Serum PowderSerum Powder Illustrated by Matt Thompson

Hello, and welcome to Am I the Bolas?

This column is for all of you out there who have ever played some Magic and wondered if you were the bad guy. I'm here to take in your story with all of its nuances so I can bring some clarity to all those asking, "Am I the Bolas?"

I'm ready to hear you out and offer advice. All you have to do is email amithebolas@gmail.com with your story, a pseudonym you want to use, and of course, only include details you don't mind in the column! You might see your story below one day. You might even hear it on the podcast. Which podcast?

THIS PODCAST!

I'm Mike Carrozza and I'm making a smoothie!

I've got a big ol' blender!

This week, eh, let's pick another one.

(Post edited for brevity, clarity, and then some.)

HELLO, MIKE

Hey, Mike!

Love your column and think I might finally have a good one of my own.

For context we have a regular weekly playgroup, usually between seven and twelve of us with a variety of decks hovering around the "optimized casual" zone. Players range from relative newbies to Magic veterans, but we're all fairly invested/entrenched.

Recently The Command Zone had an episode about updating their deck-building template, fairly basic stuff but the land count section was very interesting. The point was made that even with lax mulligan house rules, it's a strategic disadvantage to play too few lands because you could be mulliganing for other things than just enough lands like ramp or synergy pieces.

I started the conversation with our group and it quickly came around to -
1) Several players in our group realized they should be playing a few more lands
2) Our mulligans might be a bit too lax or leading to some feelings that folks might be taking advantage

Essentially folks tend to take any number for free mulligans until they have a decent opener.
After pointing out at least one specific person for this behavior, I decided to push for using the actual mulligan rules going forward. Unfortunately, I think I might have ruffled a few feathers, but I also don't want to ruin the "EDH and chill" vibe we usually try to go for.

Is it fair to be a bit peeved that some folks might be getting away with better late game top decks by playing less lands and taking advantage of our easy-going mull rules, even if unintentionally? Or am I the Bolas for trying to tighten up our group's play and get folks to follow the actual rules even if it might sometimes lead to more non-games occasionally?

Thanks!

Mulligary

HOWDY, MULLIGARY!

Thank you for writing and asking me to weigh in on your story. As I mention every week, if folks don't write to me, there's no column, so if you, the reader, want to send me a story, whether it's your own or one from Reddit or a friend's, please send it to amithebolas@gmail.com and I'll get to it here.

Also, what do you think of this new look? Here I am on EDHREC! Pretty cool!

I linked to the episode of The Command Zone video - here it is again - because I think they're correct. I've known Rachel a long time and frankly, when she says something I listen. I say Rachel even though it's the CZ team that made the video because Rachel is very adamant throughout the video to the point of feeling like she's trying to reach through your screen to tell you to please play more lands.

So, even as a staunch believer in the 36-land count, I've made changes to most of my decks from my current roster, bringing them up to 37 or 38 lands and, let me tell you, it has made a difference. Is that confirmation bias talking? I can't be 100% sure, but I'll say that some decks that struggled are no longer struggling as much and that's good enough for me. So a big thank you to The Command Zone for the updated template.

I think this is an oddly more complicated entry in the Am I The Bolas? series. It seems pretty straightforward, right? "Hey, these are the rules, let's play by the rules." Sounds good, yeah? But instead, there's a twinge of mucking up "the fun".

On one hand, we're playing a game that has rules, we should play with those rules because that's just how you play games. You learn the rules and you operate within them to have your fun. House rules are a real wrench in the system and it should be noted that we're discussing an entire format that came from "house rules". I'm not saying it's time to try out a bunch of house rules, but rather that they can lead to interesting innovations in the game.

That said, I've never loved the "mulligan until you have a keepable seven" thing. Some house rules are interesting in that they allow for some newness in the game, like allowing any planeswalker to be your commander (like in Oathbreaker) or allowing some rule zero changes in the playgroup like allowing a deck helmed by an acorn Unfinity legend. Mulligan until you have a keepable seven does have an impact on deckbuilding, consciously or subconsciously.

When my old playgroup allowed mulling until finding a good seven, we got to a point where some players were running 32 or 33 lands and the pregame was just a lot of shuffling and waiting for one of us to be ready while the rest were good to go.

I think there's room for leeway. I think the mulligan rules in Commander can be particularly brutal since for every turn you take, your opponents collectively get three. So if you're also starting with four cards in hand, good luck! I think there should be some sort of penalty for needing to mulligan so much. Then there's the whole fun police element of enforcing the mulligan rules that come into play here. The real hurdle.

If you proposing that the group adhere to the rules didn't ruffle so many feathers, there wouldn't really be much of a story here. Just a good conversation, solid argument, your desired outcome. It's because members of your group are attached to the Keepable Seven Mulligan that your request is creating tension. Why does it create that tension though? EDH is a social format that ends up being more about the hang for some folks and the lax rules and environment are part of the point and the experience. For some people, tightening up is part of the fun.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that mulligans in one-on-one formats can make or break those games. In Commander, in a more relaxed environment, less so. Of course, if two players mull to five and two others have a full grip, with more players involved, you would hope that there are safeguards within the dynamic of the pod that would regulate itself. Although, my column is evidence enough that threat assessment isn't something everybody is great at.

So here's what I propose. There are 12 of you in the group, maybe there's something to discussing this per pod and seeing how people feel. Ask them to do it for a game and see if they notice a difference. Or you could try to come up with a mulligan you can all be on board with. Maybe it's regular mulligan rules but you can't go under five and then do a Keepable Five Mulligan. Maybe another thing that works for your playgroup.

How do you find that out? Have the conversation with everybody. If this is something that's stuck in your craw, discuss it with the crew. Otherwise, I recommend leading by example. Take those mulligans to four. Play through them. Show your opponents that you're committed. Make your case about how the Keepable Seven Mull is like a reward for poor deckbuilding.

Not the Bolas. It's totally fair to want to play by the rules.