw or opt draw would change the game a lot in the end, but I'm not even sure that is true.

Honestly, Wizards could come up with some crazy way to deal with mana screw/flood (like a resource land rule) and a couple things would be guaranteed to happen:
1. The vast majority of the community would just accept it and end up defending the change just like they did with the M10 changes.
2. The game would evolve to accept the new rule and the game would probably play differently but it will still basically be Magic.

I have friends who left the game back in Mirrodin block (the original one). And when they look at today's game, it's completely foreign to them. That's how much it has changed in some ways. Yet it's really still Magic, and once those old players get over the shell shock, all the things they know still basically apply.

And because that is true, you can house rule this game considerably and end up with the same scenario if your players are open to it. Any idea that house rules can actually break this game IMO is a ridiculous one. Not that I think you are making it, just that in having this discussion before I've gotten that sense from some people. Having messed with dozens of gaming systems over the years, I can tell you from personal experience that you can do all kinds of stuff to a game and it will still work and be fun.

 

[Eric Chan]

Even still, there remain for me fundamental things about the game (even in cube) that I don't think work well. And no amount of breaking singleton or hand picking card pools is going to get around that. And that's why I'm looking outside the box.

It sounds like different people want different things out of Magic, particularly with regards to variance. We just have to be very careful when we go about reducing variance, not to do more harm than good.

You could make the argument - and many have - that Magic is as good as it is, and riding its current popularity wave, because it embraces variance. Take a game like chess. It has essentially no variance - I say essentially, because there's still the 'coin flip' problem. Chess is regarded to be a great game, but it's not gaining popularity in leaps and bounds. Then, take a game like war, the card game. It's basically only variance, and while it may be fun for a while when you're seven, we can agree it's not a well-designed game. If chess is a 1 on the variance scale, and war is 100, then Magic is probably around a 30. There's a significant amount of luck to be had, and it's rare for someone to have a win rate of over 65%, unlike in chess, where you're almost guaranteed to beat someone of a lower skill level. At the same time, the top Magic players tend to keep doing well, year after year, despite all of the luck involved. Poker is a similar animal, and I'd peg its variance to be roughly around 30 on the scale (poker pros on the site, feel free to correct me - this is my uneducated stab in the dark).

Which games are people clamouring to see more of, and organizing tournaments at their homes for friends to come over and play on Friday evenings? It's not chess; it's not war. It's Magic, and it's poker.

These games are popular precisely because the new player, or the lapsed player, or the unskilled player, can win on any given day against Jon Finkel or LSV. Sure, it'll probably be because the top rated player in the world couldn't draw a second Island to save their life. But having that hope that anything can and will happen is a huge draw to these games, and that factor isn't something that should be underestimated.

From hearing your grievances about Magic, it sounds like you want to make a modification that would take an axe to the current level of variance. Your draw step change change might bring the variance from a 30 on the scale down to a 20, or perhaps even lower. That is not a small change. While your tweak certainly favours the better player - and no one will argue you on that point - you may want to stop and ask yourself if that is what you and your playgroup actually want. Is it something more akin to chess you would rather play, than Magic?

This is why I suggested earlier that if you insist on looking outside of the box, you would do well to consider other boxes altogether. At some point, the changes you make to Magic will transform it enough that it no longer resembles Magic, warts with variance and all. More likely than not, the folks you've invited over to conceivably play Magic will be less than pleased. And it will be because you pulled a bait & switch on them - you set the table for a formal, sit-down dinner, and told everyone to dress appropriately, but as your guests arrive, you announce that there won't be any food forthcoming, and instead to prepare for a water balloon fight.

If a lower variance game is what you want, I would go and seek out a lower variance game, where its game designers have fashioned all of its cards or game pieces for that exact variance level, and put every deck or archetype through its paces. Not only will that be a more optimal gameplay experience than trying to shoehorn in cards from one game into another - which is what your Magic variant would essentially boil down to - you will probably find yourself facing less resistance from your own playgroup, as you will be announcing loud and clear to the world that, in fact, this afternoon there will be a water balloon fight.

 

[spicewitch]

And because that is true, you can house rule this game considerably and end up with the same scenario if your players are open to it. Any idea that house rules can actually break this game IMO is a ridiculous one. Not that I think you are making it, just that in having this discussion before I've gotten that sense from some people. Having messed with dozens of gaming systems over the years, I can tell you from personal experience that you can do all kinds of stuff to a game and it will still work and be fun.

Board gamers (folks who play Terra Mystica, Carcassonne, etc) are also exceptionally hostile to house rules. It's like, yo, this rule may or may not work out, but can we give it a fair shake once to ascertain whether or not it DESTROYS the game? Granted, your houserule is pretty intense, and I'd sooner work my way up to it with smaller, softer moves in that direction (like globally being able to pay for Scry 1 when you have mana to spare, etc).

But the Almighty Game Designer has only one advantage over us regular Joes: playtesting. There's nothing magically superior about their rules as compared to house rules, it's just that those rules are a somewhat-refined version of whatever their original idea was. And I would hardly say that the Almighty Game Designer has arrived at any sort of definitive or perfect version of their original idea; because they have a profit incentive that regular Joes don't suffer from, they must eventually stop refining their ideas and say "Fuck it, ship it! We need to make some money and pay our monkeys!"

It's entirely possible for us to improve the game by doing a little playtesting of our own - if people weren't so afraid of doing so.

 

[CML]

Vibe can you elaborate on the VS System ruleset? I've never played it (I really haven't played that many games, Magic punishes disloyalty in all sorts of ways, not the least of which is social) and some comparison between that and Hearthstone and Star Wars TCG and any other worthy challengers would be something I'd love to read, esp w/r/t lands and flood and so on.

If you look at the stats on MTGGoldfish the mull system isn't quite as punitive as you'd think it to be, like the mulls to five still win 25% of the time in Limited and I imagine the number is higher in Constructed, where it's easier to recover or execute a plan, but who knows. All I know is that 7>6scry1>6>5scry1 etc. (or maybe even a more relaxed variant, if you guys can think of anything else between "7" and "6") is so much better in my Cube than 7>6>5 that I can't imagine any Cubes, except maybe combo Cubes, where this wouldn't be the case. Of equal importance is that all play or draw must be decided by best-of-three rock, paper, scissors.

 

[spicewitch]

All I know is that 7>6scry1>6>5scry1 etc. (or maybe even a more relaxed variant, if you guys can think of anything else between "7" and "6") is so much better in my Cube than 7>6>5 that I can't imagine any Cubes, except maybe combo Cubes, where this wouldn't be the case.

I will definitely make an attempt to try this, along with draw 9 return 2.

Our "one free mulligan" rule works fine for our group, but it makes it difficult for us to build the less-exciting decks needed for normal Magic.

 

[ahadabans]

Vibe can you elaborate on the VS System ruleset? I've never played it (I really haven't played that many games, Magic punishes disloyalty in all sorts of ways, not the least of which is social) and some comparison between that and Hearthstone and Star Wars TCG and any other worthy challengers would be something I'd love to read, esp w/r/t lands and flood and so on.

I second this. Magic is the only CCG I ever got into but I'd be very interested to hear how it compares to others.