Mulligan

[Forfeit]

It should be 2k to lock, or else people could just lock 3 cards and have them from the start.

But think about this, if you lock thre pilliars, you could still have an all pilliar draw, likewise with creatures, you'd have to be really careful with what to lock. Somecards should be unlockable, if over a certain cost.

[Ryan]

Just to add my thoughts on the second subject here, I really don't like the idea of a "hold card" feature of any kind, especially not based on paying an amount of electrum for it.

Firstly, as pointed out above, it doesn't actually solve the problem outlined in this thread, and secondly (and more importantly, I think), it would be a massive change to the basic premise of the game, which is intrinsically based to some extent on the luck of the draw.

The whole art of deck-building is based on including the right number of cards of each type to allow you the best chances of drawing a hand that matches your intended strategy.  If you can be assured of which cards you're going to draw, that's a completely different system, and whatever arbitrary limits were set for it, it would completely change the nature of the game as it stands.

A simple mulligan rule would more than suffice.

Ryan

[Scaredgirl]

Just to add my thoughts on the second subject here, I really don't like the idea of a "hold card" feature of any kind, especially not based on paying an amount of electrum for it.

Ditto. When I read ideas like paying electrum for "locking" a card, I always have to read it twice to make sure that the person isn't joking.

A simple mulligan rule would more than suffice.

Yep. mulligan is used in majority of CCG's and it works. I don't understand the need to "reinvent the wheel".

1. get a bad hand of 7 cards
2. put all the cards back in the deck
3. shuffle
4. draw 6 cards
5. play

That's all you need. Lets not make it more complicated.

[plastiqe]

It's not rare that you start a round with one or two pillars or pillars only,so the game definitely needs a mulligan button.
(maybe something like in mtg:new starting hand with one less card)

Good idea I like it.

[PuppyChow]

I agree with Mulligan feature, but some seem to be saying it would allow for more strategic deck builds.

If anything, it would only keep the status quo and even things out. It would make bad deck builds (number of cards wise) able to compete with better deck builds consisting of the same cards. On the flip side, it would let good deck builders take into account the mulligan and include less of a certain card needed only in early game.

I have more to say, and from now on I'll use protect artifact in a rainbow deck as an example.

Against seism, you would be able half the number of PAs would have in a deck and still have the same chance at drawing it. This is a problem for me; the whole idea is to decide between possibly hurting yourself against other gods while giving you a better chance against seism. Not the best of both worlds.

The probabilities of drawing your protect artifact against seism, assuming you only have 1, is about 8/40 (assuming 40 card rainbow). Not exactly, since each card increases the chance slightly (1/40, 1/39, 1/38, etc), but basically it is 8/40. Which is equal to 1/5. So about one out of every five draws should include PA.

Now, with mulligan, you in effect have two chances at that 1/5 chance, (ie two draws per), equating to a 2/5 chance (not taking into account one less card). That is a DRASTIC difference. I think that gods should be more about the deck build and calculated risks, not about increasing your win percentage with mulligan.

Basically, I would like to see mulligan as an option for pvp and maybe other Ai, but not be available for gods.

[Forfeit]

Just to add my thoughts on the second subject here, I really don't like the idea of a "hold card" feature of any kind, especially not based on paying an amount of electrum for it.

Firstly, as pointed out above, it doesn't actually solve the problem outlined in this thread, and secondly (and more importantly, I think), it would be a massive change to the basic premise of the game, which is intrinsically based to some extent on the luck of the draw.

The whole art of deck-building is based on including the right number of cards of each type to allow you the best chances of drawing a hand that matches your intended strategy.  If you can be assured of which cards you're going to draw, that's a completely different system, and whatever arbitrary limits were set for it, it would completely change the nature of the game as it stands.

A simple mulligan rule would more than suffice.

Ryan

Actually, agreed... sorry, a 'lock system' was shiney... mulligans is great though, a one time per game limit at the start msybe, where you lose a card for using it.

[Demongod]

No, you lose a card for mulliganing, and that's IT.  No one time limit.  If your six-card draw is bad, go down to five.  And as much as you need to.

[Delreich]

Well, yes, of course only at the start of the game, before any (non-muligan) action is taken.

[Forfeit]

No, you lose a card for mulliganing, and that's IT.  No one time limit.  If your six-card draw is bad, go down to five.  And as much as you need to.

Hmm, I'm agreeing with you the most and going through the idea process and I get capped at for the suggestion of a one time limit. Hmm, how about only during the first turn though?

[Scaredgirl]

No, you lose a card for mulliganing, and that's IT.  No one time limit.  If your six-card draw is bad, go down to five.  And as much as you need to.

Bad idea because it increases downtime. I vote for one time mulligan with one less card. If your second hand sucks also then sucks for you.

[Uncle Jellyfish]

No, you lose a card for mulliganing, and that's IT.  No one time limit.  If your six-card draw is bad, go down to five.  And as much as you need to.

Bad idea because it increases downtime. I vote for one time mulligan with one less card. If your second hand sucks also then sucks for you.

I agree with this, too. A well built deck shouldn't have two bad hands in a row very often.

[bobcamel]

No, really? But how do I get it back from the ceiling, then?

Also, I vote for the unlimited, first-turn mulligans. You'll be losing cards anyway, that's bad enough.