Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: SomeKittens on June 26, 2010, 03:29:12 PM
Title: Mulligan
Post by: SomeKittens on June 26, 2010, 03:29:12 PM
Are Mulligans (shuffle hand back into deck, draw Hand -1 cards) allowed?
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: TheHobbit13 on June 26, 2010, 03:37:16 PM
Its all relative.. life is relative... erm you are relative... I am relative...our relatives are relative.. I don't even know if I am here right know.. So if it feels good do it! :thumbup:
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2010, 10:42:38 PM
Are Mulligans (shuffle hand back into deck, draw Hand -1 cards) allowed?
They are not allowed in official tournament play.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: JSB23 on June 26, 2010, 11:20:55 PM
If they were Mayhem would be nearly pointless :P
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Master KChief on June 26, 2010, 11:23:28 PM
no, it wouldnt. mayhem would still be highly used.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Mr.Hiatus on June 27, 2010, 01:42:07 PM
I think Mulligans should be used. Only your lost souls would have to stay out and you would have to draw 6 or 7.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: SomeKittens on June 27, 2010, 04:41:25 PM
They're something to consider.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on June 27, 2010, 05:11:24 PM
I'm certain that there has been discussion over the last couple of years about the possibility of having a "mulligan" in Redemption. Who knows, maybe there will be a trial period some day. It took a while for the "second person draws" rule to come about, but it finally did. The "intro prep phase" was also included in TEAMS, after much debate on the boards. Anything is possible.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Master_Chi on June 30, 2010, 04:11:30 PM
I think Mulligans should be used. Only your lost souls would have to stay out and you would have to draw 6 or 7.
Though I do thoroughly DESPISE drawing all/most of my Souls in the first hand... Though I'm pretty sure everyone does...
I find it less of a problem if I can draw some defense to keep my opponent from getting to them, its amazing what a King of Tyrus can do with a pure orange defense in T2 even with a land of bondage full of lost souls
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Mr.Hiatus on June 30, 2010, 10:27:57 PM
If you don't keep your lost souls out then everyone could just draw eight, if they got lost souls they could mulligan and their lost souls go back. Bad idea. You would have to keep lost souls out so this would not happen.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Master KChief on June 30, 2010, 10:54:31 PM
true. lost souls stay + paris mulligan is the best answer.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Prof Underwood on July 01, 2010, 09:57:56 AM
This could be abused as a way to actually get rid of LSs drawn though. If you mulligan'd the maximum number of times you would draw 8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 36 cards (and probably another 5-6 LSs). On top of this you could play a Mayhem at some point that you draw it, bringing out even more cards. If you have the shuffler LS in your deck it is likely to come out. You can then simply stop mulligan'ing as soon as you draw your SoG (which you use to take your shuffler). Thus you always start the game without any LSs on the table. A player with a defense heavy deck would do this all the time.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: EmJayBee83 on July 01, 2010, 10:06:56 AM
A player with a defense heavy deck would do this all the time.
No they wouldn't. Players with defense heavy decks have the moral fortitude to always play in the most Matthew 7:12 kind of way. :D
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: SomeKittens on July 01, 2010, 11:29:06 AM
There could be be limits on the number of Mulligans. I do believe that LS should stay out regardless.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Ironica on July 01, 2010, 12:15:21 PM
Why not set the limit to one? I believe in battletech, you can only mulligan once
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Mr.Hiatus on July 01, 2010, 01:05:49 PM
Mulligan is always once I thought. ???
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: RTSmaniac on July 01, 2010, 01:15:51 PM
there needs to be some type of mulligan rule for sure
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: SirNobody on July 01, 2010, 01:32:32 PM
Hey,
If you're finding yourself in a situation where you regularly wish you could mulligan, build a better deck (preferably with more defense). If you're finding yourself in a situation where you rarely wish you could mulligan but those rare occasions are costing you tournament wins then bug your host about running more than the minimum number of rounds.
Redemption does not need mulligans. Mulligans would be bad for Redemption. That's my opinion.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Alex_Olijar on July 01, 2010, 01:36:14 PM
I agree. Mulligans are for weak players who are not willing to deal with the ramifications of playing a small defence.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Master KChief on July 01, 2010, 01:50:34 PM
false. many pro mtg players use paris mulligans. its one of the absolute best ways to cut down on the luck factor of a ccg.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: SomeKittens on July 01, 2010, 06:28:39 PM
false. many pro mtg players use paris mulligans. its one of the absolute best ways to cut down on the luck factor of a ccg.
A magic player sees a smaller percentage of their deck in any given game than a Redemption player does. A magic player draws cards during a game at a much slower rate than a Redemption player does. These are two aspects in which I believe Redemption has better game mechanics than Magic and those better game mechanics leads to a smaller influence of luck of the draw on game outcomes. Redemption doesn't need a mulligan to minimize the influence of luck of the draw because the game rules naturally take care of it.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Master KChief on July 01, 2010, 09:19:50 PM
Quote
A magic player sees a smaller percentage of their deck in any given game than a Redemption player does.
again, not true. roughly 30% of a typical mtg deck is lands, so thats largely a chunk of the same stuff there. not only that, but mtg also allows 4 copies of any given card, which many pro players will max out on. while it may be true redemption comes out on top in the sheer number of cards, in terms of an mtg player actually 'seeing' more of their deck mtg has redemption beat.
mulligans are used to minimize bad luck on opening draws, in which case the draw mechanics of the ccg are completely moot. you may have a better chance at drawing into something good on subsequent turns, but this has nothing to do with the first hand. redemption also utilizes a game-winning system that is dependent upon the opponent as well (while mtg does not), which further increases the bad luck associated with the game. a horrible opening hand in redemption is more times than not an uphill battle.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Alex_Olijar on July 01, 2010, 11:18:55 PM
false. many pro mtg players use paris mulligans. its one of the absolute best ways to cut down on the luck factor of a ccg.
Not for Redemption. Name a reason to not mulligan if I don't get at least 2/10 dominants in my 50 card deck's opening hand. There isn't one. It just wouldn't work for Redemption.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: SomeKittens on July 02, 2010, 12:01:08 AM
false. many pro mtg players use paris mulligans. its one of the absolute best ways to cut down on the luck factor of a ccg.
Not for Redemption. Name a reason to not mulligan if I don't get at least 2/10 dominants in my 50 card deck's opening hand. There isn't one. It just wouldn't work for Redemption.
there are many, MANY reasons i would mulligan a hand that had 2 dominants in it.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Alex_Olijar on July 02, 2010, 12:55:22 AM
I'm sure. I'm saying why not mulligan unless you get, at a minimum, two dominants?
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Master KChief on July 02, 2010, 01:01:21 AM
thats the point of a mulligan, to cut down the bad luck and get a better opening hand. the cost-risk benefit associated with it is everytime you do it, you have to keep lost souls in play and draw one card less. there is no guarantee you'll draw your supposed 2 dominants, and the odds go down after every time, but its better than keeping a crap hand.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: ChristianSoldier on July 02, 2010, 01:05:22 AM
I'm sure. I'm saying why not mulligan unless you get, at a minimum, two dominants?
Because I hate dominants clogging up my hand before I get storehouse and I'm not ready to use them, there are many reasons why I don't want dominants in my hand at a certain time in the game, like Burial if I don't have LS or Angel of the Lord if my opponent isn't blocking me
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 02, 2010, 09:33:13 AM
If you're finding yourself in a situation where you regularly wish you could mulligan, build a better deck (preferably with more defense). If you're finding yourself in a situation where you rarely wish you could mulligan but those rare occasions are costing you tournament wins then bug your host about running more than the minimum number of rounds.
Redemption does not need mulligans. Mulligans would be bad for Redemption. That's my opinion.
This is all fine and dandy for some experienced players, but new players get quite frustrated with poor draws, and the direct relationship to their poor deck-building skills (which they get reminded of by people like you). A poor opening draw for a young player is practically a death sentence at tournaments. They will lose 5-0 in a few turns and feel like going home.
I think a mulligan is worth considering for the benefit that new and young players will reap from it. Whatever inconveniences appear for experienced players would be minor at best, and more likely just a pet peeve of a few.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: TheHobbit13 on July 02, 2010, 12:41:07 PM
If you're finding yourself in a situation where you regularly wish you could mulligan, build a better deck (preferably with more defense). If you're finding yourself in a situation where you rarely wish you could mulligan but those rare occasions are costing you tournament wins then bug your host about running more than the minimum number of rounds.
Redemption does not need mulligans. Mulligans would be bad for Redemption. That's my opinion.
This is all fine and dandy for some experienced players, but new players get quite frustrated with poor draws, and the direct relationship to their poor deck-building skills (which they get reminded of by people like you). A poor opening draw for a young player is practically a death sentence at tournaments. They will lose 5-0 in a few turns and feel like going home.
A tournament is basically a death sentence for a new player, he might win a few games but ultimately won't win against the medicre/top players. That doesn't mean he won't have fun and any way I don't see how a mulligan would help them that much. If anything it would help the more experienced players more. If the have a bad draw (and ultimately against new kids you can over come that) but with the mulligan they don't have to settle for a bad hand and can potentially get a better one and beat the poor kid faster.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: SirNobody on July 02, 2010, 12:57:57 PM
A magic player sees a smaller percentage of their deck in any given game than a Redemption player does.
again, not true. roughly 30% of a typical mtg deck is lands, so thats largely a chunk of the same stuff there. not only that, but mtg also allows 4 copies of any given card, which many pro players will max out on. while it may be true redemption comes out on top in the sheer number of cards, in terms of an mtg player actually 'seeing' more of their deck mtg has redemption beat.
Your point about the redundancy in magic decks is a valid one. But even with four copies of a card in my deck it's still possible that none of them would be in the top 20 cards of my deck (although admittedly less likely).
the cost-risk benefit associated with it is everytime you do it
This is the problem, there is so much drawing in Redemption that starting with a smaller hand size isn't much of a cost. Who cares if I start with 5 cards in my hand rather than 8 if those five cards include Hur and Gifts of the Magi, or Pentecost and First Fruits?
The only chance it would be fair is if you did something like take one of the lost souls in your deck and put it in your opponents Land of Redemption to let you mulligan, or letting your opponent search their draw pile for any card each time you mulligan.
A poor opening draw for a young player is practically a death sentence at tournaments. They will lose 5-0 in a few turns and feel like going home.
I would much rather beat a young player 5-0 in 4 turns and have them walk away thinking "man that was a bad draw" then have a longer game where I completely dominate them, win 5-0 without Son of God and have them walk away thinking "man I'm not any good at this game."
I believe the best way to guard against young players losing bad/a lot and losing interest in the game is to do more game nights and fewer tournaments so that you can make sure they're matched up against people with similar abilities.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 02, 2010, 01:05:53 PM
Wow. Hobbit and SirNobody, you guys are made for each other. The arrogance is almost stifling.
Don't forget to tell your victims about how poor their deck-building skills are before they leave.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: The Warrior on July 02, 2010, 01:13:25 PM
Don't forget to tell your victims about how poor their deck-building skills are before they leave.
oh beleive me i do, I even tell their parents sometimes after the game, "make sure Jimmy has a legitimate deck, before he plays the Almighty H13" And then I make the whole family get a tat.
PS I hate that you can only rescue 5 souls now.. ...btw I AM THE MOST HUMBLEST PERSON I KNOW!!!!!! how dare you call me Arrogant.
Wow. Hobbit and SirNobody, you guys are made for each other. The arrogance is almost stifling.
Don't forget to tell your victims about how poor their deck-building skills are before they leave.
Okay jokes aside. I am not going to speak for my self but Tim Maly is one of the most humble winners I know. He is saying that he would rather have people walk away saying wow I had a bad draw and lost 5-0,(letting that be the Scapegoat) because chances are they won't beat themselves up to bad. Rather than beating a kid 5-0 in a longer game were he might feel bad about himself for having a bad deck. He is being nice, not arrogant. I don't think you understood our posts. I was arguing against mollegans because they would hurt little kids too annd Tim was well being respectful to the RLKS by offering some solutions. We don't enjoy beating up little kids. I hope that clears things up. :)
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: JSB23 on July 02, 2010, 02:38:47 PM
oh beleive me i do, I even tell their parents sometimes after the game, "make sure Jimmy has a legitimate deck, before he plays the Almighty H13" And then I make the whole family get a tat.
Best. Quote. Ever.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Master_Chi on July 02, 2010, 03:27:52 PM
If you're finding yourself in a situation where you regularly wish you could mulligan, build a better deck (preferably with more defense). If you're finding yourself in a situation where you rarely wish you could mulligan but those rare occasions are costing you tournament wins then bug your host about running more than the minimum number of rounds.
Redemption does not need mulligans. Mulligans would be bad for Redemption. That's my opinion.
This is all fine and dandy for some experienced players, but new players get quite frustrated with poor draws, and the direct relationship to their poor deck-building skills (which they get reminded of by people like you). A poor opening draw for a young player is practically a death sentence at tournaments. They will lose 5-0 in a few turns and feel like going home.
I think a mulligan is worth considering for the benefit that new and young players will reap from it. Whatever inconveniences appear for experienced players would be minor at best, and more likely just a pet peeve of a few.
I agree that the younger players should be shown some fairness by the more advanced players because they are already at a disadvantage by playing against the "top players". I would be willing to let a newer kid mulligan in a tournament, even if I lost to them because (let's face it) nobody likes losing. And if they are anything like me, they'll get tired of getting beat all the time since they don't know what they're doing. :2cents:
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Ironica on July 02, 2010, 03:39:33 PM
For all the people who go down south with me for the tournaments, I flat out tell then not to expect to win. I tell then that we are going for fun and not to win (still try to win but primarily have fun). I think if new/inexperience people are told my speech, then they won't be upset when they lose (heck, all I pray for is to win one game (which, ironically enough, got me the first place T2-2p last time :p))
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: ChristianSoldier on July 02, 2010, 04:03:14 PM
I don't think the problem is losing, but it more comes when player feel like they can't do anything, a lot of younger less experienced players seem to be having just as much fun even though they don't win, so long as they are treated well and be able to play some cards.
Now in saying that I will also say that some people just don't like losing and I don't know what can be done when those people keep losing. But I know I love playing the game and being pushed to the limit of my abilities and deck capabilities whether I win or lose
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: SomeKittens on July 02, 2010, 07:29:59 PM
It's a rule of life that one will get some terrible hands and some amazing hands. I still remember the game where I drew two LS's and SoG/NJ in my starting hand. Now, there will also be games where I draw three LS's and no EC's. No amount of deck building will completely prevent this, lady luck is finicky. Now, for new/old players, why not give players who are first-timers (or just plain bad)(to an extent) a "Mulligan Card"? It's most certianly something I'll look at for my tournaments.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: SirNobody on July 02, 2010, 09:27:42 PM
oh beleive me i do, I even tell their parents sometimes after the game, "make sure Jimmy has a legitimate deck, before he plays the Almighty H13" And then I make the whole family get a tat.
Yeah...I've so got that tat.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 02, 2010, 11:03:40 PM
I don't think you understood our posts. I was arguing against mollegans because they would hurt little kids too ...
I disagree, which is what I think you misunderstood about my post. The advantages for young/new players would be tremendous, because they don't build their decks very well. The difference between the first draw and mulligan draw is more likely to be significant for them than for an experienced player. An expert deck builder like you or Tim is not likely to have as significant of a change because of the way you design the deck. You may have different characters/doms/arts/enhancements in the second draw, but there will be an eerily similar spread. Therefore, the mulligan is not typically going to make a huge change.
The idea of the mulligan is something that would more frequently benefit the young/new player, therefore should be considered. For some of us, looking at ways to help new players foster a love for the game takes precedence over the convenience of experienced players. You guys will play and win regardless of the rule changes. Please consider deferring to the up and coming players with regard to the mulligan. I think it is worth a trial run, just like some other changes made recently (i.e. second player draws).
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: LadyNobody on July 02, 2010, 11:36:27 PM
I am not going to speak for my self but Tim Maly is one of the most humble winners I know.
So, Sir "Nobody can beat me" is only arrogant on the boards? ;)
I'll take your word for it, Mr. "Hobbit you quit now before I rough you up"13. :o
Please point out to me where he stated that no one can beat him. Yes, he may have seemed to imply that he always beats RLKs (as we in Minnesota so affectionately call younger players), but RLKs do not make up the entire Redemption community, therefore you cannot quote him as saying 'nobody can beat me'. Also, the implication that he will always beat RLKs is not really arrogance, it's more of a fact. From what I know, the last few times he lost to an 'RLK' was when he played Nathan in 2004, back when Nathan was still the size of a hobbit (thus why he has "that tat"), and a few others at Nationals in 2005. (Thus why Minnesota is known for its RLKs). For him, losing to an RLK is an anomaly, therefore, I don't believe you can call him arrogant just for saying how he prefers to win the 99.99% of games he plays against RLKs. Furthermore, I find it very distasteful to take such a cheap shot at someone's character in order to make their opinion look bad. Such a tactic won't get you very far in winning people to your opinion, and I don't think it sets a very good example, either.
~Britta
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on July 02, 2010, 11:39:35 PM
He lost to a totally newby RLK first round at the 2008 T2 only tournament in T2-2p.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 02, 2010, 11:42:53 PM
Furthermore, I find it very distasteful to take such a cheap shot at someone's character in order to make their opinion look bad.
I was playing off their names, like Chris Berman was famous for on ESPN (Chris "Hunka Hunka" Berman "Love"). That was why I put the winking smiley next to Tim's spin-off name, and the shocked smiley next to Nathan's.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: LadyNobody on July 02, 2010, 11:54:27 PM
In your second post, yes. The way I interpret your first post...
Wow. Hobbit and SirNobody, you guys are made for each other. The arrogance is almost stifling.
Don't forget to tell your victims about how poor their deck-building skills are before they leave.
...It seems that you did, indeed, call them both arrogant, and that is what I am referring to as 'distasteful'. Whether in jest or not, I do not find calling someone arrogant appropriate.
~Britta
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 03, 2010, 12:10:25 AM
Both of them basically suggested that tournaments were no place for beginner players. Perhaps "elitist" would have been a more appropriate word choice than "arrogant," but it was the first word that popped into my head.
Beginner players love tournaments, and look forward to every one. The only reason I hold tournaments is so that my new players can enjoy the experience. I admit that I get frustrated when experienced players come and clean house, but I do not want to keep my tournaments "closed" and take the opportunity for other players to get what may be their only chance to earn RNRS points. It is the dilemma I faced in CT, and now again here in FL.
So, for me to suggest the mulligan as a way to help newer players at a tournament, and then have Tim and Nathan both suggest that newer players should not even be at tournaments is what I find distasteful. That completely undermines all that I am trying to accomplish by spreading the game.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Minister Polarius on July 03, 2010, 12:25:13 AM
Is there really anything wrong with the best players winning all the time?
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Prof Underwood on July 03, 2010, 12:37:07 AM
I admit that I get frustrated when experienced players come and clean house
Hopefully, some of us experienced players came in and added to the fun of the tournament for your guys instead of taking away from it. Based on my time there, it seemed like your playgroup really enjoyed RR's attendance (and singing) in particular :)
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Kyp Henderson on July 03, 2010, 12:59:27 AM
Hey, why is everyone saying that a mulligan would only be for new players? Our playgroup has been advocating this idea of a mulligan for a long time, and it would only benefit the game. Sir Nobody makes a good point with saying that there are many decks who draw fast, but that really doesn't help you if you draw a bunch of lost souls and no ECs to protect them. It wouldn't hurt to have a mulligan, if it could only be used once. It helps to prevent bad luck and gives players a better chance to win, both old and new players. My youth pastor and I always come home discouraged because of our opening draws, a bunch of lost souls, and no ECs, or a bunch of heroes, but your opponent draws no Lost Souls for the beginning turns. You get shafted by draws like this, and having a mulligan improves your chances of at least having a chance against your opponent. In Redemption, the outcome of the game game mostly depends on your first draw regardless of what everyone else says. You get a bad draw, you most likely lose. You get a good draw, and your opponent gets a good draw, now it is just a battle of which deck is better. My playgroup would like at least a trial version of the mulligan to be put into place, it wouldn't hurt anything to try this out. Thanks for your consideration.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Mr.Hiatus on July 03, 2010, 02:00:56 AM
I am disagreeing with all this, I get a bad draw I lose deal. I have gotten plenty of bad draws and still manage a win, like Tim says Redemption has much more drawing so it can counter this. I mean just drawing 3 every turn is so overpowered, IMO. Yes I have been beaten off a terrible draw, but that is very rare. I think if I have a bad draw and my opponent has a fair draw it does not mean he or she will win. I usually never make a mistake and always capitalize on my opponent's mistake(s), so my hand is not usually the problem, then again I know my play style and ratios so I normally don't get horrible hands, but still.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Ken4Christ4ever on July 03, 2010, 07:58:34 AM
It's a rule of life that one will get some terrible hands and some amazing hands. I still remember the game where I drew two LS's and SoG/NJ in my starting hand. Now, there will also be games where I draw three LS's and no EC's. No amount of deck building will completely prevent this, lady luck is finicky.
That's not exactly true. I don't think I've ever been without an evil character in my first hand with my current deck. Of course, I have 15-20 of them in a 50 card deck... ;)
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 03, 2010, 08:20:19 AM
Hopefully, some of us experienced players came in and added to the fun of the tournament for your guys instead of taking away from it. Based on my time there, it seemed like your playgroup really enjoyed RR's attendance (and singing) in particular :)
My kids love Josh Kopp, because he goes out of his way to make the game fun. Josh likes to win, but he welcomes new players with open arms and will painstakingly help them learn the game, while playing against them, during a tournament. That was not the impression I was getting from the others (although Nathan later clarified his intent).
Hey, why is everyone saying that a mulligan would only be for new players?
I was generalizing the idea of a bad draw for an experienced player versus a bad draw for a beginner. If Josh Kopp has a bad draw in a tournament, he will win 5-4 instead of 5-0. If a newer player has a bad draw, they will lose 0-5 in a few turns instead of losing 4-5 (or possibly holding on to the hope of winning). I would hope that all experienced players can see the difference. In these scenarios, Josh's main loss will be LS differential. For the new player, just being able to rescue any lost souls is a victory, especially against an experienced player.
I am disagreeing with all this, I get a bad draw I lose deal.
Again, we are just generalizing. A bad draw is not an automatic loss, but for newer players, a better draw could allow them to end the game with at least some LSs won.
I usually never make a mistake and always capitalize on my opponent's mistake(s), so my hand is not usually the problem, then again I know my play style and ratios so I normally don't get horrible hands, but still.
This was my point from a previous post. The mulligan is more often going to help newer players than experienced players.
That's not exactly true. I don't think I've ever been without an evil character in my first hand with my current deck. Of course, I have 15-20 of them in a 50 card deck... ;)
I always knew you were mostly evil. ;)
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: EmJayBee83 on July 03, 2010, 09:14:09 AM
This was my point from a previous post. The mulligan is more often going to help newer players than experienced players.
I understand where you are coming from, YMT, but having thought about it a bit I would tend to disagree with this point.
There are obvious draws (e.g., five LS and a hand filled only with enhancements) that scream for a mulligan. Newer players are going to benefit from a mulligan in these cases, but so would experienced players. The difference arises in what to do in the not-so-obvious cases. Learning when it makes sense--from a strategic standpoint--to mulligan on these cases is going to require experience with more experienced players being more likely to make the correct call here. In the end you will turn one thing which can really benefit younger players (the luck of the draw) into yet another area of advantage for the more experienced players.
Anyway, just my $.02.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Master KChief on July 03, 2010, 09:19:54 AM
uh, isnt that the point, to mulligan away horrible hands, despite the experience of the player? we're trying to cut down on the luck factor associated with card games in general. even between 2 top tier decks with both players playing their full potential, the game usually goes to the person who drew better, and thats not exactly fair. mulligans help even up the odds.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Master_Chi on July 03, 2010, 10:59:42 AM
This was my point from a previous post. The mulligan is more often going to help newer players than experienced players.
I understand where you are coming from, YMT, but having thought about it a bit I would tend to disagree with this point.
There are obvious draws (e.g., five LS and a hand filled only with enhancements) that scream for a mulligan. Newer players are going to benefit from a mulligan in these cases, but so would experienced players. The difference arises in what to do in the not-so-obvious cases. Learning when it makes sense--from a strategic standpoint--to mulligan on these cases is going to require experience with more experienced players being more likely to make the correct call here. In the end you will turn one thing which can really benefit younger players (the luck of the draw) into yet another area of advantage for the more experienced players.
Anyway, just my $.02.
Who said that the more experienced players even get to use the mulligan? I would say that Cactus has made a card that allows the more "experienced" players to mulligan (Mayhem), but newer players might not know about or have or understand this card. Mulligans would definitely help these new players who probably aren't able to play Redemption in it's entirety quite yet.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Ironica on July 03, 2010, 11:09:42 AM
Don't know if its been mentioned but we could but a restriction on when you can mulligan. In battletech, you can only mulligan if you draw no resourses (you need resourses to build your mechs). Maybe we can say that they can mulligan if they draw no characters. Also, you would have to reveal your hand to prove that you only have enhancements (which would, for the most part, show your opponent your deck's power). Of course, I do agree with leaving all ls out if you do a mulligan
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 03, 2010, 11:22:33 AM
Don't know if its been mentioned but we could but a restriction on when you can mulligan.
Previous discussions about mulligans have all inlcuded clauses. I don't play MTG, so I don't know about how mulligans are restricted there, but in Pokemon you are allowed to re-draw if you do not have a Basic Pokemon. This is a necessary requirement, so it is a bit different than Redemption, but the idea is the same. In Pokemon, if you do not have the Basic, then you show your hand, re-draw, and your opponent draws a card. Drawing one card in Pokemon is huge, since you only draw one card per turn. In Redemption, that would be equivalent to drawing three cards.
I would agree that if a mulligan in Redemption is considered, that there would have to be four main components:
1. The player using the mulligan would have to not have specific types of cards (like Ironica's idea of no characters). 2. Any Lost Souls would have to be put into play and remain. 3. The player would have to reveal their hand. 4. The opponent should be able to draw up to three additional cards (perhaps "may draw").
The fourth component would be awkward in multiplayer, especially if more than one player mulligans. However, I'm sure we can come up with some sort of "penalty" for taking a mulligan.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: TheHobbit13 on July 03, 2010, 11:55:14 AM
uh, isnt that the point, to mulligan away horrible hands, despite the experience of the player? we're trying to cut down on the luck factor associated with card games in general. even between 2 top tier decks with both players playing their full potential, the game usually goes to the person who drew better, and thats not exactly fair. mulligans help even up the odds.
Most of the luck in Redemption comes from how your deck draws l8ter though, unless you get a terrible hand. In any case there has to be some consequence for running a small defense or playing with less characters.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: disciple_drew on July 03, 2010, 11:58:48 AM
Don't know if its been mentioned but we could but a restriction on when you can mulligan.
Previous discussions about mulligans have all inlcuded clauses. I don't play MTG, so I don't know about how mulligans are restricted there, but in Pokemon you are allowed to re-draw if you do not have a Basic Pokemon. This is a necessary requirement, so it is a bit different than Redemption, but the idea is the same. In Pokemon, if you do not have the Basic, then you show your hand, re-draw, and your opponent draws a card. Drawing one card in Pokemon is huge, since you only draw one card per turn. In Redemption, that would be equivalent to drawing three cards.
I would agree that if a mulligan in Redemption is considered, that there would have to be four main components:
1. The player using the mulligan would have to not have specific types of cards (like Ironica's idea of no characters). 2. Any Lost Souls would have to be put into play and remain. 3. The player would have to reveal their hand. 4. The opponent should be able to draw up to three additional cards (perhaps "may draw").
The fourth component would be awkward in multiplayer, especially if more than one player mulligans. However, I'm sure we can come up with some sort of "penalty" for taking a mulligan.
I used to play MTG for many years. In MTG there were 2 types of Mulligans. There was a "mulligan" where you could redraw 7 cards only under the condition if you either have "all lands or no lands". In pokemon an energy card might be equal to MTG's land cards.
Then there was something called a paris which was tournament legal. Simply you just shuffle the hand into the deck and draw 1 card less and the player could keep doing that as often as they like but each time they do it they get addtional card less. Make sense?
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: EmJayBee83 on July 03, 2010, 12:01:40 PM
uh, isnt that the point, to mulligan away horrible hands, despite the experience of the player? we're trying to cut down on the luck factor associated with card games in general. even between 2 top tier decks with both players playing their full potential, the game usually goes to the person who drew better, and thats not exactly fair. mulligans help even up the odds.
Thank you for agreeing to the exact point I (and Hobbit13) was trying to make to YMT. Mulligans will (in general) hurt newer players more than it will help them.
Who said that the more experienced players even get to use the mulligan?
I wasn't aware we were talking about rules that would only apply to one player in a game. That strikes me as a horrible road to start going down.
Quote
Mulligans would definitely help these new players who probably aren't able to play Redemption in it's entirety quite yet.
I agree that if you only allows one player in a game to mulligan, than mulligans would help that player. If you have the rule apply to everyone, however, I stand by the claim I made earlier that mulligans would preferentially benefit more experienced players.
Oh well, I am off on vacation. I will see all y'all in a week.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: Master KChief on July 03, 2010, 12:44:40 PM
Thank you for agreeing to the exact point I (and Hobbit13) was trying to make to YMT. Mulligans will (in general) hurt newer players more than it will help them.
actually, i didnt. im saying mulligans help everyone out. its designed to cut the bad luck out of every opening hand situation, despite the players skill. the players calibur at redemption is really besides the point. if we wanted everything to be fair, we would be shipping full sets of the main 11 doms to all redemption n00bs in the world. however, ymt is correct. mulligans would help beginners more than experienced players: beginners are more apt to build decks 'incorrectly', per se, so the chance to redraw benefits them greatly. most experienced players design their decks to be playable with virtually any opening hand, so in very few cases will a mulligan be necessary.
a brief history of mulligans:
the first mulligan was the mtg mulligan. if a player had 0 or 7 lands, they could reveal their hand, shuffle hand into deck, and redraw their hand. this could only be done once though. however, this mulligan is no longer employed. the current official mtg mulligan is the 'paris mulligan'. for whatever reason and as many times as desired at the beginning of the game, a player may shuffle their hand into deck and redraw their hand minus one card.
the pokemon mulligan is as ymt described. however, its a necessary function, as the mechanics of the game rely on both players to have a basic pokemon in play.
universal fighting system ccg uses a mulligan where if a player does not want their opening hand, they are allowed to remove all cards in hand from the game and redraw their hand.
personally im split on either the 'no resource (mtg style)' mulligan or the 'paris mulligan'. the paris mulligan would be ideal, but to equate each hand to less a draw for redemption, that would be less 3 cards every mulligan, and perhaps that is too much. i would probably make it 2 every time it is utilized. i also like where if you have no resource (character for redemption) in hand, you may reveal, shuffle, and redraw. however, there is no cost associated with it, which a mulligan should have to be fair.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 03, 2010, 01:49:42 PM
Mulligans will (in general) hurt newer players more than it will help them.
I continue to disagree, so we will have to agree to disagree (is that phrase becoming as old to everyone else as it is to me?). Beyond the competitive advantage, I think mulligans would be better for newer players because a better starting hand will give them the illusion that they are doing better. This will make them happier and have more fun. A miserable opening draw for a beginner just means that they will lose annoyingly. It is entirely possible to lose enjoyably (especially if you play Josh Kopp).
Who said that the more experienced players even get to use the mulligan?
I wasn't aware we were talking about rules that would only apply to one player in a game. That strikes me as a horrible road to start going down.
Quote
Mulligans would definitely help these new players who probably aren't able to play Redemption in it's entirety quite yet.
I agree that if you only allows one player in a game to mulligan, than mulligans would help that player. If you have the rule apply to everyone, however, I stand by the claim I made earlier that mulligans would preferentially benefit more experienced players.
Oh well, I am off on vacation. I will see all y'all in a week. [/quote]
I should have made myself more clear, I meant that the more experienced player would be less likely to need to mulligan, but it would be more beneficial to the newer players to be able to at least start out somewhat decently. I became quite frustrated when I would have a terrible draw and end up losing becuase the cards I needed were in the next draw. If the new players have a better starting hand, they will be more likely to keep playing than if they draw a crap hand and think from the beginning "Aw great, I'm playing a good opponent and I drew a bad hand. I'm probably gonna lose this match."
I do, however, agree on a penalty. I don't really want to make a decision on whawt that should be until I am presented with clear-cut choices.
Title: Re: Mulligan
Post by: SomeKittens on July 03, 2010, 07:38:29 PM
I like the idea of a -2 per Paris style mulligan. I do believe they'll help newer players.