Author Topic: Mulligan in Redemption? (Read 14618 times)

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #25 on:** March 21, 2015, 10:46:11 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 21, 2015, 10:29:13 PM

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on March 21, 2015, 09:55:23 PM
The only thing that is different is when you look at groups and can say that there is a 1 in 36 chance of rolling 2 6s in a row, but that doesn't change the fact that after you've already rolled a six there is a 1 in 6 chance of rolling another six.

You are still basing your opinion on one trial. I am basing my opinion on two trials. The theoretical probabilities are most certainly different in two trials. Assuming the equal probability of drawing (D) versus not drawing (N), for two trials the sample space would be DD, ND, DN, NN. The probability of drawing LSs in both trials is 1/4, while the probability of one hand having a LS and the other not is 1/2.

Since we are not focusing on the same measurement of trials, we do not necessarily have to agree. I am just stating the logic behind my opinion. This is only in relation to one redraw. If players are allowed to mulligan several times (which I do not support), then the probability of drawing LSs in three consecutive trials would be even lower.

I agree with your results, but I'm somewhat disagreeing with your explanation of it (or at least my perception of your explanation of it). I already said I'm in favor of a single mulligan that you keep one lost soul in play (if you drew any that is) partially to avoid people trying to mulligan into soul drought.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #26 on:** March 21, 2015, 10:52:40 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on March 21, 2015, 10:46:11 PM

I agree with your results, but I'm somewhat disagreeing with your explanation of it (or at least my perception of your explanation of it).

I know... it's definitely a matter of perception (for both of us). I am basing my opinion on the bigger picture of a mulligan rule resulting in two trials. You (and uthminister) are basing your opinion on just the next trial. I just wanted to make sure that we all are seeing what the other is thinking.

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on March 21, 2015, 10:46:11 PM

I already said I'm in favor of a single mulligan that you keep one lost soul in play (if you drew any that is) partially to avoid people trying to mulligan into soul drought.

I was only responding to the idea of full redraw. I could live with keeping one LS in play.

browarod · « **Reply #27 on:** March 21, 2015, 11:06:34 PM »

I like the idea of having to leave a soul in territory, and wouldn't be opposed to having to fetch one from your deck if you don't have one (though I don't necessarily see this as being necessary), but I do NOT like the suggestion of having an opponent be the one to choose it from your deck. It would be giving that player an unfair advantage to be able to view a player's entire deck before the game even officially starts.

If you don't want the player to be able to choose the one from their deck (to prevent them setting up a combo like CBP soul) have them select 3 souls from their deck and have the opponent choose randomly, or something like that.

Edited slightly for clarity.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #28 on:** March 21, 2015, 11:13:53 PM »

I actually don't like the searching a soul out of your deck. I'm not sure if there's any specific reason aside from it fells clunky to me and it can give your opponent an advantage that I don't think is necessary.

Red · « **Reply #29 on:** March 21, 2015, 11:21:28 PM »

Why don't we try pokemon's mulligan style? Mulligan until you get a lost soul? Or why do we not try a rule that starts the game with a soul in play no matter what. Then institute a free mulligan where you can ship the hand back for a new hand of 8 one time? Just my suggestions.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 22, 2015, 12:00:31 AM »

Quote from: Red on March 21, 2015, 11:21:28 PM

Then institute a free mulligan where you can ship the hand back for a new hand of 8 one time?

This.

Can someone please explain to me why they feel there is a need to penalize a player who chooses to mulligan? What is the reason for not just allowing everyone one free optional mulligan at game start?

jesse · « **Reply #31 on:** March 22, 2015, 12:15:25 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 22, 2015, 12:00:31 AM

Can someone please explain to me why they feel there is a need to penalize a player who chooses to mulligan? What is the reason for not just allowing everyone one free optional mulligan at game start?

Good point...a bad draw is not necessarily a player's fault, so why penalize them for a do-over? A few reasons I can think of are that mulliganing slows down the game, and makes us sound like Frodo talking to Gandalf in the Mines of Moria.

“I wish I didn't draw this hand. I wish no one would ever have to draw such a hand!"

“So do I, and so do all who play to get such draws. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the hand that is given us.”

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #32 on:** March 22, 2015, 01:51:34 AM »

Quote from: jesse on March 22, 2015, 12:15:25 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 22, 2015, 12:00:31 AM
Can someone please explain to me why they feel there is a need to penalize a player who chooses to mulligan? What is the reason for not just allowing everyone one free optional mulligan at game start?

Good point...a bad draw is not necessarily a player's fault, so why penalize them for a do-over? A few reasons I can think of are that mulliganing slows down the game, and makes us sound like Frodo talking to Gandalf in the Mines of Moria.

“I wish I didn't draw this hand. I wish no one would ever have to draw such a hand!"

“So do I, and so do all who play to get such draws. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the hand that is given us.”

This is perhaps the best post I've seen on the boards in a long time. But I'd have no problem with one free mulligan. The only difference between that suggestion and mine is that mine leaves a single lost soul out (if you drew any lost souls in your opening hand).

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #33 on:** March 22, 2015, 08:48:36 AM »

jesse wins the thread!

So if we allow a free mulligan then do Lost Souls stay out that were drawn? I would contend that if they do then the "free" mulligan isn't truly free.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #34 on:** March 22, 2015, 09:23:55 AM »

They have to stay out. Otherwise I mulligan every hand I don't have a hero or do have a soul.

Red · « **Reply #35 on:** March 22, 2015, 10:32:08 AM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on March 22, 2015, 08:48:36 AM

jesse wins the thread!

So if we allow a free mulligan then do Lost Souls stay out that were drawn? I would contend that if they do then the "free" mulligan isn't truly free.

This.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 22, 2015, 10:41:38 AM »

Play one unprotected lost soul out of your deck if you mulligan. So no female only, nt only, first rd, speed bump, */4.

In type 2 play 2 souls from your deck.

everytribe · « **Reply #37 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:01:41 AM »

One free mulligan per tournament. A mulligan is a mulligan, everything goes back draw over. No penaltys. Keep it simple

Drrek · « **Reply #38 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:09:11 AM »

Quote from: everytribe on March 22, 2015, 11:01:41 AM

One free mulligan per tournament.

This would be a nightmare to enforce, and really I think kinda defeats the purpose of putting mulligans in.

Redoubter · « **Reply #39 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:22:01 AM »

Quote from: Drrek on March 22, 2015, 11:09:11 AM

Quote from: everytribe on March 22, 2015, 11:01:41 AM
One free mulligan per tournament.

This would be a nightmare to enforce, and really I think kinda defeats the purpose of putting mulligans in.

Yeah, I agree that it needs to be game-to-game, and not administered for the whole tournament.

Again, though, I just want to point out that Multi/Booster will benefit from mulligans for no other reason than to have souls out.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #40 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:30:13 AM »

I'm beginning to think that a mulligan is not going to be a good idea after all, regardless of the stipulations (or lack thereof). Mulligans appear to work in other card games because their game mechanics are different (i.e. The Pokemon TCG requires Basic Pokemon to start the game, thus redrawing until you get a Basic Pokemon is necessary). Redemption mechanics may be such that a mulligan would cause more problems than it solves.

To echo Bill's final statement, we need to keep this simple for hosts/judges, as well as new players. Searching for an "unprotected" LS (or any other restriction) would make more work for the judges, and new players wouldn't know the difference. Even keeping track of who did use a mulligan already during a specific tournament (or category if that ends up as the next suggestion) would still make more work for the host and require the reporting of the players.

The best way to implement a mulligan rule would be with simple requirements that players can monitor among themselves. This could include any of the following:

1. For limited use - once per game
2. For drawn LSs - [at least] one drawn LS stays out per redraw (opponent chooses which LSs stay)
3. For redraw penalty - draw one less card

Although many of the other suggestions make sense to skilled players, I just think we will make things too complicated to monitor at the host level, and make it more difficult to teach to new players.

At this point, since we seem to be divided on whether the LSs should be shuffled back, I will leave my vote at no mulligans (even though I still believe that with the correct stipulations they would be good for the game).

Gabe · « **Reply #41 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:34:02 AM »

If CGD ever decided to officially implement a mulligan rule, it might be best if it was an optional rule for only State, Regional and National tournaments, similar to what has been done with top cut.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #42 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:42:51 AM »

Gabe, I appreciate you breaking this topic off. There have been many good points made and this Bible major has learned more about math on this one thread than I ever did in Bible college.

Gabe · « **Reply #43 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:53:40 AM »

This has been a good discussion thus far. It will be fun to see what, if anything, TLG decides to try for mulligans and how that works out.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #44 on:** March 22, 2015, 12:05:06 PM »

I personally think mulligans would be terrible. The only way I see it working is if you can only mulligan part of your hand (maybe 3 cards) to redraw the same amount. Even then I don't like it.

The idea of being able to mulligan as many times as I want also seems incredibly time consuming.

redemption101 · « **Reply #45 on:** March 22, 2015, 12:47:56 PM »

how about
when a player 1 mulligans they shuffle hand and lost souls into deck. Player 2 gets to choose 1 lost from player 1 deck and put it into play. Player 1 then draws 7 cards.

browarod · « **Reply #46 on:** March 22, 2015, 01:31:15 PM »

Quote from: redemption101 on March 22, 2015, 12:47:56 PM

how about
when a player 1 mulligans they shuffle hand and lost souls into deck. Player 2 gets to choose 1 lost from player 1 deck and put it into play. Player 1 then draws 7 cards.

Again I repeat my earlier sentiment that I don't think we should give any player an advantage just to punish someone for wanting to mulligan. Mulligans would be to HELP people with bad draws, not give them a worse starting position. If you restrict mulligans too much then nobody's going to want to take one and it wouldn't be worthwhile to even have the option.

yirgogo · « **Reply #47 on:** March 22, 2015, 02:16:15 PM »

Quote from: browarod on March 22, 2015, 01:31:15 PM

Quote from: redemption101 on March 22, 2015, 12:47:56 PM
how about
when a player 1 mulligans they shuffle hand and lost souls into deck. Player 2 gets to choose 1 lost from player 1 deck and put it into play. Player 1 then draws 7 cards.
Again I repeat my earlier sentiment that I don't think we should give any player an advantage just to punish someone for wanting to mulligan. Mulligans would be to HELP people with bad draws, not give them a worse starting position. If you restrict mulligans too much then nobody's going to want to take one and it wouldn't be worthwhile to even have the option.

What if the opponant chooses 1 lost soul to stay in play, or opponant draws 7 cards?

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 22, 2015, 03:32:57 PM »

Quote from: redemption101 on March 22, 2015, 12:47:56 PM

when a player 1 mulligans they shuffle hand and lost souls into deck. Player 2 gets to choose 1 lost from player 1 deck and put it into play. Player 1 then draws 7 cards.

Once again, would anyone be kind enough to please explain why y'all feel it is necessary to punish a player for taking a mulligan? I do not understand this.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 22, 2015, 11:30:13 AM

To echo Bill's final statement, we need to keep this simple for hosts/judges, as well as new players.

How about once at the start of the game either player may choose for any reason at all to shuffle all all cards back in their deck and redraw eight?

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on March 22, 2015, 09:23:55 AM

They have to stay out. Otherwise I mulligan every hand I don't have a hero or do have a soul.

Choosing to mulligan whenever you draw single lost soul would be a sub-optimal decision. If you do a complete mulligan (shuffle everything and redraw

you are more likely to draw 2+ lost souls than you are to draw 0 for any legal Redemption deck. Unless you are saying we should have games rules to prevent you personally from playing poorly, I do not understand why you feel this is a reason for requiring lost souls to stay out.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #49 on:** March 22, 2015, 04:58:37 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 22, 2015, 03:32:57 PM

How about once at the start of the game either player may choose for any reason at all to shuffle all all cards back in their deck and redraw eight?

You appear to have missed my earlier statements about unrestricted mulligans involving drawn LSs, which I will never support even if I am trolled.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 22, 2015, 03:32:57 PM

If you do a complete mulligan (shuffle everything and redraw you are more likely to draw 2+ lost souls than you are to draw 0 for any legal Redemption deck.

Math trolling...

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 22, 2015, 03:32:57 PM

Unless you are saying we should have games rules to prevent you personally from playing poorly, ...

General trolling....

News:

Author Topic: Mulligan in Redemption? (Read 14618 times)

browarod

browarod