Considder
Haven't done the math, but it seems unfair to H that the FoW's gets "upgraded" to FoN's against him.7. H: Lion's Eye Diamond, Lion's Eye Diamond, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, From Under the Floorboards
vs.
9. alphastryk: Force of Will, Dack Fayden, Beacon of Destruction, Land Equilibrium
or
10. maxx!: Mistcutter Hydra, Misthollow Griffin, Food Chain, Force of Will
H won both these match even with FoN so it changes nothingOriginally Posted by jhhdk
Yeah, forgot he can just crack LED's on their turn to play around FoN.
Time to chime in again.
- Serguei is right that in competitive tournaments you get a game loss and get to replace the card with a basic. But in competitive play a banned card tends to be 1 in 60 cards. Here it's 25% of your deck, and you have the card every game, so the problem of one banned card is a lot bigger than in regular magic. And that's why we never went for the official solution. But it might be a better solution than a row of zeros.
- Tylert is also right that earlier cases dictate that we should award a row of losses to illegal decks. It would be unfair to earlier cases of accidentally illegal decks to allow a card swap here.
- About the swap itself: jhhdk mentioned that FoN might be better in some cases than FoW would have been. They are fringe cases, but cases nonetheless. Slower matches spring to mind where hardcasting FoN for 3 can be a winning play.
- Lastly, the casual and non-serious nature of our competition came up, which doesn't gel at all with awarding that row of zeros to accidentally illegal entries. Even though, if I recall correctly, both players who sent FoW decks have already posted that they are okay with a row of zeros as a consequence.
Considering the above, I feel like it's time to completely rethink our handling of illegal decks, and set up ground rules that can be added to the first post, so everybody knows what's up. The current situation is that if I manage to spend a lot of time on 4CB, I'll catch banned cards as they are sent to me, and I can notify the sender. But currently I don't have as much time, so I overlook banned submissions all the time. And their consequences, as mentioned, are quite severe. And this makes me feel bad, which is of course unacceptable.
I think it might be best to, from now on, agree on a way to handle illegal cards in decks, and stick to it. And the official solution, the more I think about it, doesn't look so bad. You still have a deck, albeit a 3CB deck, so you might still score some points. The extra land might even help in some cases, which isn't ideal of course, but at least everybody knows in advance that this is what will happen when a deck contains an illegal card. So I would like to suggest that we add this rule:
When a player sends an illegal deck, and it's not noticed by either the player or the tournament organizer before posting decks for the round, that the player gets to swap the illegal card(s) with (a) basic land(s) of his/her choice. This choice will then be addedd to the post with the decks and the Google spreadsheet by the tournament organizer, and everybody gets to redo the calculations with the new deck.
Everybody, please let me know if you agree with this solution.
PS. Typos don't count, of course. Otherwise one of our regulars would have stopped playing long ago. I won't say who. You know who you are.
Join the 4 Card Blind competition!
I agree. Do we also agree that a deck that doesn't work as intented cannot be modified?Time to chime in again.
- Serguei is right that in competitive tournaments you get a game loss and get to replace the card with a basic. But in competitive play a banned card tends to be 1 in 60 cards. Here it's 25% of your deck, and you have the card every game, so the problem of one banned card is a lot bigger than in regular magic. And that's why we never went for the official solution. But it might be a better solution than a row of zeros.
- Tylert is also right that earlier cases dictate that we should award a row of losses to illegal decks. It would be unfair to earlier cases of accidentally illegal decks to allow a card swap here.
- About the swap itself: jhhdk mentioned that FoN might be better in some cases than FoW would have been. They are fringe cases, but cases nonetheless. Slower matches spring to mind where hardcasting FoN for 3 can be a winning play.
- Lastly, the casual and non-serious nature of our competition came up, which doesn't gel at all with awarding that row of zeros to accidentally illegal entries. Even though, if I recall correctly, both players who sent FoW decks have already posted that they are okay with a row of zeros as a consequence.
Considering the above, I feel like it's time to completely rethink our handling of illegal decks, and set up ground rules that can be added to the first post, so everybody knows what's up. The current situation is that if I manage to spend a lot of time on 4CB, I'll catch banned cards as they are sent to me, and I can notify the sender. But currently I don't have as much time, so I overlook banned submissions all the time. And their consequences, as mentioned, are quite severe. And this makes me feel bad, which is of course unacceptable.
I think it might be best to, from now on, agree on a way to handle illegal cards in decks, and stick to it. And the official solution, the more I think about it, doesn't look so bad. You still have a deck, albeit a 3CB deck, so you might still score some points. The extra land might even help in some cases, which isn't ideal of course, but at least everybody knows in advance that this is what will happen when a deck contains an illegal card. So I would like to suggest that we add this rule:
When a players sends an illegal deck and it's not noticed by either the player or the tournament organizer before posting decks for the round, that the player gets to swap the illegal card(s) with (a) basic land(s) of his/her choice. This choice will then be addedd to the post with the decks and the Google spreadsheet by the tournament organizer, and everybody gets to redo the calculations with the new deck.
Everybody, please let me know if you agree with this solution.
+1
Yes, I would like to keep that as is. Changing things after decks are posted is never a good idea, because you get to metagame your swap to the actual opposition, and that's not fair.
Join the 4 Card Blind competition!
I am supportive of Asthereal's proposition on how to handle wrong cards in the future. It's good to have a simple, clear, official rule.
For this round, I am more in favor of keeping the FoW to FoN replacement. Maybe because I feel a bit bad after blabbering a lot about "force" in the topic (thinking FoN, I will have to be much more careful on my cards mentions after the ancestral recall - trall issue).
Otherwise, what do you think of unbanning FoW for next rounds? It's legacy after all, nothing wrong about expecting foWs in about half of the MUs :) And that's maybe better than having LED/shoker/other T1 win in half of the MUs?
And Asthereal, what do you think of not having to PM yourself before the start of the round, only before reading others entries?
I think I also got this MU wrong:
OTD I lose, no questions asked. But OTP I think I have a draw:
T1, dark ritual
--> if FoN, I play T2 stylus, and acid reality stone rain Serguei every turn.
--> if no FoN, I play fiend, exile FoN, then stylus, and put fiend in the bottom of my library (in my turn), FoN goes back to Serguei's hand. T2 I replay fiend, answer its ETB ability with stylus. Serguei better StP or I win. So he StP my fiend, and I exile FoN permanently. T3 and after, acid reality stone rain Serguei every turn.
1-4?
Actually the peasant side was a big factor in choosing this deck. I didn't try to build peasant, but when I discovered it was peasant I was all for submitting this one. My other decks would not have fared much better (except the Oko one, which probably confirm again that banning it was good), although if I had realized that the floorboard deck could get under FoN by playing floorboard during the opponent's turn, I would have gone for it.
Unbanning FoW might make it optimal to just play FoW every round.
I intentionally banned FoW before the last season of Deviant Legacy, because I feared it would donimate big time.
I would love to have more time to create my own deck, but if I organize this competition, I have to send my own deck in before others send theirs, otherwise there won't be evidence of me being unable to meta based on decks that others sent in. Unless you're willing to take over the organization of 4CB.
Stone Raining every turn? Vanishing 3 is quite fast, but not that fast, right?
Join the 4 Card Blind competition!
With Stylus it is.
Oh right. Somehow my brain was of the opinion that Stilus would work from the graveyard rather than from play.
Join the 4 Card Blind competition!
Four in favour so far. Please vote if you haven't already.Time to chime in again.
- Serguei is right that in competitive tournaments you get a game loss and get to replace the card with a basic. But in competitive play a banned card tends to be 1 in 60 cards. Here it's 25% of your deck, and you have the card every game, so the problem of one banned card is a lot bigger than in regular magic. And that's why we never went for the official solution. But it might be a better solution than a row of zeros.
- Tylert is also right that earlier cases dictate that we should award a row of losses to illegal decks. It would be unfair to earlier cases of accidentally illegal decks to allow a card swap here.
- About the swap itself: jhhdk mentioned that FoN might be better in some cases than FoW would have been. They are fringe cases, but cases nonetheless. Slower matches spring to mind where hardcasting FoN for 3 can be a winning play.
- Lastly, the casual and non-serious nature of our competition came up, which doesn't gel at all with awarding that row of zeros to accidentally illegal entries. Even though, if I recall correctly, both players who sent FoW decks have already posted that they are okay with a row of zeros as a consequence.
Considering the above, I feel like it's time to completely rethink our handling of illegal decks, and set up ground rules that can be added to the first post, so everybody knows what's up. The current situation is that if I manage to spend a lot of time on 4CB, I'll catch banned cards as they are sent to me, and I can notify the sender. But currently I don't have as much time, so I overlook banned submissions all the time. And their consequences, as mentioned, are quite severe. And this makes me feel bad, which is of course unacceptable.
I think it might be best to, from now on, agree on a way to handle illegal cards in decks, and stick to it. And the official solution, the more I think about it, doesn't look so bad. You still have a deck, albeit a 3CB deck, so you might still score some points. The extra land might even help in some cases, which isn't ideal of course, but at least everybody knows in advance that this is what will happen when a deck contains an illegal card. So I would like to suggest that we add this rule:
When a player sends an illegal deck, and it's not noticed by either the player or the tournament organizer before posting decks for the round, that the player gets to swap the illegal card(s) with (a) basic land(s) of his/her choice. This choice will then be addedd to the post with the decks and the Google spreadsheet by the tournament organizer, and everybody gets to redo the calculations with the new deck.
Everybody, please let me know if you agree with this solution.
PS. Typos don't count, of course. Otherwise one of our regulars would have stopped playing long ago. I won't say who. You know who you are.
Join the 4 Card Blind competition!
The evidence is your integrity, I guess no one ever asked you for a screenshot showing that you PMed yourself before the round?I would love to have more time to create my own deck, but if I organize this competition, I have to send my own deck in before others send theirs, otherwise there won't be evidence of me being unable to meta based on decks that others sent in. Unless you're willing to take over the organization of 4CB.
And definitely not willing to take over :)
Very grateful that you organise this, I realize that it should be a lot of work.
But if you want for few rounds when you're really busy, I could.
The evidence is that he can sometimes get crappier scores than me :)
I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with people keeping cards that "don't work" like my Maze last round.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
OK, so lets see if I can figure this.
H T1: LED, LED, play a Swamp, crack both Diamonds and cast FUtF [X=5], [H=25], shuffle, Library would be Emrakul, LED, LED, FUtF.
J T1: Play Forest, Exporation, play Forest, Exploration, play Forest and Xantid. Pass.
H T2: Draw Emrakul, attack with all 5 Zombies. Xantid is useless and I think this might be a tight race, so I think chumping is probably best, so [J=12].
J T2: Play Scute, play 3 Forests. The first two triggers make plain 1/1s, the last one makes another Swarm.
H T3: Draw LED. Attack with all 5 Zombies. Since the plain 1/1s can just chump, or honestly the damage can just be taken since it isn't lethal.
J T3: The first Forest makes 2 more Swarms, the second makes 6 more and the third makes...well, I don't know but it doesn't matter, my hunch was right, I can't beat this.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
Figured I should try to figure out this matchup.
S: 1 land
W: 1 land, Elixir (no FoN given above)
S: 2 lands
W: 2 lands, Trophy on a land (no FoN given above)
S: 2 lands
W: 3 lands, activate Elixir (25 life), ordered Elixir/Trophy
S: 3 lands
W: 4 lands, draw and cast Elixir
S: 4 lands
W: Vitu-Ghazi, draw and cast Trophy, activate Elixir (30 life)
S: 4 lands
W: 5 lands, draw and cast Elixir, create token 1
S: 5 lands, Swords the token (W @ 31 life)
W: 6 lands, draw and cast Trophy, activate Elixir (36 life)
S: 5 lands
W: 7 lands, draw and cast Elixir, create token 2
S: 6 lands
W: 8 lands, draw and cast Trophy, attack (S @ 19), activate Elixir (41 life), create token 3
S: 6 lands
W: my land count doesn't matter anymore, draw and cast Elixir, attack (S @ 17), create token 4
S: 7 lands, Misthollow Griffin
W: Draw and cast Trophy (on Griffin), attack (S @ 14), activate Elixir (46 life), create token 5
S: 8 lands
W: Draw and cast Elixir, attack (S @ 10), create token 6
S: 9 lands
W: Draw and cast Trophy, attack (S @ 5), activate Elixir (51 life), create token 7
Huh, guess I do win after all, Serguei never gets to cast Ulamog.
I’m down for the basic land change.
That does mean that basic lands should always be ban-proof, but that's the standard most of the time anyways, so it works for me.
Someone wants to weigh in on this disagreement?
I have OTD:
R forest, exploration, valakut H land, ledx2 5 2/2s gain 5 shuffle everything in.
R mountain, asuza, mountain x3 H draw Emmy, land, attack for 10
R mountain x4, bolt 3 2/2s, kozilek. H can attack for 2 losing a zombie, draw led.
Attacking twice with kozilek and bolting face 8 times should kill before H can go off again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote