Had enough for a gold QD again and promptly shat the bed with an 0-3. Raredrafting was at least one of the issues, but at least it was somewhat justified - picked up an extra copy each of Benalish Marshal, Steel Leaf Champion, Goblin Chainwhirler, and Isolated Chapel.

As is becoming typical, I was more careful with my gem QD and rebounded with a 7-1. Had a bit of a rough time navigating this draft following P1P1 Eviscerate, as WBRG all looked open at various points. P2P1 was Seal Away to cement me in white. Second color was still between G and B as late as P3 when I P3P1'd Cast Down, but green ended up the forerunner to a black splash. The removal and lategame got me there in the end, and I happily pocketed another Steel Leaf Champion and Woodland Cemetery along the way.

An interesting "Keep or mulligan" hand:

You're on the play with UR Wizards (17 lands: 9 Mountain, 7 Island, 1 Memorial to Genius) against an unknown opponent. Your opponent kept 7 cards, you mulliganed twice. You're looking at a Mountain and four Islands. Keep or mull?

imo keep and it's not close. If you mull to four, how much better a hand can you hope for? Especially with the new mulligan rules, five lands is not abysmal. I remember watching one of Ben Stark's videos and he said that with the new mulligan rule, he'd keep virtually every six-card hand. I suspect he exaggerated somewhat - a 0-lander I'd still mulligan - but I'd also keep a 6-land hand.

EDIT: Finally had enough gold for another draft. Went 4-3. Disappointing overall. I thought I had a pretty good deck but still lost three games. First one was perhaps to a play error although I was already rather behind (next time, do NOT trade just before The Eldest Reborn goes off!). Second game opponent had a really good deck. He played Elfhame Druid on turn 2. If I had drawn my Shivan Fire I'd have killed it, but I didn't. Then he kicks Saproling Migration followed by Verix Bladewing. Dealing with the two halves of Verix Bladewing takes up all my removal, and then opponent lands Song of Freyalise for the win.

The third loss was disappointing too. Opponent was playing a Grizzly Bear aggro deck on the play. Meanwhile my earliest play was on turn 3, with a ramp spell. Turn 4 Baloth Gorger was bigger than his creatures he still attacked to bring me to four health. Then I mostly stabilized. He had a Slimefoot which I killed, but he had the black Memorial in play to recur it. I really needed to draw my Fight with Fire, but didn't. During the final two turns of the game he first draws Thallid Omnivore followed by the saproling lord, while I drew two lands. His final attack was just enough for lethal. RIP. I guess I benefited from opponents making play errors (one opponent clearly didn't realize that Jousting Lance provides first strike), but 4-3 is still disappointing.

Thats a pretty clear mull. Its a disaster five card hand. You are better to go for four

I would mull that hand too, but you got pretty slim chances to pull that one out, coz your opponent is at 7 cards on the draw and you are at 4 on the play... the card advantage is just too big.

I'd keep but I hate mulling in limited. Very rarely will I mull a 6, pretty much only if there's no lands and I'll try to only mull a 7 if it's one land+expensive cards. Lost a fair amount of games after keeping a 2 lander (or a 1 lander+scry) and never hitting the 3rd, but that's just magic, giving your opponent free card advantage is just horrible.

the new mull rules really change things. I would now practically auto-keep any hand between 2-5 land in it because of the scry. 2 landers are way less risky than before. I would rather keep a 2 or 5 lander with a scry than mull to 6....is that how it works? I've never played with the new mull rules.

I would still always mull 0, 1, 6 or 7 lands (for a 7-card hand that is).

You only get to scry if you mull.

You get a scry if you mull to 6, not if you keep the 7.

Did not think I'd be posting this deck here, just seemed so messy. But somehow it made the 7-2, despite dubious choices and dodgy mana (I'm never sure how to do mana in a deck like this). Had I not rare picked a Darigaaz the deck would probably be better, had I been red/blue like I think I should have been in retrospect might have been better still. But then again, darigaaz did win me 2 games outright - except that one of those was a darigaaz i stole with clutches Fight with Fire was far more impactful than darigaaz or helm.




Pretty cool when a deck you try for fun goes all the way!

I was green with a toe in black in P1 with Allosaurus, Fungal Plots, a Sapherd, and Vicious Offering. P2P1 Zahid was available, and I thought pivoting to GU with a B splash could be worthwhile. Picked up most of my blue there. P3 blue was cut - instead, Slimefoot and several pieces of the saproling deck came my way.

Can't decide what I want to go with. Grindy GUb with evasion and lategame is what I'm leaning towards. GB wide/aggro saps can be quite good, but lack of good two drops puts a damper on that. Any thoughts?

The build I've got currently:



The rest of the pool:

I'd be wanting to run deathbloom and omnivore so badly, such good cards even without synergy. Dunno if that's sensible mind, though your blue is all mostly lategame so maybe. Probably over arcane flight and a servant, I'd probably run befuddle over the other servant too = but I'm probably too high on that card - though I guess they have synergy with the djinn and with onslaught. Looks like a fun deck either way! Shame you didn't get passed a few more nice black pieces.

So if i mull to six, i get a scry? Doesn't that mean that two landers are now an auto mull since 6+scry must be better than having two lands?

Correct, once you mull to 6 you get a scry. And no, 2-landers are not an auto-mull if they're functional; the mull to 6 still leaves you down a card and you can risk drawing 0 lands. However, you can afford to mulligan more sketchy hands and are not punished as badly if you have to take a mull.

Not in limited, I think 2 landers are almost an auto-keep in limited (as are 5 landers for that matter). In constructed it depends on your deck and what the hand does so can't really say, though I'm on the more aggressive side mulligan-wise with non-control decks.

2-landers are basically always an edge case for me. If I have both of my main colours and ideally one or two cheap cards I can cast, it's an auto-keep for sure, but if my hand is expensive or I don't have both of my colours and the hand is severely hampered by it I'll mulligan - and sometimes it's truly me being on the fence about it. On the draw I'm a bit more inclined to keep 2-landers since you have an additional draw to find the land you need.

I'm personally more inclined to keep 5-landers, especially if the two spells are decent curve-plays. If they're not (5-drop and combat trick, for instance) I'll consider a mulligan, especially on the draw where I can easily get run over if I don't affect the board until turn 4.

I dunno, do I have cycle cards? Anticipate? Opt? Am I Suicide Black? Do I have mana dorks?

2 lands ain't great, but you could have a very strong hand with 2 lands.

Keeping a 2 lander in limited is usually bad, because curving out is so important.

Keeping 2 landers is one inexorable part of magic

Disagree, I think that to mulligan in limited you need a very strong reason. The effects of a mulligan on your chance to win are huge, while the odds of hitting your 3rd and 4th land on time with a 2 lander are good. And missing a land drop isn't usually the end of the world, missing 3 in a row is a disaster ofc. Now sure, the times you keep two lands and don't get there will stick in the memory, but I'm pretty sure the maths are on the side of a 2 land keep. Worth noting that if you keep 2 lands and don't draw lands for 6 turns, a 3 lander wouldn't have fared much better.