Magic 2014 Steam Presale
I believe that's a "new" rule in Magic (not sure what edition it came in off-hand though).although for some reason it allows for a single free mulligan...
It's not in the comprehensive rules. Or rather, it isn't for duels...I believe that's a "new" rule in Magic (not sure what edition it came in off-hand though).
Comprehensive rules said:103.4. Each player draws a number of cards equal to his or her starting hand size, which is normally seven. (Some effects can modify a player's starting hand size.) A player who is dissatisfied with his or her initial hand may take a mulligan. First, the starting player declares whether or not he or she will take a mulligan. Then each other player in turn order does the same. Once each player has made a declaration, all players who decided to take mulligans do so at the same time. To take a mulligan, a player shuffles his or her hand back into his or her library, then draws a new hand of one fewer cards than he or she had before. If a player kept his or her hand of cards, those cards become the player's opening hand, and that player may not take any further mulligans. This process is then repeated until no player takes a mulligan. (Note that if a player's hand size reaches zero cards, that player must keep that hand.)
Duels of the Planeswalkers treats all games as multiplayer for mulligan purposes.103.4c In a multiplayer game, the first time a player takes a mulligan, he or she draws a new hand of as many cards as he or she had before. Subsequent hands decrease by one card as normal.
the conclusion of the quoting of the rules or stating what Duels says somewhere in its rules? I thought you were meaning the latter but I can see how you might have been doing the former (i.e. Duels gives a free mulligan, the Comprehensive rules say a free mulligan is in MP games, so Duels must treat its games as MP).Duels of the Planeswalkers treats all games as multiplayer for mulligan purposes.
Yeah, basically the former. I'm not saying that's actually the thought process behind having mulligans work that way in DotP, though. It could easily have nothing to do with the comprehensive rules. It could just be that some of the people working on the game wanted players to have a free mulligan because they didn't want the initial mulligan decision-making to be as stressful as it can be in real tournaments.Wait, was your statement the conclusion of the quoting of the rules or stating what Duels says somewhere in its rules? I thought you were meaning the latter but I can see how you might have been doing the former (i.e. Duels gives a free mulligan, the Comprehensive rules say a free mulligan is in MP games, so Duels must treat its games as MP).
Yes. There's online multiplayer, which I haven't tried yet.Can there be MP games in Duels; connect with more than one opponent?
Well, multiplayer was added to the comprehensive rules back in 2004, I think concurrent with the updates for Champions of Kamigawa, but it didn't modify mulliganing back then. I think that change did occur well before the 2009 DotP video game, but I don't know where to find backdated editions of the comprehensive rules to confirm that (other than maybe the wayback machine). Crystal Keep hasn't updated in a while and would be an easy option for that, but they did manage to update in 2009, after the first DotP was released.Since it's in the MP "section", I'm thinking it might have been when the rules were revised/updated with a lot of MP in mind, but again, can't remember when that was edition-wise. If it predated Duels though, that could be why it was in previous releases.
Maybe there was some issue with porting the game for that Android version? I don't really know anything about the subject. Is that limitation typical for games on Android, or is this game an exception?In the Android Version, there is MP with live players only via Bluetooth and I haven't come close to meeting anyone to play this version with... There is also a Custom mode where you can play Free for All in 3 or 4 player games using random decks or assigning them against the tablet. You can also play 2H Giant using random decks or selecting them.
The last game seems like it's almost supposed to be a sort of archenemy deal. You and your partner (who always plays the same deck) get a pool of 30 life, and the opponent gets 40. But it's definitely not the most challenging part of the game.The last game of the campaign is a 2 vs. 1 variant which I enjoy somewhat - though I could probably win it outright without a problem using most of the decks. Not all decks can win all of the campaign without a god draw, but once you beat a deck it is unlocked for all of the decks.
Yeah, if it were something WotC didn't want the game to do, I'd think they would have fixed it in a prior version. My guess is that they wanted it to be easier on newbies.On the Mulligan rule - it is entirely possible the programmers only knew the one Mulligan rule and implemented it for all games. Though I'd wager it was more about wanting to be easy on the newbie.
I've wondered about this, but haven't seen real data on it. I've seen claims that seven or eight proper riffle shuffles effectively randomizes a 60-card deck, but I haven't verified them. In principal, it would be easy to do. All one would need would a deck, a computer, and a lot of time (most of which would be taken up recording the results of the physically shuffled deck).I've always found that 'truly' random doesn't play well for shuffling versus a riffle shuffle for some reason. I didn't usually need to mulligan and ran 33% lands (20 - 60) almost always when I do the just flat out random of online (Excel shuffles), MTG Online when I played in Beta, or DotP, you seem to need more mana to consistently draw enough. I didn't stack my decks or anything, it just seems like a riffle shuffle didn't mana screw me as much.
I remember reading that 7 riffle shuffles do it and it was because someone took the time to use a computer and analyze it, but it really has to be proper; i.e. every card has to alternate. Since most people don't do that but do clumps of cards, it's not as effective (although obviously, the closer the clumps are down to one card, the more random it will be).I've wondered about this, but haven't seen real data on it. I've seen claims that seven or eight proper riffle shuffles effectively randomizes a 60-card deck...