Author Topic: Mulligans in Official tourmanets (Read 18083 times)

SEB · « **on:** May 09, 2018, 12:06:39 PM »

I know that this topic has been addressed in other ways throughout these forums, but I would like to talk specifically about Mulligans in tournaments.

To aid in advanced competitive scenes, I feel that Mulligans are more than just a good idea, they are vital! Here are some proposal ideas:

1) Start of each game: Each player draws 8 cards, and puts all drawn lost souls on the table as normal. Once all hands have 8 non-lost cards. Starting with the player with the most Lost Souls (random if there's a tie), that player may shuffle their hand back into their deck, then draw a new hand of cards that is one less than their previous hand (putting new lost souls into their territory as normal). Continue until each player has a hand they want to keep.

2) Start of each game: Each player draws 8 cards, and puts all drawn lost souls on the table as normal. Once all hands have 8 non-lost cards. Starting with the player with the most Lost Souls (random if there's a tie), that player may choose to shuffle their hand back into their deck and draw 8 new cards (putting lost souls in the territory as normal), THEN they choose one opponent to search their deck for a Lost Soul and put it in play, that Lost Soul is negated for this turn. Each player may do this ONCE per game

bluefrog1288 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2018, 12:11:43 PM »

I like the first option as it follows a traditional mulligan system. The mulligan system is vital to Magic for sure, but I am not entirely sure it is vital for Redemption. There are many ways to search and generate souls.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2018, 12:19:05 PM »

I don't believe Mulligans are a good idea primarily for two reasons:

A. It accelerates consistency creep. Decks are already getting faster and more consistent with every expansion, mulligans multiply that effect. It would also warp deck building and allow you to run even more consistency cards since your Hero count could be lower. Mulligans also run the risk of enabling a deck like CoL to exist. As unhealthy as that deck was it would have been even worse if mulligans existed.

B. The problems that mulligans solve in other games don't exist in Redemption. MtG has mulligans because without them drawing too many or too few lands in your opening hand is too likely and sizable percentage of games would be incredibly lopsided as one of the players would be stuck basically unable to play their cards. Another game I used to play that has mulligans is Hearthstone and the reason for it there is you have a very small opening hand and only draw one card a turn so without mulligans it would be fairly common to get stuck with a hand full of cards you could only play late game. Redemption is on the large side of opening hands and you draw three more every turn. This combined with the fact that you can't get mana screwed and you don't have to play on a curve means the problem that mulligans solve (Getting stuck with a completely unplayable hand) doesn't exist in Redemption.

The Guardian · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2018, 01:48:24 PM »

I agree with kevinthedude's points although I will say there are some "unplayable hands" that can happen in Redemption. (i.e. no Hero in opening hand in a MP event

)

NathanW · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2018, 01:50:24 PM »

A partial mulligan is another option but that has its own set of downsides.

Gabe · « **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2018, 03:01:52 PM »

This discussion happens about once a year. Thus far we've never seen an option that has enough of an upside to implement. We used to be able to say that about the sideboard though and now we have the reserve...

SEB · « **Reply #6 on:** May 09, 2018, 03:31:43 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 09, 2018, 12:19:05 PM

I don't believe Mulligans are a good idea primarily for two reasons:

A. It accelerates consistency creep. Decks are already getting faster and more consistent with every expansion, mulligans multiply that effect. It would also warp deck building and allow you to run even more consistency cards since your Hero count could be lower. Mulligans also run the risk of enabling a deck like CoL to exist. As unhealthy as that deck was it would have been even worse if mulligans existed.

Interesting point, but isnt the point of "mulligan" to have more consistency? I would guess that on a competitive level, we want that. It should be about a player's skill and not "well, I waited five turns to get a defender...you win." (exaggeration to the point).

Also, what have test players tested? I would be curious to know what they saw in their investigation for different mulligans.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #7 on:** May 09, 2018, 03:40:17 PM »

Quote from: SEB on May 09, 2018, 03:31:43 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 09, 2018, 12:19:05 PM
I don't believe Mulligans are a good idea primarily for two reasons:

A. It accelerates consistency creep. Decks are already getting faster and more consistent with every expansion, mulligans multiply that effect. It would also warp deck building and allow you to run even more consistency cards since your Hero count could be lower. Mulligans also run the risk of enabling a deck like CoL to exist. As unhealthy as that deck was it would have been even worse if mulligans existed.

Interesting point, but isnt the point of "mulligan" to have more consistency? I would guess that on a competitive level, we want that. It should be about a player's skill and not "well, I waited five turns to get a defender...you win." (exaggeration to the point).

Consistency in Redemption can be solved easily by proper deck building. If you didn't get a single EC in 5 turns either the deck was shuffled poorly or is suboptimally built. The reason mulligans exist is to smooth out consistency issues that would require too drastic of deck building changes to be practical. If you're playing Hearthstone and want to make it almost guaranteed that you draw a one mana creature on turn one, you would have to fill up 1/3 of your deck with 1 drops. That isn't practical since you'll be drawing too many 1 drops late game. Mulligans help that problem by reducing the number of 1 drops required in your deck since if you draw cards that aren't 1 drops you get to try again. This is the same concept in MtG except with lands. Redemption's current rate of card draw and pool of consistency cards allows any inconsistency problems like drawing a Hero turn 1 to be solved by deck building without making your deck impractical. Top tier decks consistency get a turn 1 Hero already without mulligans and are still a tad Hero light compared to past years.

SEB · « **Reply #8 on:** May 09, 2018, 04:02:08 PM »

I want to challenge your underlining ideal behind why other CCGs have mulligans. It's because they want play to be as competitive as possible - be it land, cheaper costing cards, or blockers. Decipher's Lord of the Rings CCG (which may have more similarities to Redemption then MtG or harthstone does), did not have land and was very character driven, but it still instituted a mulligan procedure. The idea is that you don't want "top-tier" play to loose to randomness. Having more consistent games in tournaments, seems to be positive not negative.

bluefrog1288 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 09, 2018, 04:14:32 PM »

raise your hand if you played/collected Decipher's LotR TCG

"raises hand"

and I still have them!

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #10 on:** May 09, 2018, 04:22:02 PM »

Quote from: SEB on May 09, 2018, 04:02:08 PM

The idea is that you don't want "top-tier" play to loose to randomness. Having more consistent games in tournaments, seems to be positive not negative.

There's a fine line you have to be careful of between being consistent enough for games to be won by skill and games being so consistent that every game is exactly the same and the game is reduced to rock paper scissors where games are determined by whoever's deck has the 60 in the 60/40.

SEB · « **Reply #11 on:** May 09, 2018, 04:23:39 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on May 09, 2018, 04:22:02 PM

Quote from: SEB on May 09, 2018, 04:02:08 PM
The idea is that you don't want "top-tier" play to loose to randomness. Having more consistent games in tournaments, seems to be positive not negative.

There's a fine line you have to be careful of between being consistent enough for games to be won by skill and games being so consistent that every game is exactly the same and the game is reduced to rock paper scissors where games are determined by whoever's deck has the 60 in the 60/40.

Well said! So, Ill circle back to: what have the test players done for testing mulligan procedures?

Gabe · « **Reply #12 on:** May 09, 2018, 04:37:23 PM »

I don't recall there every being enough consensus on a mulligan option for it to be tested.

SEB, you seem to be promoting an awful lot of "Redemption needs to be exactly like all the other TCGs" since your return to the game. While I agree that there are always things that we can learn from other TCGs and some good tings we can implement, I don't think we need to do something just because other games do it.

Since we've gone over mulligans many times before in years past I'll summarize what I remember...

Unlike other games, Redemption draws 3 cards per turn making a "bad opening hand" less impactful and mulligans less necessary.

The mechanic of drawing Lost Souls in the opening and/or mulligan hands has been a rather large sticking point of finding a mulligan option.

If you'd like to know more about past discussions you can probably find them by using the "search" function on the forum. There should be plenty of good reading there.

bluefrog1288 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 09, 2018, 04:49:36 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on May 09, 2018, 04:37:23 PM

I don't recall there every being enough consensus on a mulligan option for it to be tested.

SEB, you seem to be promoting an awful lot of "Redemption needs to be exactly like all the other TCGs" since your return to the game. While I agree that there are always things that we can learn from other TCGs and some good tings we can implement, I don't think we need to do something just because other games do it.

Since we've gone over mulligans many times before in years past I'll summarize what I remember...

Unlike other games, Redemption draws 3 cards per turn making a "bad opening hand" less impactful and mulligans less necessary.

The mechanic of drawing Lost Souls in the opening and/or mulligan hands has been a rather large sticking point of finding a mulligan option.

If you'd like to know more about past discussions you can probably find them by using the "search" function on the forum. There should be plenty of good reading there.

I am certainly for other things TCGs are doing to help Redemption become more successful. I am big fan of set rotation. I do think Mulligans may not be needed. The last game I played against my wife turned into a victory because of our 3 card draw. Within two turns I had SoG, AotL, and enough enhancements to tidy the game up for a win within 4.

SEB · « **Reply #14 on:** May 09, 2018, 05:07:19 PM »

I'll keep the idea brewing on the backburner for now, and Ill concede the point to you more established players, then. Thanks for a great discussion

Gabe · « **Reply #15 on:** May 09, 2018, 06:12:09 PM »

Quote from: SEB on May 09, 2018, 05:07:19 PM

I'll keep the idea brewing on the backburner for now, and Ill concede the point to you more established players, then. Thanks for a great discussion

I apologize if I gave the impression this discussion should be tabled. That wasn’t my intent.

Rather than start from scratch, looking at past discussions could given this topic a good jumping point. You can see the obstacles we faced last time it was discussed and possibly come up with new solutions. This is similar to past sideboard discussions (which happened a few times) yet eventually the reserve was born and we have a pseudo sideboard in Redemption! I’m not opposed to a mulligan if a good solution is found. But I don’t necessarily think the game is in dire need of one.

I also think that discussing what other games do to see if it’s appropriate for Redemption is healthy to a certain degree, provided we don’t think that because other games do X that Redemption must do X also.

Please, carry on!

bluefrog1288 · « **Reply #16 on:** May 09, 2018, 06:14:19 PM »

Okay time to move onto the next important idea.

Wait for it...

Fusion heroes!

kariusvega · « **Reply #17 on:** May 09, 2018, 07:30:39 PM »

Mulligans are great for the game. No sense in condoning something that is native to other tcgs.

We tested mulligans by TLG rules and it was a pleasure. Same with 2 player booster, now that's the national standard.

If the ptb are going to ban cards and errata ban problem cards "forbidden light" (had to

) I'm not sure what the deeply rooted fear of mulligans is in Redemption.

PSA mulligans are so seriously hated in Redemption you can be dqed and banned for them

And if your opponent draws cards before the round starts you can dq them by tournament rules. Do those rules cause or ease npe in your opinion?

kariusvega · « **Reply #18 on:** May 09, 2018, 08:17:13 PM »

Bonus points if you can find where those rules are **

I suggest adding a cactus forums link at the top of rules downloads for Redemption here along with the play as guide:
https://www.cactusgamedesign.com/downloads/

Which comes inherently in an app

SEB · « **Reply #19 on:** May 10, 2018, 02:00:18 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on May 09, 2018, 06:12:09 PM

Quote from: SEB on May 09, 2018, 05:07:19 PM
I'll keep the idea brewing on the backburner for now, and Ill concede the point to you more established players, then. Thanks for a great discussion

I apologize if I gave the impression this discussion should be tabled. That wasn’t my intent.

Rather than start from scratch, looking at past discussions could given this topic a good jumping point. You can see the obstacles we faced last time it was discussed and possibly come up with new solutions. This is similar to past sideboard discussions (which happened a few times) yet eventually the reserve was born and we have a pseudo sideboard in Redemption! I’m not opposed to a mulligan if a good solution is found. But I don’t necessarily think the game is in dire need of one.

I also think that discussing what other games do to see if it’s appropriate for Redemption is healthy to a certain degree, provided we don’t think that because other games do X that Redemption must do X also.

Please, carry on!

I appreciate that, and Ill be glad to theory craft all day, but I suppose I should get some more modern games under my belt to truly contribute to the conversation outside of a theory or experience from other tcgs.

Watchman · « **Reply #20 on:** May 10, 2018, 03:49:49 PM »

I’m in the middle about mulligans. Yes, it’s annoying when you don’t get what you want on your first draw, but I’ve had the same experience with another TCG that has a 30 card deck, five card hand, can have duplicates of cards, and allows mulligan of any number of those cards and I’ve still not gotten what I wanted with a mulligan under those conditions. It would be nice to get certain cards on your opening draw but it comes down to shuffle, deck building and luck of the draw. With so much searching permitted in Redemption you can usually get what you want or satisfied with what you get within the first three turns.

So if mulligans will ever be permitted I’d be fine with it; if not, I’m good with that too.

Side note, I don’t agree with the philosophy that if other TCGs are doing it so should Redemption. There are some circumstances in which Redemption would benefit from this but Redemption should remain unique in many ways.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 10, 2018, 04:57:18 PM »

Quote from: Watchman492 on May 10, 2018, 03:49:49 PM

Side note, I don’t agree with the philosophy that if other TCGs are doing it so should Redemption. There are some circumstances in which Redemption would benefit from this but Redemption should remain unique in many ways.

I was (and remain) a proponent of mulligans, but there are a couple of things that make it difficult to compare Redemption to other TCGs in this regard.

First, a large number of Redemptions games are determined by the Lost Soul draw alone. It is tough to find a good way to have a mulligan help that problem without pushing towards the soul drought side.

Second--and maybe it is just me--although I have my share of bad draws, way more of the "auto-loss because of draw" games I have played have been because my opponent drew the nuts than because I had a bad draw.

Kor · « **Reply #22 on:** May 10, 2018, 06:41:50 PM »

I like the idea of some kind of mulligan option. Not sure what it would exactly look like, but with the increase LS generating cards, you could even mulligan to try to get those if your opponent didn't draw any souls.

NathanW · « **Reply #23 on:** May 10, 2018, 07:13:35 PM »

Another idea to throw out there is choosing 4 random cards and shuffling those in and drawing 4.

Isildur · « **Reply #24 on:** May 10, 2018, 07:25:19 PM »

I personally like mulligans in cards games I play but I do think they are unnecessary in Redemption due to how the game is designed. I feel Gabe's post does a good job of summarizing why mulligans are unnecessary.

In addition to natural game rules of drawing 3 (most games you draw one card per turn) every turn and the lack of resources in Redemption, the game has progressed in a way that nullifies the need for mulligans. Soul generation, the ridiculous amount of tutors and other methods of searching through decks, a active in game sideboard, ect.

All these things make the need for a mulligan unnecessary and if one did exist in Redemption it would have to be extensively tested to make sure games don't end up being solitaire from decks being over consistent. TCG's still need some aspect of randomness to succeed.

Back in the day, pre Kings days, I would have been very open to a mulligan option but now a days I don't think its needed.

News:

Author Topic: Mulligans in Official tourmanets (Read 18083 times)

kariusvega

kariusvega