So it is your opinion that the opponent should get less from a completely optional mulligan than they do from a forced(no basic) mulligan?
Of course, I'm sure the response will be another completely rational post about how nobody understands the perfect logic of your unproven theory.
So just to clarify:
1. Having no optional mulligans was fine for over a decade, up until the topic creator got donked because of a bad hand at a big event, then it instantly became a travesty that should have never been that way, but the topic creator just didn't notice until he was inconvenienced by the same rules that everybody has always used.
2. Optional mulligans should only be allowed in certain age groups(making rules that are age specific).
3. Testing of the optional mulligans has shown that when a person can shuffle their hand at will and retry until they like what they see, that better hands are more common.
4. Regardless of the massive benefit to be gained by the person using the optional mulligan, the only drawback should be that the opponent draws 1 card.
5. The fallback to anything is, "re-read the thread".
If you want to shout from the mountain tops that the apple you're eating doesn't taste enough like a pear, don't be shocked if somebody says to just eat a pear.
As far as caring about making it fair for everybody. . .
If each person has the same amount of basics in their deck, same trainers, and so on, wouldn't their odds of getting a lame start be almost exactly the same?
It may be disliked, but it's no less fair than flipping a properly balanced coin.
Then again, I don't feel there is any hope of a healthy discussion at this point(anybody who doesn't agree with you is wrong and has no clue what they are talking about after all), so I'm probably going to completely forget about this topic and move on to something else.
Have a pleasant day though and I wish you the best of luck with your endeavor.
Yes, that I think this new system should be put in place is my opinion.
1. No, it's been a problem, it's never been fair, we even see developers trying to fix the problem with things like call energy and call for family. The rule for confusion was apparently ok for years and then they changed it, other games like Magic have had rules for years and then changed it, just because a rule has time under it's belt doesn't mean it has more reason to stay.
2. Yes, I've said that this should be restricted to older age groups.
3. Yes, better hands are more common, which is the goal of this new system, to eliminate bad hands which take away games from people and give them no fair chance to fight.
4. Plenty of card games use the handicap for mulligans in one card increments, one card per mulligan is a lot more changing than you think.
5. I only say to re-read the thread because the same problems that I've already answered keep coming up For example, I had already addressed in the first page, the second post I made I believe, about how this would be restricted to certain age groups, but low and behold the exact same problem is brought up two pages later because someone didn't read that I had already addressed it.
Telling people to play a completely different game does not solve the situation, the goal from the beginning has obviously been not to create a fair based game, but to change something in pokemon to take away a certain level of luck and replace it with direct skill choice.
Just because everyone has an equal chance of losing without having a choice, doesn't mean it's fair.
It's absolutely not the same as flipping a coin, when you're flipping a coin that means that you're already in a controlled situation, this cuts you off from making any decisions other than your deck list or shuffling and then leaves your game at chance.
I don't understand how this isn't "healthy". To imply that I just absolutely refuse to listen to anyone, is a bold faced lie, I have replied to nearly everyone on this thread and have clearly explained my own logic. To which you also implied I thought was infallible, well not only have a changed the system because of what other posters have said, but if there is something wrong with my logic then by all means point it out, that's exactly why I made this thread and have been replying to nearly everyone who replies.
Also making this statement and then stating that you aren't going to reply anymore really shows that you don't care about making this point anyway, I've listened to all the things you've said, replied to all the things you've said, but now you just don't feel like discussing it anymore, which is fine, but you just had to get in the last word before you left. Doesn't that just make you spiteful?
