Mulligan ponderings

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Mordakai wrote: - You draw 8 cards:
--- like them? ok, keep them.
--- hate them? ok, shuffle them on the play deck (don't show them to opponent), and draw 6. No more changes allowed.

Yes more gaming scenes use that "redraw fewer cards" as a balancing mechanism. Doing the roll (to see who goes first) before or after the mulligan does influence much in the decision. In your experience, do people mulligan a lot? Seems to me your starting hand would have to be rather crappy to do it.

btw. the Hamburgers (scenario game) play with the rule "win toss and decide: choose avatar or go first" (or go second if you prefer, which most do). This of course in a hero (Wizard) only setting. Whether this is before or after drawing starting hand I don't know.

[Mordakai]

I've played about... 50 games with mulligan or so, and the rule is welcomed among the community. No mulligan fron any player is quite uncommon, I think. In most games, at least one of the players uses mulligan. Forcing the dice roll after that decission it's the key to balance its use. If you draw a full-hazards hand and you already know your opponent will start, then you will probably keep the cards. If you are uncertain, you will probably mulligan (which is the aim of the rule, trying to avoid unbalanced starting hands, not making easier to draw the perfect hand).

[Theo]

It seems nice in simplicity. It lacks anything to offer players that get two unlucky hands. I also don't like how it might skew character pool strategies or fishing for a character in opening hand to encourage, e.g., planning to leave behind a squatter first turn to draw back up to a full hand, or other player tactics involving m/h order to refresh your hand or take advantage of hazard opponent having a lower hand for only the first m/h phase.

Further, I don't understand why you would want to encourage players to mulligan a usable hand because they don't yet know whether they are going first or second. That is, how is choosing not to use the mulligan upsetting its use?

Anyway, if the goal is only to avoid unbalanced hands, I would instead suggest drawing initial hands from a more controlled distribution of the deck, something like 8 of the 16 cards made from shuffling 5 random resources, 5 random hazards, 1 random character, and 5 random cards from the rest of deck after shuffling. But of course balance isn't the only use that your version offers.

[Theo]

One can't make any reliable calculations about the impact of playing the avatar in same-avatar games, as that is a qualitative factor. Even if I'm the 2nd player, I got a 99% chance of playing my avatar if he is Saruman

Moreover, we're losing sight of what we're discussing here. We talk about the reasonings for designing this mulligan in the DC setting.

I did not think that was what we were discussing. Perhaps such discussion should be moved to the DC subforum.

Your entrance into this topic was:

A general mulligan benefits the toss-winning player way too much with respect to playing his avatar. This is HUGE, especially in games where both players intend to play the same avatar, and HUGER when they have no alternative to that avatar (i.e. Fallen-wizard and Balrog players). Advantage of playing the avatar instead of opponent is much more significant than having an early MP resource to play.

My basis point for these calculations is that if one can show minimal disruption to the chance of being able to play when both players have access to the same mulligan rules, the actual impact of playing needn't be determined to assess minimal disruptions to the deckbuilding and game play, as far as one player being advantaged over the other.

[Theo]

I also don't like how it might skew character pool strategies or fishing for a character in opening hand to encourage, e.g., planning to leave behind a squatter first turn to draw back up to a full hand, or other player tactics involving m/h order to refresh your hand or take advantage of hazard opponent having a lower hand for only the first m/h phase.

I had my first games with the CdR mulligan rule, and I found this to be an especially valid concern. An opponent limited to 6 cards for only 1 m/h phase seemed almost inconsequential compared to the potential fishing advantage. My deck was designed to not need this kind of fishing, so I felt like I was missing out, and so I would expect that this would have a noticeable impact on deck construction.

We feel that having a hand of 6 is not really a problem, as you will refill it pretty quickly. It has been used in the last 5-6 tournaments, with great acceptance from the players.

Is there any motivation other than simplicity for the impact going away after only one reconcile? That is, why would you want a discretionary mulligan to not be a problem?