Wheel of FortuneWheel of Fortune| art by Daniel Gelon

We've all had to mulligan. It's the nature of randomness of any game even with four of a kind. My question, as it has always been, is are we strict enough about mulligans in Commander, or perhaps too strict, or perhaps it hasn't been well defined or enforced either way.

The History of the Mulligan in MTG

Before we can talk about Commander, a format that only rose to popularity enough to be a recognized format in 2013, we have to talk about Magic in August of 1993.

I found out today that the original game of Magic had no mulligan rules. Its game designers were worried about the very thing that is the crux of most mulligan arguments: They believed it rewarded poor deck building.

The 1st Mulligan in Magic

However, mulligans were instated literally less than a year later, in 1994. Players likely proved that the system was as-then currently too strict to reward even good deckbuilding.

At least, that's my theory. This mulligan consisted of a player revealing their opening hand, showing no spells or no lands, and drafting a fresh hand. You could only do this once per game. This didn't last by itself very long.

The Paris Mulligan

In 1997, the Paris Mulligan rose to popularity. It was suggested as an alternative by Matt Hydra, a Pro Tour player. Mulligans would happen after starting player was determined, but before any other actions.

If dissatisfied with their hand, a player could put their hand back in the deck and draw one less than the the starting hand, all without revealing their hand.

For each mulligan, the player would draw one less card, until they were satisfied or were left with no cards in hand.

Vancouver Mulligan

Surprisingly, when I first played a prerelease in 2016 for Kaladesh, they were still using The Paris Mulligan at the local LGS I was at.

This is interesting, because the Vancouver Mulligan went into syndicated ruling effect in 2015. This consisted of the same rules as the Paris Mulligan, but the person with fewer than the starting hand could Scry 1.

The London Mulligan

The London Mulligan (the system we have in place now) was established in Core Set 2020 . The rule is: If a player is dissatisfied with their hand after starting player is decided, they may shuffle their hand back in, draw up to seven cards, and put back one card at the bottom of their library in any order for each additional mulligan. No scrying is allowed.

Commander Mulligan

It's actually news to me that the official rules for mulligans for Commander were as they were. I've always heard that Commander has a "free" mulligan. Meaning if you don't like your first hand, you may draw another 7 with no penalty or additional rulings.

Well, there is no official ruling saying this is true. There are a lot of informal rules, but officially Commander follows competitive format rulings on mulligans.

It's important to note however, most players follow the free mulligan rule more casually. The Commander Rule Committee (CRC) advises that even in 1v1 Commander, the free mulligan be used.

The CRC goes one step further and says to set aside hands instead of shuffling them into the deck to save time on shuffling.

Additional Commander Mulligan Types

There is also the Partial Paris Mulligan, which allows players to set aside any amount of cards from their hand and draw that many minus one for each mulligan. Once the hand is selected, the set side cards are shuffled in.

The Sides and Their Merits

Now that we have a good understanding of where mulligans come from, we have some frame of reference. There isn't a ton online about the reasoning behind some of the updates to mulligans throughout the years, but we can take some educated guesses.

Strict Mulligan Rulings

Definition: Following the rules of competitive pay. No free mulligans or only one.

This is at the core of competitive play. We want to know when we play competitively, we minimize as much randomness as we can.

We tune our decks to ensure that it plays as consistently as possible. With a strict mulligan rule, it allows some insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a deck.

An example may be: If in your The Ur-DragonThe Ur-Dragon deck you have to mulligan a lot because most of the permanents in your hand are too costly mana-value wise, it might be a indication that your deck needs more early game options.

You might also discover that in testing with your Bristly Bill, Spine SowerBristly Bill, Spine Sower landfall deck you're not seeing anything but lands. It may be that you don't have enough draw in your deck, or that you might be running a touch too many lands. Mulligans can help show you this.

If you find in your Coram, the UndertakerCoram, the Undertaker deck you're not managing to get Coram out fast enough, you might not be running enough ramp. That could be why you haven't been seeing them consistently in your opening hands.

Additionally, it's important as a skill to see whether a hand is worth keeping. Don't push your luck. It's a skill of its own knowing what's keepable in your deck based on how you've built it. Strict mulligan rule help hone this skill.

All in all, stricter mulligan rules clarify how efficient you can be as a deck builder, and that is something worth exploring.

Loose Mulligan Rules

Definition: basically an amount of mulligans based on vibes.

This is at the core of casual play. We want to know when we play casually that we minimize how "unfun" a game can be for other payers.

Specifically, we want to allow any amount of chances for a player to have a fulfilling game of Commander. With a loose mulligan rule, it allows us to maximize the amount of fun the whole tables has on average.

We've all been in a bad rut where a well-tuned mana base or an efficient deck just has an attitude with you and won't draw well and won't shuffle well. I've once shuffled my deck and saw the same 4 cards in each opening hand.

In a deck that runs 60 singleton, plus some number of unique non-basic lands cards, it's likely that the odds be against you in getting a consistent hand.

We know that Magic sets sometimes print functionally redundant cards, like running Swords to PlowsharesSwords to Plowshares and Path to ExilePath to Exile, Beast WithinBeast Within and Generous GiftGenerous Gift. Running cards that function essentially the same is the key to optimization in a deck, but sometimes the randomness is truly just the randomness.

It's tough looking at a player who is going to have to sit through a one hour game and tell them they have to play with two cards in hand versus another player who is keeping a solid seven.

Additionally, even if a player deck is unoptimized, is it worth making them play through hours of gameplay to prove that to them?

Most people end up mulligan-ing around three times with loose mulligans rules, and while this can be annoying, social pressure usually encourages them to explain what elements of their decks they're running with.

People will ask after the third mulligan: How many lands and mana rocks are you running? What is the curve of your deck? How many creatures are you running?

All in all, casual mulligans allow for more consistently fun games for everyone.

Synthesizing the Mulligan

In writing this article, I've dug up a lot of research about mulligans and it's changed my understanding. I don't think it changes my personal stance, but it clarifies some things for me.

I think Loose Mulligans are better as long as there is a bit of social pressure. I'm not letting someone craft their perfect hand, but I want them to have a playable seven.

My main reasoning here starts with the fact that Commander is a traditionally casual format. The free mulligan that has made its way into the format emphasizes the typical casualness of the game.

We want everyone to have fun more than we want people to build a perfectly optimized deck. If I want that kind of restriction, I would play CEDH.

I'm not saying we shouldn't build competitively in the casual format. We all do. This is why the Bracket System is so important. It's just what our priorities should be.

Secondly, in my experience, what makes me decks more efficient isn't just what I see in a mulligan or two.

I learn far more about my decks when it loses to a deck that is just that more efficient, even when my deck performs as intended.

If my deck needs more card draw, better ramp, or lower mana value spells, I can still play may deck at peak and understand those problems.

In my experience, I've just had to play against other tuned decks to understand my weaknesses. Iron sharpens iron. I often notice my lack of draw when another deck does it better and so on.

Lastly, I didn't realize how gradually mulligans have rewarded players more over time. Even in competitive formats, the strictness of the mulligan couldn't cancel out the randomness of the game. But perhaps that's a little naive of me. Let me know, I'm @strixhavendropout on Blue Sky.