Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Would the game be better if ...?

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hueglin

New Member
Would the game be better if, at the beginning of the game, instead only being able to reshuffle and redeal when you had no Basic Pokemon, you could do it by free choice, as many times as you wished? The penalty would stay the same, your opponent may draw an extra card each time you redeal.

I am only thinking about this after reading the Regional reports and seeing how frequently even tier one decks got donked.

A rule change like the one above may lead to fewer donks and an increase in rhe number of longer strategic battles.

On the other hand, maybe donks add to the game by increasing the tension of the set-up and opening turns.

All opinions are welcome.
 
This topic comes up about once a month.
The problem with free mulligans is that eventually the opponent will stop drawing cards and a player has nothing to stop them from redrawing until they have a god hand.

Eventually, the topic always goes into how Magic the Gathering handles mulligans and the counterpoint to it is that drawing one less card makes it even more likely that you'll get a worse hand than before (even though a number of people would gladly accept it over starting hands they have had).

Also, unlimited mulls would make major events take forever (most of them go pretty late as it is).

I think I covered most of the main stuff from every other mulligan thread, but anybody can feel free to correct me if I missed something.
 
What you both say makes sense. What if you were limited to a max of, say 3 redeals, same penalty, and you only get a fourth if you have no Basics on the third redeal.

If it keeps resurfacing as an issue then, chances are, there is some merit to the discussion.
 
There is merit to the subject, but I just wanted to get certain things out of the way that normally take up a page or two.

I like the optional mulligan and I think it would help the game greatly, but it would have to be well thought out in its execution.
I think a max of two optional mulligans would be good (if the deck fails three times in a row, there are issues with the deck itself).
Finding a proper penalty for taking the mulligans would be nice though.

In the last big topic about this, it ended up with a good number of people agreeing that a single optional mulligan and only drawing a 6 card hand would be the hardest to abuse while also giving some type of second chance against a horrible hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top