Comments on: Lightning, London, Linguine: ‘Manders and Mulls https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/ Play More, Win More, Pay Less Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:08:57 +0000 hourly 1 By: Major Tom https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/#comment-2129888 Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:08:57 +0000 http://quietspeculation.com/?p=19631#comment-2129888 In reply to Jordan Boisvert.

Thanks for the advice.

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/#comment-2129887 Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:02:28 +0000 http://quietspeculation.com/?p=19631#comment-2129887 In reply to Major Tom.

I run into it online sometimes. It’s really rough Game 1 but manageable after siding. They struggle if we stick a flier. Abrade is important post-board. Clique and Crackling are MVP.

]]>
By: Major Tom https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/#comment-2129886 Wed, 27 Feb 2019 22:58:11 +0000 http://quietspeculation.com/?p=19631#comment-2129886 Have you played the UR delver shell against colorless Eldrazi stompy? How did it fair? Specifically, if your game one on the draw and they slam a chalice on 1, do you find it difficult to work out of?

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/#comment-2129885 Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:37:31 +0000 http://quietspeculation.com/?p=19631#comment-2129885 In reply to MICAH DILTS.

Sure.

Open 7 with Powder: exile hand, take 7

Open 7 without Powder: put hand back, shuffle, draw 7, put one card back, THEN decide whether to Powder
If yes: exile hand, take 6
To mulligan this hand: shuffle it in, draw 7, put two back, THEN decide whether to Powder
etc.

The London, besides increasing the odds of hitting Temple through normal mulligans (which then scale up accordingly as we remove cards from the library with Powder), allows us to “set up” the hands we exile with Powder. In the example above, for instance, we can choose to bottom important cards like Dismember, TKS, or even lands before exiling our hand. Then there’s a chance of re-drawing those cards during future mulligans or if opponents make us shuffle

]]>
By: MICAH DILTS https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/#comment-2129884 Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:57:18 +0000 http://quietspeculation.com/?p=19631#comment-2129884 I still don’t understand how the London Mulligan rule works with Powder. Could you try to explain it in simpler terms?

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/#comment-2129883 Sat, 23 Feb 2019 19:01:36 +0000 http://quietspeculation.com/?p=19631#comment-2129883 In reply to astebel.

It definitely does. I used to play Ratchets in large part because of Bridge, but have cut them for a few reasons:
– current Bridge decks protect it with Needle/Jar
– almost nobody is playing Bridge right now, making it supremely easy to dodge
– Contortion is better against existing aggro decks than Bomb

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/#comment-2129882 Sat, 23 Feb 2019 19:00:16 +0000 http://quietspeculation.com/?p=19631#comment-2129882 In reply to mudanhonnyaku.

Good to know! The way Wizards describes 7-7-7 in the featured quote (using the past tense rather than the conditional “would be”) implies that it was tested, which is why I didn’t dig deeper for confirmation.

]]>
By: astebel https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/#comment-2129881 Sat, 23 Feb 2019 17:20:23 +0000 http://quietspeculation.com/?p=19631#comment-2129881 Eldrazi Stompy folds hard to Ensnaring Bridge. With your only out to a slow Ratchet Bomb.

]]>
By: mudanhonnyaku https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/#comment-2129880 Sat, 23 Feb 2019 08:10:10 +0000 http://quietspeculation.com/?p=19631#comment-2129880 According to Ian Duke on twitter (https://twitter.com/mtg_ianduke/status/1098767958141132800) this is the first time they’ve actually tested this mulligan rule. The 2015 statement that it was “too strong” seems to have been pure theorycrafting.

]]>
By: Jordan Boisvert https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/#comment-2129879 Fri, 22 Feb 2019 21:33:55 +0000 http://quietspeculation.com/?p=19631#comment-2129879 In reply to VeloLEV.

I have never been a fan of Metamorph. We rarely want to copy enemy permanents since ours are so good, and that removes a lot of its utility. I think it’s mostly win-more since we need a nice target on the board already and generally prefer high-utility cards that do the same thing every time. Definitely think the last two Shapers and 2nd Copter are flex though and encourage customization in this slots, so whatever works for you!

]]>
By: VeloLEV https://www.quietspeculation.com/2019/02/manders-mulligans-lightning-london-linguine/#comment-2129878 Fri, 22 Feb 2019 20:19:08 +0000 http://quietspeculation.com/?p=19631#comment-2129878 Thanks for your content.

I picked up the Stompy deck last fall as my first Modern deck and have been loving it. When I heard about the mulligan rule last night at my local shop for Modern I immediately thought this deck improves from it. I hadn’t thought about how it improves hosers or that Stompy is somewhat immune to hate. Your insight has helped my game and strategy once again.

My local meta has lots of Path and Trophy so I’ve added one more Wastes in lieu of a Scavenger Grounds and I’m experimenting with copy 5 of Seer and Smasher in the form of Phyrexian Metamorph. I’ve tried it in place of one Shaper or one Copter. What do you think?

Cheers!

]]>