Author Topic: Another option for Top Cut instead of BO3. (Read 3945 times)

SiLeNcEd_MaTrIx · « **on:** August 09, 2019, 10:27:22 AM »

If you want to keep T1 a 1 day event a mulligan could always be implemented for top cut. I know it's been talked about in the past but never been implemented. A mulligan would still give you a chance if you have an insanely horrible draw to stay competitive in the game.

One mulligan option would be: You would keep any souls you draw in play, not use star cards or dominants, shuffle deck, draw 6 instead of 8, and have to place a lost soul of your choice from deck into your land of bondage and it would change to a no special ability soul unless it got reset.

This allows T1 to stay a 1 day event and still gives a player a chance to win the game if they get an absolutely horribly unlucky draw. It gives a strong enough penalty to encourage players not to do it, but still gives them the option in case they feel they really have to.

Red · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2019, 10:46:14 AM »

I like Bo3 better, but this is a decent way to implement a mulligan. I would do a single card deduction instead of two

SiLeNcEd_MaTrIx · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2019, 10:57:25 AM »

Quote from: Red on August 09, 2019, 10:46:14 AM

I like Bo3 better, but this is a decent way to implement a mulligan. I would do a single card deduction instead of two

I think BO3 is a great option, but it does in fact make it a 2 day. And when I'm coming to Nationals (I hope to start coming) I'd personally like to be able to play in 3 categories. But obviously whatever is best for the community not just myself should be implemented.

I also think with a mulligan it has to have a pretty hefty penalty. I think a 1 card reduction and soul isn't enough and it would allow players to take advantage of the mulligan with mediocre hands where a 2 card starting penalty and a lost soul makes sure if you are going to mulligan it's because you really have to. That's at least my thought process on it.

The Guardian · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2019, 11:23:49 AM »

One potential issue with mulligans is that going first has once again become quite the advantage. Because of the special ability Lost Souls that add cards to hand and the great number of "acceleration" cards, missing out on drawing on the first turn isn't that big a deal anymore--especially if a player can get down counters to prevent the opponent from accelerating on their turn.

With that in mind, I believe any potential mulligan rule should include some or all of the following rules:

1) A player cannot mulligan if they trigger * abilities or Lost Soul abilities from their opening hand
2) Lost Souls drawn from the opening hand stay on the table
3) Instant abilities on Lost Souls drawn in the mulligan hand do not activate
4) Players draw 7 cards in the mulligan hand instead of 8
5) If one player mulligans and the other does not, the player who did not mulligan automatically gets the choice of who goes first (if both players mulligan it goes back to whoever has more Lost Souls)

SEB · « **Reply #4 on:** August 09, 2019, 12:53:09 PM »

something else to add to the mulligan conversation would be how Pokemon does it (other stipulations that redemption needs should be considered, the majority of The Guardian's list for example).

After all players are finished resolving mulligans, the player who took the least mulligans draws a card for every time their opponent Mulligans less the times that they have Mulliganed. Starting the game with less cards is pretty brutal. This allows both players to have a good game but a clear advantage to the one not mulliganing as much.

SO, Andrew Mulligans 2x and Priscilla Mulligans 3x. Andrew would draw 1 card as a result

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 09, 2019, 01:15:57 PM »

Probably a stupid question (but that has never stopped me before

)...

Since you are in top cut, there are going to be a limited number of games. Why not simply allow a player who feels he/she has an unplayable hand call a judge over and ask to be given a mulligan. The judge would give a thumbs up/down based on whether the player's hand truly is unplayable. The decision should be fairly strict and allowed simply to remedy non-competitive situations, There would be no penalty for taking the mulligan.

Also, since we are on the topic of alternate options for top cut; I would just like to put out the idea of running double elimination in as opposed to best of three.

Drrek · « **Reply #6 on:** August 09, 2019, 01:17:53 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 09, 2019, 01:15:57 PM

Probably a stupid question (but that has never stopped me before )...

Since you are in top cut, there are going to be a limited number of games. Why not simply allow a player who feels he/she has an unplayable hand call a judge over and ask to be given a mulligan. The judge would give a thumbs up/down based on whether the player's hand truly is unplayable. The decision should be fairly strict and allowed simply to remedy non-competitive situations, There would be no penalty for taking the mulligan.

Also, since we are on the topic of alternate options for top cut; I would just like to put out the idea of running double elimination in as opposed to best of three.

Subjectivity in the rules in situations where competition is supposed to be at its highest is generally a bad thing.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #7 on:** August 09, 2019, 01:20:33 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on August 09, 2019, 01:17:53 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 09, 2019, 01:15:57 PM
Probably a stupid question (but that has never stopped me before )...

Since you are in top cut, there are going to be a limited number of games. Why not simply allow a player who feels he/she has an unplayable hand call a judge over and ask to be given a mulligan. The judge would give a thumbs up/down based on whether the player's hand truly is unplayable. The decision should be fairly strict and allowed simply to remedy non-competitive situations, There would be no penalty for taking the mulligan.

Also, since we are on the topic of alternate options for top cut; I would just like to put out the idea of running double elimination in as opposed to best of three.

Subjectivity in the rules in situations where competition is supposed to be at its highest is generally a bad thing.

Who is Drrek?

Name looks familiar....

Ironisaac · « **Reply #8 on:** August 09, 2019, 01:21:51 PM »

I think mulligans would be a great thing for redemption to have, regardless of what type of game you are playing. I like your suggestion, but I think it's maybe too punishing. I agree with Red, 2 cards seems like too much, and I also think you shouldn't have to always pull a soul out of your deck. Maybe you only have to do it if you don't have X number of souls out already? Idk, I like where this is gong though, and I hope some real rule changes can come about from this.

Quote from: Drrek on August 09, 2019, 01:17:53 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 09, 2019, 01:15:57 PM
Probably a stupid question (but that has never stopped me before )...

Since you are in top cut, there are going to be a limited number of games. Why not simply allow a player who feels he/she has an unplayable hand call a judge over and ask to be given a mulligan. The judge would give a thumbs up/down based on whether the player's hand truly is unplayable. The decision should be fairly strict and allowed simply to remedy non-competitive situations, There would be no penalty for taking the mulligan.

Also, since we are on the topic of alternate options for top cut; I would just like to put out the idea of running double elimination in as opposed to best of three.

Subjectivity in the rules in situations where competition is supposed to be at its highest is generally a bad thing.

I agree with this as well, but I also don't think that EmJayBee's idea is bad, there would just have to very strict, codified rules to figure out if a hand qualifies for a mulligan or not. Like, if you have a hand that that is composed entirely of cards that are not characters, none of your cards can guarantee a character on your turn, and you have more than X lost souls already in play, then you qualify. These things just need to be defined, then I think it could easily be implemented at tournaments.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 09, 2019, 01:27:40 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on August 09, 2019, 01:17:53 PM

Subjectivity in the rules in situations where competition is supposed to be at its highest is generally a bad thing.

It doesn't matter what an umpire's strike zone is as long as he calls it consistently.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #10 on:** August 09, 2019, 01:30:50 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 09, 2019, 01:27:40 PM

Quote from: Drrek on August 09, 2019, 01:17:53 PM
Subjectivity in the rules in situations where competition is supposed to be at its highest is generally a bad thing.
It doesn't matter what an umpire's strike zone is as long as he calls it consistently.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but this just isn't accurate at all

The Guardian · « **Reply #11 on:** August 09, 2019, 01:43:11 PM »

"Judge! I have no heroes in my opening hand, doesn't that deserve a mulligan?"

"Are you playing Heroless by chance?"

"Maybe..."

SiLeNcEd_MaTrIx · « **Reply #12 on:** August 09, 2019, 01:46:36 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on August 09, 2019, 01:43:11 PM

"Judge! I have no heroes in my opening hand, doesn't that deserve a mulligan?"

"Are you playing Heroless by chance?"

"Maybe..."

LOL!

-------------------------
I like your idea's Justin and can get with them as well as they are pretty close to what I was thinking.

I DO NOT EVER think a judge should be able to make that decision, this may bring bad thoughts into peoples heads about favoritism and that sort.

Bobbert · « **Reply #13 on:** August 09, 2019, 02:02:33 PM »

Guys if you want mulligans just run Moses FoG 4Head

Using meek souls/soul tokens instead of putting one in play from your deck could be a good middleground. Still makes it harder to drought without wasting a soul from deck.

I agree that I don't like the option of calling a judge over to say "my hand is bad" and get a mulligan.

Sean · « **Reply #14 on:** August 09, 2019, 02:09:33 PM »

Is bad opening hand really an issue for the top players?

Bobbert · « **Reply #15 on:** August 09, 2019, 02:34:07 PM »

Quote from: Sean on August 09, 2019, 02:09:33 PM

Is bad opening hand really an issue for the top players?

My Nats deck was built to set up as quickly as possible. There were two specific cards that I wanted on my first turn, and I had nine possible cards (out of 50) that represented one and seven that represented the other. At that point, many more tutors would be actively detrimental to the deck - no point in setting up quickly if you don't have anything to do once you're there.

I had a game at Nationals where I couldn't find either on my first turn, going second (with the extra d3 that entails). I had other games where I found one, but not the other.

You can definitely mitigate bad draws, but as long as the game is random you can't eliminate them completely.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #16 on:** August 09, 2019, 02:47:07 PM »

Quote from: Sean on August 09, 2019, 02:09:33 PM

Is bad opening hand really an issue for the top players?

Yes. Especially between top level players it can often be the difference in the game. Bobbert gave his example, and I'll point to my adding 4 tutors to JudgesCTB as the difference between my state and regionals losses and my Nationals victory

Drrek · « **Reply #17 on:** August 09, 2019, 02:49:14 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on August 09, 2019, 01:20:33 PM

Quote from: Drrek on August 09, 2019, 01:17:53 PM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 09, 2019, 01:15:57 PM
Probably a stupid question (but that has never stopped me before )...

Since you are in top cut, there are going to be a limited number of games. Why not simply allow a player who feels he/she has an unplayable hand call a judge over and ask to be given a mulligan. The judge would give a thumbs up/down based on whether the player's hand truly is unplayable. The decision should be fairly strict and allowed simply to remedy non-competitive situations, There would be no penalty for taking the mulligan.

Also, since we are on the topic of alternate options for top cut; I would just like to put out the idea of running double elimination in as opposed to best of three.

Subjectivity in the rules in situations where competition is supposed to be at its highest is generally a bad thing.

Who is Drrek?

Name looks familiar....

I don't know. Probably just some loser who's been lurking a bit after find his old cards when he was moving or something like that.

Sean · « **Reply #18 on:** August 09, 2019, 03:51:33 PM »

Instead of mulligans, would the issue be solved by changing the LS deck building rule from 1 per 7 to 1 per 6? A 50 card deck would have 8 instead of 7.

SEB · « **Reply #19 on:** August 09, 2019, 03:53:40 PM »

Quote from: Sean on August 09, 2019, 02:09:33 PM

Is bad opening hand really an issue for the top players?

the more cards that enter the pool coupled with the game's natural progression (rules getting honed, card designers getting better and more efficient with their jobs, etc etc), the disparity between competitive decks becomes magnified. In competitive play, you want the "randomness" to complement the players while allowing their skill to showcase.

As for me, during nationals (now, im chunking off large deposits of rust - ask the judges, im 90% certain they considered setting up a special table for me that was just closer to them), I lost every game I went second and won every game I went first, a player with a better command of rules, card-pool, and has played the game in 17 years would have turned some of those losses into wins.

I think if I could have mulliganed on 2 of those losses, I could have had a better chance to reach for the "W." One important game I had no evil cards in my hand, i gave up 3 Lost souls before I presented any resistance - that's not gona do cuz im racing SoG/TSC. Now, had that have been the final game, I and (hopefully) my opponent should have felt pretty dissatisfied if that was the championship game - "I won because (I)/my opponent didnt draw one of his twelve evil characters for 3 turns!"

SEB · « **Reply #20 on:** August 09, 2019, 03:59:04 PM »

Quote from: Sean on August 09, 2019, 03:51:33 PM

Instead of mulligans, would the issue be solved by changing the LS deck building rule from 1 per 7 to 1 per 6? A 50 card deck would have 8 instead of 7.

In T1-2p, with as much drawing that happens, soul generation, and other tools that thin decks, Soul Drought isnt so much of the issue as you need to get things that bring resistance to your opponent. There is very little room to present no resistance.

Sean · « **Reply #21 on:** August 09, 2019, 04:18:29 PM »

Would it be an issue if the Son of God card was banned?

Would it still be an issue if set rotation were implemented?

Can you tell I'm not a fan of mulligans?

Red · « **Reply #22 on:** August 09, 2019, 04:59:03 PM »

I won most of the games I went second. If I played against a Throne derivative, I wanted them to pop off, so that I could typically take advantage against the general weakness of a throne deck's speed play. Nebby/BSA/Levithan can do that though.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #23 on:** August 10, 2019, 04:06:44 PM »

Quote from: Sean on August 09, 2019, 04:18:29 PM

Would it be an issue if the Son of God card was banned?

Would it still be an issue if set rotation were implemented?

Can you tell I'm not a fan of mulligans?

I would LOVE to see a SoG ban in a post rotation world where W FA also doesn’t exist.

As for mulligans, unless implemented very carefully they would speed up the format far more than they would solve bad draws. I’d have to see decks become meaningfully less consistent across the board (like increasing minimum deck size to 60) before I’d support them outside of sealed and booster.

News:

Author Topic: Another option for Top Cut instead of BO3. (Read 3945 times)