View Poll Results: Sound off.

Voters
82. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, let's re-do this.

    68 82.93%
  • No, let Taco's failed endeavor forever stand as a testiment to its worthlessness.

    14 17.07%
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 338

Thread: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

  1. #21

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    damn, i wanted to be in it with my reanimate

  2. #22

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    I propose we eradicate what's left of Zach's social life and expand the tournament to 64 decks.

    If you do this, I'll effort to find a hot step sister.

  3. #23
    Member-ish
    kicks_422's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2006
    Location

    Manila
    Posts

    1,209

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Quote Originally Posted by lonelybaritone View Post
    I don't want to step on egos, or toes, or whatever you step on on the internet (e-penises?).
    Yeah, that would be a problem. I've experienced that well enough... *shudder* ...Forget I even suggested that.

    Quote Originally Posted by etrigan View Post
    I propose we eradicate what's left of Zach's social life and expand the tournament to 64 decks.

    If you do this, I'll effort to find a hot step sister.
    Second that. There are too many viable decks to fit into a count of 32.
    The Source: Your Source for "The Source: Your Source for..." cliche.

  4. #24

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Quote Originally Posted by etrigan View Post
    I propose we eradicate what's left of Zach's social life and expand the tournament to 64 decks.

    If you do this, I'll effort to find a hot step sister.
    I'm down (if anyone else is) for the first, and am skeptical on the second. 'Course there is that thing about looking at gift horses in the et cetera.

    I was planning on doing two (like a grudge match), as summer is a long time, but I'd at least entertain the idea of 64 decks. I think it would be tough to fill that up (without doing only minute changes to decks).

    I'm gonna grab some coffee and see what needs to be in.
    The E.P.I.C. Syndicate: I mean, if they play a lullaby for babies they should at least play the Monster Mash when somebody dies.
    Quote Originally Posted by herbig View Post
    If I see you in NY/I'll send you an invite/You gon' need a pass/That's the code that we live by.

  5. #25
    Faerie Godfather

    Join Date

    Jul 2005
    Location

    Finland
    Posts

    1,617

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Bleh, filling 64 would be relatively easy. Out of the biggest decks, you can easily pull however many variants you want; 3-4 different Goblins, Threshold or Landstill-lists are all easy to come by. Same goes for Survival, MUC, Loam, etc. You could make 32 decks consisting just of those archetypes with no two variants being just 1-2 cardslots apart.

    64 is able to fit off-the-wall decks like the last tournament did. I could write you three-four pages of different random decks you could consider, but that seems relatively pointless until the decision as to how many decks will be used is made.

  6. #26
    Hold on! I have a 12/12
    Van Phanel's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    401

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    You have a PM.

    I think 64 would be whole lot of playing for those 2 players. 32 sounds more manageable.

    Also I'd like seeing Solidarity in one of the empty slots.

  7. #27

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Ok, here is a list of archtypes I'd like to include, with the specific decks too.

    • Landstill
      1. UWb with wishes. This has been doing pretty solid o'er in Deutschland. So, it's in.
      2. 4c (UWbg - or whatever. The order of B and W in BHWC always confused me.) These two are the only locked in ones.
      3. UW straight up. I remember that this used to do it up back in the day. And Geoff Smelski (a Syracuse local who posts under the name "Konsultant" on these here forums) reverted to it Post-Flash, if I recall correctly.
      4. A UBg list. I think the archtype kinda needs white to be good, so this is a good way to show the rest of the world that I'm a genius. Or, y'know, not.
      5. None of this UR stuff. I'm not positive that it isn't competitive at all, but I'm rather sure. Pales greatly now that Goyf is alive. UWr might be kinda fun. I'd keep it in consideration if we do do (hah. I said dodo) the 64 deck thing.
    • Threshold
      1. Canadian Thresh. Ol' Goobalfish (sp?) and Lat Pham (also sp?) have talked this up enough that it's taken up a pretty solid following. I think it's good, and that's the benchmark for included-ness.
      2. UGbw (pick the order on B and W) for Counter/Top, Thoughtseize and Swords and maybe Bob (you folks who play good decks can argue this). I feel like this is where the CB/T archtype is migrating now. It doesn't run City of Brass or any of the more questionable cards from 5c Thresh (like the 1-of Fact or Daze + City of Brass) but does have the twin powerhouses of Swords and Thoughtseize. Which I think I've said twice already.
      3. Those two really do it for me. I'd entertain the notion of a UGb (I don't like the lack of non-black removal) or maybe UGw, but I really think that the 4c is probably the best.
    • Combo Decks
      1. TES. No arguments on lists or whatever - Bryant is going to give me a list and we're going to play it.
      2. Fetchland Tendrils. I'm not as "The deckbuilder's word is final" with FT. Elmidion or whatever (whose name reminds me of this cycle of cards) has suggested that the deck play sans-Lotus Petal. I really do not agree with this. But, again, I'll let you folks squabble over it for a while before I rule in one side's favor or another.
      3. CRET (or Dark) Belcher. Eladriel (sp?) mentioned that he thinks that Belcher shouldn't have a place here. But it's sheer "oops, I win" possibilities against non-Force of Will decks (and the ease of constructing the deck) mean that it'll always be in the meta, at least a little, and therefore worth testing against.
      4. Burn
      5. Painter's Servant Combo. I'd like to have at least one (UBmaybeatinylittlex) list and maybe the Imperial Painter too. A local has been rocking it lately to some pretty good finishes. And he owns actual Recruiters.
      6. Ichorid. I have a list in mind (the one that Bovi (God rest his soul) top 2'd the second NOVA event with).
      7. The list kind of ends there. Iggypop has kind of been sucked up into either FT or TES. Solidarity used to be worth testing against, but I'm not sure if there are people crazy enough to play it anymore, what with Counterbalance being so able to shut it down makes me think it's not a large enough percentage of the decks played to warrant it. If we do 64 I'll include one list (prolly mono-blue).
    • Not-Threshold Aggro-Control
      1. Dragon Stompy. "But Zach, Dragon Stompy isn't Aggro Control!" Shut up. It has creatures, it controls stuff. 'Nuff said. I will provide a list for review, nothing is in stone yet.
      2. 1 Rock deck. You can fight over whether it'll be BG or Bwg. I'm not a fan of the Italian list (with Hideous Laughter over Hail Storm, for instance). We might do two if we go 64.
      3. A Black Sui or Deadguy or Eva Green deck (this is distinguishable from Rock 'cause it plays LD). Just one. Maybe two if we go 64.
      4. I'd like a Faerie Stompy deck. This is a case of "the guy who built it gives me a list and I'll play it."
      5. Aggro Loam. I'll take at least one list (probably two): GR is necessary, and I'd like to see a three or four color list too (GRb/w, GRwb). None of this intuition crap.
      6. At least two Survival lists. Gbrw as per Di, and a RGBSA with wishes that I will take suggestions on.
      7. Goyf Sligh. I'm unfamiliar with this archtype, so we'll need some discussion.
      8. Two Goblins lists; one Mono-Red and one Rbg. I'll accept suggestions on both lists.
      9. Dreadstill. You folks can argue about what the good list is.
      10. Affinity (This is less control more aggro, but I don't feel like using the list function any more than is necessary. With great power comes great et cetera)
    • Not-Landstill Control
      1. It's the Fear. I'm good with that. Dave and whomever else cares can provide a list.
      2. Mono-White control maybe? I'd listen to somebody telling me that Quinn or Wombat is worth it. Same with the anti-Solidarity argument.
      3. MUC. I'd take two lists if we went 64 decks (which looks likely 'cause we're already at like 31 when we are only taking one of the "I'd like two") from Kraj's recently published primer.
      4. 43 Land would be cool, but I'd only include it if we went to 64. It represents a tiny part of the meta.
      5. Armageddon Stax. List sought.
      6. Enchantress. Surprised?


    This is just me throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks. I'm up for an intelligent debate on what is worth including and what isn't.

    The reason I'm not going to take your list:
    • I'm looking for people who have accomlished something with the list (or perhaps a list that has accomplished something). This isn't to say that I don't think you're a good player, but for the sake of removing bias (and getting optimal lists) I'm sorry; that's just the way it is.
    • I don't think that the cool "this could work" stuff is worth it. I want proven things; let other, real tournaments do the leg work for us.


    PM me lists (I'll clean out my inbox); I'll update this post (or do another for some savage +1ery) with lists that I have received and agree with, and those that need some work.

    I really want this to be awesome.
    The E.P.I.C. Syndicate: I mean, if they play a lullaby for babies they should at least play the Monster Mash when somebody dies.
    Quote Originally Posted by herbig View Post
    If I see you in NY/I'll send you an invite/You gon' need a pass/That's the code that we live by.

  8. #28
    Victory Dance ftw?
    Mirrislegend's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2006
    Posts

    959

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    What happened to the old threads? Rounds I and II? I'm interested in reading up a bit before getting into it. Anyone got a link or are they consigned to the history books already?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tacosnape
    <Dallieza> your mom uses the stack
    <System> Player Lost
    Quote Originally Posted by Tacosnape
    Every time someone drops a Chalice against me I think of the Family Guy episode where the guy in jail stabs himself with the knife to see how it feels and then he says, "My God! Is this what I've been doing to people? I belong in here!"
    Referring to the art on Stasis:
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinder View Post
    Well, uh...the mime, you see, is....um...

    God, is that furry bondage?

  9. #29

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Re: Threshold,

    I'd go 1 Canadian Thresh, 1 UGwb (or 5c) Thresh, and 1 Moon Thresh. I lub me some Blood Moons.

  10. #30
    Rob Rogers
    HammafistRoob's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Wareham, MA
    Posts

    1,024

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Quote Originally Posted by lonelybaritone View Post
    Ok, here is a list of archtypes I'd like to include, with the specific decks too.
    [*]A Black Sui or Deadguy or Eva Green deck (this is distinguishable from Rock 'cause it plays LD). Just one. Maybe two if we go 64.[*]Dreadstill. You folks can argue about what the good list is.
    I would go for Sui Black and Eva Green.

    We don't need to argue about Dreadstill, you should probably have 2 lists. One Ur(for Goyfless reasons) and a Ugr(for Goyful reasons), to see which one does better.

    I don't know about this 64 deck thing, it seems like alot of work for 2 people to do, maybe you could have 4 people do it?
    Team Hammafist-We don't take kindly to those who don't take kindly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jander78 View Post
    You still have to appreciate a well timed "fuck yall niggas" though.
    Quote Originally Posted by FTW View Post
    WotC should either stop printing such good blue creatures or start printing more Hammerfist Giants
    "Got any trade boogas?"

  11. #31
    Plays green decks
    Jak's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2006
    Location

    Portland
    Posts

    2,184

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Quote Originally Posted by Mirrislegend View Post
    What happened to the old threads? Rounds I and II? I'm interested in reading up a bit before getting into it. Anyone got a link or are they consigned to the history books already?
    I don't know where the first one is but it will be back there a ways. The second one never did anything. It got started then Taco just stopped or something.

    I think 64 is a lot of decks, but I think the tournament should still hold the other decks that get no love like Demon Stompy, Trinity Green (Goyf Stompy), MWC, Junk Pile, Reanimator, etc. It shouldn't be hard to fill the list out.

  12. #32
    Faerie Godfather

    Join Date

    Jul 2005
    Location

    Finland
    Posts

    1,617

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    I'll get you a Faerie Stompy-build in near-enough future. I'm testing a dozen things so there'll probably be some experimental slots, but it should be close enough to the canon.

  13. #33
    Loves the anus
    Jaiminho's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Rio de Janeiro, RJ - Brasil
    Posts

    544

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Quote Originally Posted by lonelybaritone View Post
    Combo Decks
    No Cephalid Breakfast?
    Keep moon-walking.

  14. #34

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinder View Post
    I'm all for it. I'm not sure it would yield anything terribly conclusive, but it would certainly be fun to watch unfold, and Meathooks has to make up for getting knocked out in the first round last time. Of course, this time you might end up with 3 separate lists for it (UWg, UWb, UWgb).

    I won't have time to participate, but I would love to see someone else do it.
    Meat hooks! How could I have forgotten. That'll take up at least one slot (prolly 3 if we do 64, 'cause Straight agro like GWrb, the more "omg 8 muscle slivers" UGw(b?) and the control-y UWb).

    Quote Originally Posted by etrigan View Post
    Re: Threshold,

    I'd go 1 Canadian Thresh, 1 UGwb (or 5c) Thresh, and 1 Moon Thresh. I lub me some Blood Moons.
    I remember that. Did it top 8 ever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jak. View Post
    I think 64 is a lot of decks, but I think the tournament should still hold the other decks that get no love like Demon Stompy, Trinity Green (Goyf Stompy), MWC, Junk Pile, Reanimator, etc. It shouldn't be hard to fill the list out.
    I want to have decks that accurately depict the meta, with a couple "this is an unusual top8 deck" spruced in (see Feinstein Elves, which I'll probably throw in if we do 64). I'm not sure that Reanimator has more than two players, and those two seem to be pretty solidly in San Diego. Demon Stompy hasn't done anything ever, and Trinity Green (probably a list from the "Elf Stompy" thread in N&D) will probably get a place 'cause I think it's super cool. MWC was mentioned, and Junk Pile was played once, like two years ago (exactly).

    Ninja Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaiminho View Post
    No Cephalid Breakfast?
    Nope. I can't say for sure whether or not it's still competitive - seems like Painter's a lot better, and 0 dependency on yards (and twice the converted mana cost). Aydunno. If we do the larger option it'll be in probably (only one list), if not then it probably won't.
    The E.P.I.C. Syndicate: I mean, if they play a lullaby for babies they should at least play the Monster Mash when somebody dies.
    Quote Originally Posted by herbig View Post
    If I see you in NY/I'll send you an invite/You gon' need a pass/That's the code that we live by.

  15. #35
    Faerie Godfather

    Join Date

    Jul 2005
    Location

    Finland
    Posts

    1,617

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Reanimator seems to pretty much Top 8 whenever it's played, so bleh. I remember 3 distinct times when a Reanimator-build emerged, Top 8d and then nobody played it again. I think one should be there, if only because Orlove Reanimator was the only 'non-meta deck' to make it to the best of 8 last time. At least if 64 is the number, it should be there; it could be the 32nd deck in 32.

  16. #36
    Plays whatever whenever, and fails anyway
    Kadaj's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2006
    Posts

    297

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Zach, both of the lists in my primer are more or less as good as they're going to get as far as MUC goes. The only problem would be that the two decks play completely differently and have differing strengths and weaknesses. So, keep that in mind when you make your choosing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaiminho View Post
    Your search - nopurinshing Lich - did not match any documents.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten View Post
    u didn't search in Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach Tartell View Post
    I thought this was going to be a link to some Chinese legacy board.

    And I was totally gonna load up on links to bullshit like construction equipment distributors and elephant disenfectants and then run over there and spam the shit out of them for a change.

  17. #37
    JuJu on TMD and #TMD
    Osse's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2007
    Posts

    77

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    I hate the fact that there are so many variants on archetypes, why can't this be more like Extended :(.

    I think there should be an Aggro-Loam list with Chalice/EE and one without (That seems to be the trend lately it seems.) I have a Chalice/EE list laying around that seems to work fine, and has top8ed. Agreed on none of the intuition stuff.

    I have no idea what Painter's Servants lists look like, everytime I think of a list it appears to be "better than Dreadnought" lists. Oh wells.

    I really think Belcher should be in there, that deck is so hard to beat if you don't play countermagic.

    I've got some lists for the stuff you've asked for. I've PMed you. I can e-mail you the lists if you provide me with a place to send them, PM seems kind of messy, especially now.

  18. #38
    I clench my fists and yell "anime" towards an uncaring, absent God
    Nihil Credo's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    59°50'59.11" N, 17°34'55.69" E
    Posts

    4,702

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldariel
    As for Belcher, I feel it overlaps with TES and Fetchland Tendrils to a degree and thus could be omitted for greater good and more interesting decks; I don't think it takes a genius to figure out how Belcher's MUs would go (against decks stopping it from going broke turn 1, it loses - otherwise, it wins).

    Burn just seems very similar to Goyf Sligh and I don't know if simpleminded red decks are popular enough to warrant two slots in the tournament.
    I feel these are both very valid points. I for one aren't interested in the slightest in watching a Belcher vs. X game.

    Quote Originally Posted by lonelybaritone View Post
    UW straight up. I remember that this used to do it up back in the day. And Geoff Smelski (a Syracuse local who posts under the name "Konsultant" on these here forums) reverted to it Post-Flash, if I recall correctly.
    Too similar to UWb to be worth a slot, IMO. Of course, with 64 decks that'd be a different story...

    A UBg list. I think the archtype kinda needs white to be good, so this is a good way to show the rest of the world that I'm a genius. Or, y'know, not.
    Depending on how it's built, it could either be very similar to 4C, or very similar to ItF. Again, I'd look at its inclusion in a 64-deck tournament only.

    UGbw (pick the order on B and W) for Counter/Top, Thoughtseize and Swords and maybe Bob (you folks who play good decks can argue this). I feel like this is where the CB/T archtype is migrating now. It doesn't run City of Brass or any of the more questionable cards from 5c Thresh (like the 1-of Fact or Daze + City of Brass) but does have the twin powerhouses of Swords and Thoughtseize. Which I think I've said twice already.
    I'd stick to UGB. I've playtested four-colours for Swords and it's truly not worth it, might as well play City of Brass for the trouble the manabase is going to give you; Adan can back me up on this, and his name is Hebrew for Threshold so that should persuade you. Also, UGB has placed more.

    Combo Decks
    You totally forgot Aluren.

    At least two Survival lists. Gbrw as per Di, and a RGBSA with wishes that I will take suggestions on.
    Those are basically the same approach. I recommend NQS as a second Survival deck - I'd personally love BGW, but it doesn't have the results to be included except as a rogue.

    43 Land would be cool, but I'd only include it if we went to 64. It represents a tiny part of the meta.
    The classical 43 Lands list may be less played, but variations on the theme still show up quite regularly. Throw in the fact that it's a very unique deck, the sort of weird shit that makes you proud of the format, and I feel it's earned its inclusion.

    Enchantress. Surprised?
    Hope you can find someone who's got a good list.



    Assume I agree on the non-quoted parts.
    Last edited by Nihil Credo; 06-24-2008 at 09:01 PM.
    YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.

  19. #39

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    Quote Originally Posted by lonelybaritone View Post
    I remember that. Did it top 8 ever?
    Alix Hatfield T8'd Running GAGG with it. Calosso and Jesse came in 9th and 10th, respectively. Also, 4 other T8's, according to deckcheck.net .

  20. #40
    Plays green decks
    Jak's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2006
    Location

    Portland
    Posts

    2,184

    Re: [Interest] 2-Man Tournament, Round III

    If you want an accurate depiction of the meta, that's fine, but Istilll think you should add decks that don't see play. It is like they just add the top 32 teams in College basketball and never give schools like George Mason a chance.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)