Show enemy's deck colours before Mulligan

[GuudBooi]

There is no way of knowing which deck the enemy is playing before either a land is put down, and while going first is already an advantage the absence of knowing which deck the enemy is playing favours certain strategies more than others especially in the mulligan phase.

Legends of Runeterra shows the region an enemy is playing and the champion, so if you are control you can at least perceive if you are facing an aggro deck or a control and try to at least mulligan properly based on it.
A deck that can at least try to counter an aggro deck without this feature can't mulligan properly and therefore it's put in an already bigger disadvantage.

You can already try to do this somewhat by trying to see enemy Avatar and Sleeve cause usually people tend to pair cosmetic to the theme of the deck so you can somewhat perceive your opponent deck already but in this way it is simply bad compared to a properly inside the system method.

[Gilga ™ |Yonaguni|]

God no, its a bad idea.

[GoddessofEternity]

No

[GuudBooi]

Originally posted by Gilga ™ |Yonaguni|:

God no, its a bad idea.

:gilga:

How it's a bad idea ?
Going first is already an advantage, aggro deck are instrically what card games tend to go to at some point always during a meta, now aggro is even favoured because there is no way to know when you are facing it so you gain an added intrinsically buff.
Even in Heartsthone you could know what deck you were potentially facing by taking into consideration enemy's class.

[mathieuld]

Originally posted by GuudBooi:

There is no way of knowing which deck the enemy is playing before either a land is put down, and while going first is already an advantage the absence of knowing which deck the enemy is playing favours certain strategies more than others especially in the mulligan phase.

Legends of Runeterra shows the region an enemy is playing and the champion, so if you are control you can at least perceive if you are facing an aggro deck or a control and try to at least mulligan properly based on it.
A deck that can at least try to counter an aggro deck without this feature can't mulligan properly and therefore it's put in an already bigger disadvantage.

You can already try to do this somewhat by trying to see enemy Avatar and Sleeve cause usually people tend to pair cosmetic to the theme of the deck so you can somewhat perceive your opponent deck already but in this way it is simply bad compared to a properly inside the system method.

play brawl game youl know right away

[GuudBooi]

Originally posted by mathieuld:

Originally posted by GuudBooi:

There is no way of knowing which deck the enemy is playing before either a land is put down, and while going first is already an advantage the absence of knowing which deck the enemy is playing favours certain strategies more than others especially in the mulligan phase.

Legends of Runeterra shows the region an enemy is playing and the champion, so if you are control you can at least perceive if you are facing an aggro deck or a control and try to at least mulligan properly based on it.
A deck that can at least try to counter an aggro deck without this feature can't mulligan properly and therefore it's put in an already bigger disadvantage.

You can already try to do this somewhat by trying to see enemy Avatar and Sleeve cause usually people tend to pair cosmetic to the theme of the deck so you can somewhat perceive your opponent deck already but in this way it is simply bad compared to a properly inside the system method.

play brawl game youl know right away

I guess you mean that because you can see the commander ?

What I am trying to say is that generally from what I know and from the many card games i have played this is usually one of the most normal implementation in a card game both for trying to fix going first advance and because at the same time making going aggro a bit better without compromising their playstyle but only helping counterplaying making it just healthier in general.

I am not complaining for the sake of complaining, but I can t find no reason to not have this in general in every mode in a card game when it is proven that there is already a systematic buff to certain mechanics ( going first and aggro ) in card games because of the way they are structured,and this is a method added in every card game I played and is generally more healthier to the play state.

Aggro decks since they play as they play, they are forced to play the game as always generall with fast early no matter the enemy meanwhile control and midrange suffers heavily from it especially when facing aggro without a proper mulligan

So what I am questioning is why someone should be against it ?

[Malvastor]

There's really no compelling reason to show you the opponent's deck colors before the first card is played. Part of the game is you don't know that until play starts. The goal of a mulligan should be to try for a hand that lets you get your deck going as best as possible.

[GuudBooi]

Originally posted by Malvastor:

There's really no compelling reason to show you the opponent's deck colors before the first card is played. Part of the game is you don't know that until play starts. The goal of a mulligan should be to try for a hand that lets you get your deck going as best as possible.

The surprise effect is generally something that helps much more aggro than any other deck type.

I am new to Magic but I can't understand why this concept would not apply to this game, when it applies itself to every other game that has a "same-ish" system.
In legends of runettera when you face aggro you try to mulligan for removals, while if you are against control as a control you can favour a better hand that favours your important plays that makes your game win, cause lacking removals vs aggro as control means being unable to properly move to the point of the game where you actually gain the advantage becoming overwhelmed.
Instead getting removals in a control/control matchup in certain aspect is useless and becomes a wasted card for a certain period of time.

Card draw and generation in magic seems much more lower and hard to come by in comparison with other games, so a precise starting hand has even bigger consequences in this game than the other similiar card games where you can try to access your tools with other cards.
Therefore starting with a proper hand that let you actually take care of the threat you are facing is much more important, but in absence of a proper way to know which deck the enemy is playing you resort to either have " an okay all around starting hand" than potentially try a mulligan to get the best hand for the specific situation and have better chances of surviving.

These are strategic decision themselves which magic lack in this regard, because while being a very solid interactive game with back and forth, in mulligan phase you have no interaction and are forced to open with a "solitaire" hand ( the best optimal well around starting hand, which may put you in a disadvantage in certain matchup were possibly opening with different card to face specific challenge could help)

This phenomenon intrinsically favours aggro cause in early game aggro plays for the early no matter what, and his starting hand already is the hand best optimal for his win condition, meanwhile other deck types may not reach their win condition at all cause their hand is only shoehorned in an sub optimal best case scenario, instead of a scenario where they try to circumvent the enemy win condition until their win condition starts.

Basically aggro has a "shadowed" buff simply because it uses an absence of a rule of a game that doesn't take into account the limits of balance of each subclasses of decks.

Take into account that mulligan in mtga comes already at a big price instead of other card games and the reason seems odd.
Is there something i am not getting that makes Magic different than other card games and that doesn't make it suffer from the same situation of other card games?

Maybe now that i think about it, it is because in magic you cannot mulligan singular cards but you are forced to mulligan your whole hand while also sacrificing cards that makes mulligan more like a extreme instrument that goes actively against the player but used when extremely necessary than helping him facing the matchup and this does not address the argument of the unbalancement with opening hands, instead it is not only ignored but actively worsened.

Cause in other card games you can mulligan specific cards from your opening hand only one time, without losing cards meanwhile magic disenincentivize players to mulligan which in itself buffs aggro as a whole and actively danger mid range and control.

Why is there no singular card mulligan in Magic ?

And also I think the fact it doesn't show colours is because magic was born from a real card game, therefore knowing someone s deck colour unless decleared was not really or ever a rule or the usual, but in a digital format it feels like a total necessity for game balance and in digitale it is easy to implement than forcing it in real life.

[Malvastor]

Originally posted by GuudBooi:

Originally posted by Malvastor:

There's really no compelling reason to show you the opponent's deck colors before the first card is played. Part of the game is you don't know that until play starts. The goal of a mulligan should be to try for a hand that lets you get your deck going as best as possible.

The surprise effect is generally something that helps much more aggro than any other deck type.

I am new to Magic but I can't understand why this concept would not apply to this game, when it applies itself to every other game that has a "same-ish" system.
In legends of runettera when you face aggro you try to mulligan for removals, while if you are against control as a control you can favour a better hand that favours your important plays that makes your game win, cause lacking removals vs aggro as control means being unable to properly move to the point of the game where you actually gain the advantage becoming overwhelmed.
Instead getting removals in a control/control matchup in certain aspect is useless and becomes a wasted card for a certain period of time.

Card draw and generation in magic seems much more lower and hard to come by in comparison with other games, so a precise starting hand has even bigger consequences in this game than the other similiar card games where you can try to access your tools with other cards.
Therefore starting with a proper hand that let you actually take care of the threat you are facing is much more important, but in absence of a proper way to know which deck the enemy is playing you resort to either have " an okay all around starting hand" than potentially try a mulligan to get the best hand for the specific situation and have better chances of surviving.

These are strategic decision themselves which magic lack in this regard, because while being a very solid interactive game with back and forth, in mulligan phase you have no interaction and are forced to open with a "solitaire" hand ( the best optimal well around starting hand, which may put you in a disadvantage in certain matchup were possibly opening with different card to face specific challenge could help)

This phenomenon intrinsically favours aggro cause in early game aggro plays for the early no matter what, and his starting hand already is the hand best optimal for his win condition, meanwhile other deck types may not reach their win condition at all cause their hand is only shoehorned in an sub optimal best case scenario, instead of a scenario where they try to circumvent the enemy win condition until their win condition starts.

Basically aggro has a "shadowed" buff simply because it uses an absence of a rule of a game that doesn't take into account the limits of balance of each subclasses of decks.

Take into account that mulligan in mtga comes already at a big price instead of other card games and the reason seems odd.
Is there something i am not getting that makes Magic different than other card games and that doesn't make it suffer from the same situation of other card games?

Maybe now that i think about it, it is because in magic you cannot mulligan singular cards but you are forced to mulligan your whole hand while also sacrificing cards that makes mulligan more like a extreme instrument that goes actively against the player but used when extremely necessary than helping him facing the matchup and this does not address the argument of the unbalancement with opening hands, instead it is not only ignored but actively worsened.

Cause in other card games you can mulligan specific cards from your opening hand only one time, without losing cards meanwhile magic disenincentivize players to mulligan which in itself buffs aggro as a whole and actively danger mid range and control.

Why is there no singular card mulligan in Magic ?

And also I think the fact it doesn't show colours is because magic was born from a real card game, therefore knowing someone s deck colour unless decleared was not really or ever a rule or the usual, but in a digital format it feels like a total necessity for game balance and in digitale it is easy to implement than forcing it in real life.

Your stance seems to boil down to MTG not giving you options to tailor your opening hand. But that's kinda the game. You don't have much say in what your first draw is. You can mulligan but that may make things worse. So the goal is to construct a deck that has a high chance of giving you a usable opening hand.

Archetypes like RDW go all in on that by filling their deck with very cheap very fast cards so that no matter what they can get off to a running start. The flip side for them is that they burn out fast, and if they haven't won in the first 3-4 turns tend to lose as the opponent build a stronger field while they're stuck praying the next card they draw isn't land. Other decks accept some early-game risk in favor of being more flexible and powerful as the game progresses.

But that kind of deck-building decision-making is the point; build carefully, because by the time you learn what you're facing it's too late. Letting you know what the enemy is running and tailor your opening hand accordingly wouldn't be 'better' balance, it would just be a different game. (Besides, that's what BO3 and the sideboard is for).

[GuudBooi]

Originally posted by Malvastor:

Originally posted by GuudBooi:

The surprise effect is generally something that helps much more aggro than any other deck type.

I am new to Magic but I can't understand why this concept would not apply to this game, when it applies itself to every other game that has a "same-ish" system.
In legends of runettera when you face aggro you try to mulligan for removals, while if you are against control as a control you can favour a better hand that favours your important plays that makes your game win, cause lacking removals vs aggro as control means being unable to properly move to the point of the game where you actually gain the advantage becoming overwhelmed.
Instead getting removals in a control/control matchup in certain aspect is useless and becomes a wasted card for a certain period of time.

Card draw and generation in magic seems much more lower and hard to come by in comparison with other games, so a precise starting hand has even bigger consequences in this game than the other similiar card games where you can try to access your tools with other cards.
Therefore starting with a proper hand that let you actually take care of the threat you are facing is much more important, but in absence of a proper way to know which deck the enemy is playing you resort to either have " an okay all around starting hand" than potentially try a mulligan to get the best hand for the specific situation and have better chances of surviving.

These are strategic decision themselves which magic lack in this regard, because while being a very solid interactive game with back and forth, in mulligan phase you have no interaction and are forced to open with a "solitaire" hand ( the best optimal well around starting hand, which may put you in a disadvantage in certain matchup were possibly opening with different card to face specific challenge could help)

This phenomenon intrinsically favours aggro cause in early game aggro plays for the early no matter what, and his starting hand already is the hand best optimal for his win condition, meanwhile other deck types may not reach their win condition at all cause their hand is only shoehorned in an sub optimal best case scenario, instead of a scenario where they try to circumvent the enemy win condition until their win condition starts.

Basically aggro has a "shadowed" buff simply because it uses an absence of a rule of a game that doesn't take into account the limits of balance of each subclasses of decks.

Take into account that mulligan in mtga comes already at a big price instead of other card games and the reason seems odd.
Is there something i am not getting that makes Magic different than other card games and that doesn't make it suffer from the same situation of other card games?

Maybe now that i think about it, it is because in magic you cannot mulligan singular cards but you are forced to mulligan your whole hand while also sacrificing cards that makes mulligan more like a extreme instrument that goes actively against the player but used when extremely necessary than helping him facing the matchup and this does not address the argument of the unbalancement with opening hands, instead it is not only ignored but actively worsened.

Cause in other card games you can mulligan specific cards from your opening hand only one time, without losing cards meanwhile magic disenincentivize players to mulligan which in itself buffs aggro as a whole and actively danger mid range and control.

Why is there no singular card mulligan in Magic ?

And also I think the fact it doesn't show colours is because magic was born from a real card game, therefore knowing someone s deck colour unless decleared was not really or ever a rule or the usual, but in a digital format it feels like a total necessity for game balance and in digitale it is easy to implement than forcing it in real life.

Your stance seems to boil down to MTG not giving you options to tailor your opening hand. But that's kinda the game. You don't have much say in what your first draw is. You can mulligan but that may make things worse. So the goal is to construct a deck that has a high chance of giving you a usable opening hand.

Archetypes like RDW go all in on that by filling their deck with very cheap very fast cards so that no matter what they can get off to a running start. The flip side for them is that they burn out fast, and if they haven't won in the first 3-4 turns tend to lose as the opponent build a stronger field while they're stuck praying the next card they draw isn't land. Other decks accept some early-game risk in favor of being more flexible and powerful as the game progresses.

But that kind of deck-building decision-making is the point; build carefully, because by the time you learn what you're facing it's too late. Letting you know what the enemy is running and tailor your opening hand accordingly wouldn't be 'better' balance, it would just be a different game. (Besides, that's what BO3 and the sideboard is for).

I understand your point and the fact that these are the rules of MTG but if something is what it is, it doesn't mean it's balanced.

The goal in general in every card game is to have a solid curve with opening hand, this is the default which everbody tends to even in deck building across every game with Mana/Lands.

It is true that aggro burns fast but it is also true that it' s plan is to kill you fast with said fastness, so you in theory are not "supposed" to survive the burn.
Control decks want to go late in general default wise, but they cannot go to the default approach when facing an aggro approach which in generally wants to close games out before Control start to take steam.

In every card game during deck building you build taking into consideration which decks are on the ladder (aggro or control etc...) so your deck is planned to take things into consideration already, but in those other games your mulligan is a way to help also your hand take these things into consideratio, but this consideration in MTGA does not exist and is even ignored.

Mulligan is not used as a tool to engage with the enemy to face him, it is used an extreme case scenario to fix your mana curve or lack of lands generally which generally doesn't fix necessarily the problem of facing specific decks.

In BO3 you can fix it on the source, but there is still no middle channel that helps you ( the mulligan) so as it is BO1 is intrinsically unbalanced and tends to favour aggro matchup who generally tend to have always a playable hand and especially tend to care less sbout enemy's plan, cause they are the biggest aggressor at the start and cannot avoid to interact no matter what but since they have the surprise effect they have to be less afraid of interaction against them, which buffs them since they use the game rules for their own benefit.

In general in BO3 at least both control and aggro can try to fix the deck therefore they both can use it at their advantage, in BO1 aggro is favoured compared to control and others cause they lack hand control ( although I did not play BO3 so idk how much cards you can put it in the sideboard, but it is still a cut to the neck approach who will continue to sfavour other decks aside aggro since they are sfavoured in mulligan) although said unbalance increase for obvious reasons in BO1, but why keep a rule without fixing it that only makes the experience more unbalanced ?

[Malvastor]

Originally posted by GuudBooi:

Originally posted by Malvastor:

Your stance seems to boil down to MTG not giving you options to tailor your opening hand. But that's kinda the game. You don't have much say in what your first draw is. You can mulligan but that may make things worse. So the goal is to construct a deck that has a high chance of giving you a usable opening hand.

Archetypes like RDW go all in on that by filling their deck with very cheap very fast cards so that no matter what they can get off to a running start. The flip side for them is that they burn out fast, and if they haven't won in the first 3-4 turns tend to lose as the opponent build a stronger field while they're stuck praying the next card they draw isn't land. Other decks accept some early-game risk in favor of being more flexible and powerful as the game progresses.

But that kind of deck-building decision-making is the point; build carefully, because by the time you learn what you're facing it's too late. Letting you know what the enemy is running and tailor your opening hand accordingly wouldn't be 'better' balance, it would just be a different game. (Besides, that's what BO3 and the sideboard is for).

I understand your point and the fact that these are the rules of MTG but if something is what it is, it doesn't mean it's balanced.

I would argue it largely is balanced. Nobody gets to know what they're heading into; while that might be a positive for an aggro player, it's balanced out by the narrow window they have to win in.

And of course having something that can come out early and block attacks is just good policy whether or not you know the other player is running aggro.

Originally posted by GuudBooi:

The goal in general in every card game is to have a solid curve with opening hand, this is the default which everbody tends to even in deck building across every game with Mana/Lands.

It is true that aggro burns fast but it is also true that it' s plan is to kill you fast with said fastness, so you in theory are not "supposed" to survive the burn.
Control decks want to go late in general default wise, but they cannot go to the default approach when facing an aggro approach which in generally wants to close games out before Control start to take steam.

In every card game during deck building you build taking into consideration which decks are on the ladder (aggro or control etc...) so your deck is planned to take things into consideration already, but in those other games your mulligan is a way to help also your hand take these things into consideratio, but this consideration in MTGA does not exist and is even ignored.

Mulligan is not used as a tool to engage with the enemy to face him, it is used an extreme case scenario to fix your mana curve or lack of lands generally which generally doesn't fix necessarily the problem of facing specific decks.

I mean... you kinda say it right there. Mulligan is an extreme "this hand isn't playable" option, not a general "I want to counter this strategy" fix. I don't really see that as a flaw.

Originally posted by GuudBooi:

In BO3 you can fix it on the source, but there is still no middle channel that helps you ( the mulligan) so as it is BO1 is intrinsically unbalanced and tends to favour aggro matchup who generally tend to have always a playable hand and especially tend to care less sbout enemy's plan, cause they are the biggest aggressor at the start and cannot avoid to interact no matter what but since they have the surprise effect they have to be less afraid of interaction against them, which buffs them since they use the game rules for their own benefit.

In general in BO3 at least both control and aggro can try to fix the deck therefore they both can use it at their advantage, in BO1 aggro is favoured compared to control and others cause they lack hand control ( although I did not play BO3 so idk how much cards you can put it in the sideboard, but it is still a cut to the neck approach who will continue to sfavour other decks aside aggro since they are sfavoured in mulligan) although said unbalance increase for obvious reasons in BO1, but why keep a rule without fixing it that only makes the experience more unbalanced ?

Because it's not likely that it's actually measurably unbalancing things.

[GuudBooi]

Originally posted by Malvastor:

Originally posted by GuudBooi:

I understand your point and the fact that these are the rules of MTG but if something is what it is, it doesn't mean it's balanced.

I would argue it largely is balanced. Nobody gets to know what they're heading into; while that might be a positive for an aggro player, it's balanced out by the narrow window they have to win in.

And of course having something that can come out early and block attacks is just good policy whether or not you know the other player is running aggro.

Originally posted by GuudBooi:

The goal in general in every card game is to have a solid curve with opening hand, this is the default which everbody tends to even in deck building across every game with Mana/Lands.

It is true that aggro burns fast but it is also true that it' s plan is to kill you fast with said fastness, so you in theory are not "supposed" to survive the burn.
Control decks want to go late in general default wise, but they cannot go to the default approach when facing an aggro approach which in generally wants to close games out before Control start to take steam.

In every card game during deck building you build taking into consideration which decks are on the ladder (aggro or control etc...) so your deck is planned to take things into consideration already, but in those other games your mulligan is a way to help also your hand take these things into consideratio, but this consideration in MTGA does not exist and is even ignored.

Mulligan is not used as a tool to engage with the enemy to face him, it is used an extreme case scenario to fix your mana curve or lack of lands generally which generally doesn't fix necessarily the problem of facing specific decks.

I mean... you kinda say it right there. Mulligan is an extreme "this hand isn't playable" option, not a general "I want to counter this strategy" fix. I don't really see that as a flaw.

Originally posted by GuudBooi:

In BO3 you can fix it on the source, but there is still no middle channel that helps you ( the mulligan) so as it is BO1 is intrinsically unbalanced and tends to favour aggro matchup who generally tend to have always a playable hand and especially tend to care less sbout enemy's plan, cause they are the biggest aggressor at the start and cannot avoid to interact no matter what but since they have the surprise effect they have to be less afraid of interaction against them, which buffs them since they use the game rules for their own benefit.

In general in BO3 at least both control and aggro can try to fix the deck therefore they both can use it at their advantage, in BO1 aggro is favoured compared to control and others cause they lack hand control ( although I did not play BO3 so idk how much cards you can put it in the sideboard, but it is still a cut to the neck approach who will continue to sfavour other decks aside aggro since they are sfavoured in mulligan) although said unbalance increase for obvious reasons in BO1, but why keep a rule without fixing it that only makes the experience more unbalanced ?

Because it's not likely that it's actually measurably unbalancing things.

But the narrow way to win is something part of the whole win condition of aggro, it is something they intrinsically suffer not an added negative,it s their natural expiration date meanwhile for control is the opposite and as you say aggro has the positive on this meanwhile control doesn't have it while it still has it s expiration date and intrinsical negative which is having a narrow way of survival in early but at the same time, and instead of aggro, it has no positive that helps him in this regard (meanwhile aggro does have it)

Mulligan in this way is inherently flawed ( not saying MTG is a bad card game, cause i am liking it so far, but i am only saying this system and it' s implementation is inherently flawed in it's own existence) because of said reason above, since the added net positive element of aggro caused by "surprise factor" can be fixed by imagining mulligan differently and take into consideration that this will not change much how aggro can still push win consistently because this is added in every other card game and aggro is still fine but control and mid range have more of a fighting chance.

The win condition (aggro needing to win early) and (control needing to win late) and both negatives (aggro lose steam) (control has low chance of survival) should be as they are but with this method they both keep those two things, but now aggro has even the added surprise effect (which is a thing added) meanwhile control has nothing.

Their extremes should be put more closely that s why a different method which consists in knowing enemy colours and a different mulligan helps, cause control will always suffer early game but now has a way to better prevent it and aggro still tries to win early but cannot use lack of game info to promote it s playstyle.

Mulligan in other card games is not as it is for MTG and i get it that this is how mulligan works here, but this type of mulligan not only disincentivize the player to use it (which i understand it s the intention, and it's cool, but it doesn't suit the whole balance system of control/aggro/midrange, but pushes abd fight back some of those) infact it also put control at disadvantage cause not only for said reasons above but also because it is more possible for control to have higher cost cards than aggro, so a full hand mulligan instead of single helps aggro more than control cause with control you can still struggle with potentially higher cost cards and so losing resources early by default. (while also losing a card).

[mwesthoff]

Another, "I have a skill issue" thread?

[Tom the Mime Artist]

Even if it was a good idea, which I don't think it is, it breaks down really quickly. If it provides a meaningful advantage? Aggro decks start running a single copy of leyline of the guildpact to mask the fact they're mono red aggro or boros aggro. One card in 60 isn't a massive deal there, and even less if the colour identity counts the sideboard (which you still have in Bo1 for wish effects). If you count it by the mana lands you have can produce then it breaks down as soon as you leave standard with cards like mana confluence tapping for all colours masking the colour identity and aggro decks not caring about mana confluence pinging you for one. If it gives a full colour breakdown of a deck, that would give your opponent far too much information.

It gets even worse in paper because you can confirm they don't play anything outside their stated identity easily but not that they have a card of each colour they state without a more complete deck reveal which is both clunky and bad if you don't play Bo1 (and most competitive formats are Bo3). So it'd just be making sure you don't play anything outside the stated identity so everyone says WUBRG as there's no cost to it and gives nothing away.

[GuudBooi]

Originally posted by Tom the Mime Artist:

Even if it was a good idea, which I don't think it is, it breaks down really quickly. If it provides a meaningful advantage? Aggro decks start running a single copy of leyline of the guildpact to mask the fact they're mono red aggro or boros aggro. One card in 60 isn't a massive deal there, and even less if the colour identity counts the sideboard (which you still have in Bo1 for wish effects). If you count it by the mana lands you have can produce then it breaks down as soon as you leave standard with cards like mana confluence tapping for all colours masking the colour identity and aggro decks not caring about mana confluence pinging you for one. If it gives a full colour breakdown of a deck, that would give your opponent far too much information.

It gets even worse in paper because you can confirm they don't play anything outside their stated identity easily but not that they have a card of each colour they state without a more complete deck reveal which is both clunky and bad if you don't play Bo1 (and most competitive formats are Bo3). So it'd just be making sure you don't play anything outside the stated identity so everyone says WUBRG as there's no cost to it and gives nothing away.

To be honest I didn't think about that, i do not think it gives an advantage in the sense that it gives a wrong buff to other decks, i think it balances out already a badly balanced system but I get totally what you mean with how easy to "cheat it out" to deceive it that can be.

I am not used to lands and so on, but I am used to champion in LOR which are like colour based so a deck always has either one or 2 colours so it is naturally impossible to deceive it, but yhea I guess magic lacks the "method" to decipher which colours a deck used cause it was never thought about as a thing.

So I can totally see now the difficulties of it in the current ecosystem, which I didn't think about and i thank you for giving me this other perspective to the problem although I still think that this leaves the game with a problem unresolved and which the game fails to recognize and now seems it lacks the tools to tackle it ( the mulligan is resolvable per se , with singular cards mulligan, but still mulliganing without game knowledge is simply a search for a better curve, which becomes more optimal but leaves out the mulligan for better optomization against the matchup which was the thing i think needed to be resolved in the first place cause without it, there is a natural buff to aggro)

Thank you tho for this insight.

I want to add, now that I remember, that even in LoR you could potentially deceive your opponent by having an aggro champion but then having a not aggro deck, although it was never frequent or that much used.
But the point of showing colours etc... is not necessarily to have the 100% correct info, but having some info on the type of deck you could face ( green has no burn, red has and also tends to be more aggro) etc...

[GuudBooi]

Originally posted by mwesthoff:

Another, "I have a skill issue" thread?

I am not complaining about aggro decks, aggro decks are an important element in card games that balances the ecosystem (as frustrating they may feel sometimes, as other decks aswell) but there are simply "natural buffs" in card games that are inserted in the game itself that are caused by how the game works (going first for example is always a natural advantage in all card games with these systems of mana and lands) and the surprise factor with a proper mulligan, which is different in other card games, is intrinsically another and that was the point of my discussion.