Mulligans

[4Ak]

Mulligan should be here. I don't see any disadvantage to it and the potential benefits are huge (might make combo and control decks possible). Just make it free, the 1 card penalty right away is unnecessary. Increasing deck minimum to 50 is a terrible idea aswell. Also the notion that mulligan helps rush decks more than other decks is ridiculous, dunno what you people are smoking.

..sorry for me acting funny. seriously, that's not a good idea

[Vyz]

..LoL, free mulligan,...for my rush Elad, Aramia and Shard Zal,..all i can say is "YES please!" xD

No offense dude but I don't think you understand the game very well. Midrange and aggro rule SE right now because those decks suffer from bad hands the least due to having a lot of low cost cards. Mulligan would not benefit them nearly as much as other type of decks.

[Vyz]

Consider playing Zhanna vs some kind of aggro deck. The already have a much higher chance of having a hand they need than you do (making them less likely to mulligan). Now with mulligan you can look for those high impact cards that can help you swing the game (like tidal, or just mulliganing for seductress going 2nd etc.). Sure they can still crush you if they get the right draw (but that's how it's supposed to be coz aggro>control), but you have a much higher chance of winning than you would otherwise. It also makes it easier for Zhanna to put those high impact, matchup-specific cards in her deck without going over 40 cards improving her consistency even further.

[4Ak]

that's allrite Vyz, no offense taken and i do appreciate you taking the time for the detailed explanation, however i would like to bring to your attention that (again, IMO) there's no real 'aggro' as well as there's no real 'control' in SE. of course that are certain types of decks that resmble the two previously mentioned, but it's still more or less just deviations of mid-range, but please don't consider this a rant

..imo (yes, again) what most of us here are trying to say when we talk about 'mulligan damaging the game' is that there are certain deck types that can only be effective as long as they get their t1->t4/5 drops EXACTLY like they need them and in the exact order (i.e. DP Rush Elad). these decks then tend to be very difficult to beat IF they had their ideal first turns, while they're beaten significantly more easily if they don't.
thus giving these very decks the option for free mulligan could, and most likely even would (yes, again IMO), significantly improve their overall win-rates by improving their chances to get their ideal opening

[Airact]

Whilst simple to implement, this WILL affect balance and the meta.

I think if you're going to bring this in, then you should also increase the minimum deck size to 50. Otherwise, it improves consistency too much and throws off the balance. With an increased minimum and a mulligan then you will both help and hinder consistency, at the same time increasing variety and reducing the probability of clumping.

How about we do a PUBLIC TEST with Mulligan and 50-card minimum together? Just have it as an option in Custom Match. The community will give feedback and we go from there.

Uhhh... No?

There aren't enough playable 1-drops for me to play aggro, even with mulligans and a 40 card deck.

Aggro doesn't exist right now and frankly, I don't think it will exist after this.

[Vyz]

that's allrite Vyz, no offense taken and i do appreciate you taking the time for the detailed explanation, however i would like to bring to your attention that (again, IMO) there's no real 'aggro' as well as there's no real 'control' in SE. of course that are certain types of decks that resmble the two previously mentioned, but it's still more or less just deviations of mid-range, but please don't consider this a rant

..imo (yes, again) what most of us here are trying to say when we talk about 'mulligan damaging the game' is that there are certain deck types that can only be effective as long as they get their t1->t4/5 drops EXACTLY like they need them and in the exact order (i.e. DP Rush Elad). these decks then tend to be very difficult to beat IF they had their ideal first turns, while they're beaten significantly more easily if they don't.
thus giving these very decks the option for free mulligan could, and most likely even would (yes, again IMO), significantly improve their overall win-rates by improving their chances to get their ideal opening

I agree with you and I did mention that problem before. IMO adding mulligan doesn't make it worse tho, and is in fact part of the solution as it might make it possible for decks that are not midrange to exist. Maybe not right away as the cardpool might not allow it atm but it should give Wulven more freedom in designing cards later down the road.

[4Ak]

..see Vyz, so we can both (maybe even Airact) agree that it's not really about mulligan, but about MOAR CARDS to play with )))

what i mean to say is, that if we have more cards, we can build around more different strategies, hell we might even make them consistent enough so that we don't need to mulligan at all, and on the other hand if we do get mulligan, i think given the current card pool we will most likely help 'certain' decks more than we hep others, thus damaging balance.

..imo mulligan really only matters in card games that use 'mana-cards' such as MtG, as there it mitigates for when u r getting mana-screwed


and as for my intial comment towards what u had said, i was only laughing at the 'free' part, not at mulligan as such (just so that i'm not misunderstood)

[Vyz]

I haven't played much of SF but I remember people saying you can stop Aramia Wisp if you have only if you have this card or that card. Mulligan also makes it more likely for the opponent to have those answers. Yes, adding mulligan will alter balance and I don't have the foresight to say right here how exactly it's going to happen, but there's no doubt in my mind it would be for the benefit of the game in the long run.

[Unruler]

Listen to Vyz, the man knows what he's saying!

[Lahiri]

Honestly I don't think SE needs mulligans because:
1) there are no lands like in MTG so no mana screw/flood.
2) it would lead to a lot of auto-loss (especially if you take a mulligan when going first. Starting with 5 is a very bad idea)
3) no SE deck can exist without a solid and cheap draw engine, because saccing cards reduces your hand too much in the early turns (this is a flaw of the game imho) so starting with less cards in hand is very penalizing in this game. You can say that mulligans can help you find your draw engine in the opening hand, which is true, but this would reduce the choice to "do I have Blood Frenzy? Yes/No". Oh and this would make Amber even stronger . I don't like this game to be so reliant on draw engine (MTG isn't so focused on draw for example) and mulligans would only sharpen this fact.
4) I don't find opening hand so crucial in this game. It isn't as fast as MTG where a rush or combo deck closes the game in 4 turns. And I like it. Cards you draw during the game are more relevant than cards you had in the opening hand. The only exception are, guess what, draw engines. Tbh If I were Kyle I would ban all persistent draw engines and make opening hands wider. It would make the game better, but this is just my opinion.