Ban the London Mulligan

Previously: On The London Mulligan

Oko, Thief of Crowns is a highly messed up Magic card and needs to be banned in Standard. On that we can all agree. Throne of Eldraine contains many other messed up Magic cards. Some of them, like Once Upon a Time, Wicked Wolf and Gilded Goose, are not getting the appreciation they deserve because Oko, Thief of Crowns is stealing the spotlight. If all of those cards are Standard legal when they rotate out, I will be quite surprised. Then there are Fires of Invention, Caldron Familiar / Witch’s Oven, Embercleave, Emry, Lurker of the Lock. Then there’s Feasting Troll King, Questing Beast, Bonecrusher Giant, Lovestruck Beast, Edgewall Inkeeper and the list goes on. And yes, it has a lot of green in it. There are also messed up Magic cards one can choose from previous sets, although the density of them is far lower.

You are not going to succeed in Standard, for a long time, no matter what is banned, without building around at least one messed up Magic card from Throne of Eldraine. If design does not make large adjustments, and likely even if they do, every good Standard deck for a long time is going to have a key messed up Magic card.

Even more than a single messed up Magic card, these decks have central play patterns. Gilded Goose into Oko, Thief of Crowns. Third turn Nissa, Who Shakes the World. Fires of Invention into Cavalier of Flame. Witch’s Oven sacrificing Caldron Familiar sacrificing food triggering Trail of Crumbs or Mayhem Devil. Embercleave on my Questing Beast or Rotting Regisaur or knight. First turn Pelt Collector or else your deck doesn’t quite work. Explosive or super efficient adventure or Veteran Loxodon starts. Growth Spiral into Wilderness Reclamation. And so on.

If you get to do these things, a seventh card you had to put on the bottom will not be overly missed. If you don’t get these things, an extra card will not much matter.

Thus, the first player is forced to mulligan hands that look perfectly good, but which cannot pull off their key play pattern. Decks get designed with a key consideration being what you can and cannot keep as an opening hand. The deck I would have run at Mythic Championship V, Elk Blade, keeps no configuration of cards that lacks Arboreal Grazer, Gilded Goose or Once Upon a Time against an unknown opponent, even at six cards. Because once you see that such hands are going to be bad no matter what, why build your deck to make them 25% to win rather than 10%, given you’re not going to keep them anyway?

Then the second player has an even more stark choice. If the opponent kept seven, they probably have their central play pattern. What are you going to do about it? You’re already behind because you’re going second. You can ill afford to go second, face a hand of seven, and not have a Gilded Goose. So you mulligan even more. If the opponent goes to six, they still likely have their central pattern, and now that they’re down a card. Answering that becomes what the game will be all about. Or they’ll miss, and there won’t be a game.

Thus, we have lots of mulligans to find key play patterns.

Every game looks the same. Both players do their thing, or else one player fails to do it, is likely also down cards, and never has a chance. Lots of time is spent shuffling, and going through the same motions over and over again.

Once Upon a Time makes all this even worse and made it easier to see, but the problem would persist without it.

Decks that rely on a critical mass of cards rather than a central pattern are at a disadvantage two ways. They don’t get the free wins off their messed up starts, and they suffer far more when forced to send their hands back.

Online on Magic Arena, one tires of playing the same games over and over again, but speeding up the operations, especially shuffling, makes it a lot more palatable. Playing in person, the ratio of dead time to interesting Magic is devastatingly poor. I dropped from the Grand Prix, despite still having a good shot at cashing, because I really, really didn’t want to keep playing Standard.

Food decks are actually less bad than they might otherwise be and relatively good compared to some other decks, because they have multiple such play patterns. Sometimes they’re about Nissa, Who Shakes the World or even Wicked Wolf rather than Oko, Thief of Crowns, and because we have strong hate cards like Noxious Grasp and Aether Gust that allow mirror games to be more dynamic and less lopsided or repetitive than one would otherwise expect. In an important sense, we are currently quite fortunate. The food mirror is a luxurious tapestry compared to a Fires of Invention, adventure or sacrifice mirror.

As I warned in my previous analysis, On the London Mulligan, this is not about one deck getting such a big advantage that it dominates. It is about the pernicious effect on play patterns and deck designs across the spectrum, whether the format is balanced or otherwise. Once enough cards are banned, presumably a variety of decks will focus on a variety of messed up Magic cards. But as long as they are still all using the London Mulligan to find them, the problem will continue.

Magic is great because it continuously presents unique situations to its players. Decks and players are forced to be flexible and roll with the punches, to plan for not having access to their key cards. When instead decks and players are rewarded for relying on their central repetitive play patterns, because fallback sequences would lose anyway, Magic loses much of its appeal.

This effect will only grow as players fully appreciate the new world they live in, and learn how to mulligan effectively, and then how to build decks based on those mulligan decisions by both themselves and others. Again, Gilded Goose aside, traditional Oko, Thief of Crowns decks are in many ways relatively good at having alternative patterns that are competitive with the primary one, and providing life totals that allow time to recover if you can avoid too big a snowball on the board.

I won’t discuss here whether we should be banning other cards along with Oko, Thief of Crowns. I would ban at least one additional green card now rather than later, but I am not super confident that I am correct. There is a reasonable case to be made both for and against additional bans.

What we do need to ban, in addition to Oko, Thief of Crowns, is the London Mulligan. We must return to the Vancouver Mulligan for traditional constructed play. If we are willing to bear the complexity cost of having distinct mulligan rules, I am willing to allow the London Mulligan to remain in limited and even in formats like brawl and commander. In Standard, Pioneer, Modern, Legacy and Vintage, we must act. If we do not, these problems likely only get worse over time, no matter how many cards we choose to ban.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Ban the London Mulligan

  1. stellarjedi says:

    Having played many non-interactive games until the London Mulligan I don’t want it banned.

  2. Leftfield_13 says:

    I want to emphasize this sentence:

    “If we are willing to bear the complexity cost of having distinct mulligan rules, I am willing to allow the London Mulligan to remain in limited and even in formats like brawl and commander. In Standard, Pioneer, Modern, Legacy and Vintage, we must act.”

    In Limited, Brawl, and Commander, you usually have one copy of each nonbasic land card. It’s impossible to abuse the London mulligan because fishing for one card has a tremendous cost. In the other formats, the consistency increase by putting up to four copies of one card is what makes the strategy exploitable. Food, Whirza, Hogaak, Tron: it’s easy to chalk up the tournament success of these decks to cards being absurdly powerful, but let’s not forget that the London Mulligan enables these strategies to thrive with an increased consistency.

    • Silver_Swift says:

      This suggest an alternative option: instead of decreasing consistency by repealing the London mulligan, why not limit decks to three copies of each card?

      • hnau says:

        That’s been my pet proposal for a while now, but it faces an uphill battle because of market / collector / card-value / WotC-money-printing concerns. Also, I’m not sure it really solves the problem.
        Synergy-based decks are going to generally be high-variance. High-variance decks are going to lead to non-interactive games no matter how you calibrate the variance-reducing power of mulligans. With weak mulligans they often don’t get to play. With strong mulligans they often execute powerful, repetitive play patterns the way Zvi describes.
        And I say this as someone who loves synergy-centric card design, not generically powerful nonsense like Questing Beast (especially at mythic). IMO the real answer is to design sets with a flatter power-level curve across the board, synergy or no. But that makes sets harder for WotC to balance. (It also makes it harder for them to print money.)

  3. Pingback: Solutions to the Mulligan Problem – Reasons Past

  4. Pingback: On the London Mulligan – Hareeb's Hangout

  5. Pingback: Three on Two: Temur Walkers, Elk Blade, Goblin Blade and Dino Blade | Don't Worry About the Vase

  6. Pingback: Should the London Mulligan Be Banned? - Modern Nexus

  7. Pingback: This Week in Magic - ChannelFireball - Magic: The Gathering Strategy, Singles, Cards, Decks

  8. Quixote says:

    This doesn’t address the core of the post, but having take a few years off from the game I’m surprised at the cards you described as messed up magic cards. I googled the card names and read them and none of them seems on a par with Tarmogoyf, or Jace, or Forbid, or even blood braid elf. And all of those cards existed in fun formats. And the plans described also don’t seem to be on the strong side of synergy plans like bitter blossom into sprite into cryptic; or pup into burn into more burn into sac two mountains, or ravager plus artifacts.

    Is it really just the London Mulligan that makes these seem like messed up cards? Or do you think that these cards really are messed up on an individual basis?

  9. Jakub says:

    I wonder if there were no come into play untapped dual lands available at all (in Standard at least) would that change things. Where the only way to have a 3cmc turn 2 is to go monogreen, and generally limiting the curve of all the other decks

  10. Pingback: Living in London – Charting a Course

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s