4 Card Blind

[dte]

I thought that 4x Titans would be funny, but since it still takes 2 turns outside the turtle to kill and is vulnerable to Moats, Bridges, etc., I thought it would be weaker than it actually was. Looks like it outscored my entry by 1 point.

If I had thought of pacts at all, I would have registered 3* titans + 1* pact of negation.

Otherwise I thought about sphere vs magus, and thought that the storage lands would probably be popular, but did not think of needle, so I went for magus. The combination with needle is clever, even if Silkster thought to play around it.

[alphastryk]

...
Pithing Needle was supposed to stop storage lands (the Masques ones! who plays the FE ones?)
...

Interestingly, I think this has proven we should always be playing the FE ones for exactly this reason. Never realized the newer templating made them vulnerable to Needle.

If I had thought of pacts at all, I would have registered 3* titans + 1* pact of negation.

Otherwise I thought about sphere vs magus, and thought that the storage lands would probably be popular, but did not think of needle, so I went for magus. The combination with needle is clever, even if Silkster thought to play around it.

I thought about the other Pact too, but since spells can't be countered during the turtle turns I went without it. Ultimately my decision was between 3 Pact of the Titan + 1 Leyline of the Meek vs 4 Pact.

[dte]

Interestingly, I think this has proven we should always be playing the FE ones for exactly this reason. Never realized the newer templating made them vulnerable to Needle.

Always, I am not sure. It is a tradeoff between the possibility to play instants and the vulnerability to needle. The FE ones are definitely less flexible.

I thought about the other Pact too, but since spells can't be countered during the turtle turns I went without it. Ultimately my decision was between 3 Pact of the Titan + 1 Leyline of the Meek vs 4 Pact.

Indeed, I should learn to read more carefully :)

[silkster]

Me: silkster: Bottomless Vault, Vendetta, Smallpox, Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre

1. Asthereal (TO): Remote Farm, City of Traitors, Moat, Elspeth, Knight-Errant
Not ready for Planeswalkers. LL

2. GoblinSmashmaster: Sandstone Needle, Greater Gargadon, Electrodominance, Restore Balance
I can Smallpox on Turn 4 and then Vendetta on Turn 9 (slowed down by 1 turn from RB making me discard the Vendetta). Gargadon can attack starting on turn: tapped, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, attack, which is turn 12, so I have plenty of time. WW

3. jhhdk: Peat bog, Pack rat, Gaea's cradle, Kozilek, Butcher of Truth
This is too fast for me. LL

4. Serguei: Forest, Glistener Elf, Invigorate, Berserk Oh, jesus. Nice find.
5. Reeplcheep: Glistener Elf, Invigorate, Beserk, Forest
6. dte: City of traitors, Simian spirit guide, Magus of the moon, Chronomaton Forgot about Magus.
7. Wrath of Pie: Ancient Tomb, Sheltered Valley, Ensnaring Bridge, Chalice of Life You kill on turn 11, and I stop you on turn 12. :(
8. alphastryk: Pact of the Titan, Pact of the Titan, Pact of the Titan, Pact of the Titan
I conflated these round rules with the life gain round rules. Nice find.

9. H: Swamp, Reanimate, Archon of Valor's Reach, Putrid Imp
This is why I played a sorcery removal and an instant removal, and yet somehow I didn't realize when I changed my deck to beat Sphere of Resistance that I'm now too slow. LL

10. maxx!: City of Traitors, Sphere of Resistance, Pithing Needle, Chronomaton
Yup, this is what I thought most decks would look like. I was hoping more people would play Pithing Needle hoping to beat storage lands. WW

11. FTW: Aether Vial, Meddling Mage, Deputy of Detention, Chancellor of the Tangle
With the Smallpox discard, I think I'm fast enough here, but I haven't done the math yet. WW

13. Tylert: Karakas, Lotus petal, Meddling mage, Chronomaton
I think I'm fast enough here, so I'm going to call it a win, though I'm not 100% on this. WW

24 maybe.

I thought that Sphere of Resistance and Meddling Mage would be popular, so I wasn't willing to play anything that loses to them. Unfortunately, others had bolder strategies. I'm sad that my suggestions of "you play X turns as a one-player game before joining the 1v1" wasn't taken up, but partially just cause I did so badly. I think writing the rules made it harder for me because I ruled out the things that I could think of. I played myself.

For people who remember our discussion of pacts, that was about the Life Gain round. We first proposed disabling all effects that win or lose the game, then realized that we should do it Platinum Angel style so that you're still vulnerable to your own pacts. In this round, we are not vulnerable to our own pacts. I wrote the round rules the way that I did so that Barren Glory was playable but not broken. With the number of turns changing, the "no win or loss effects" rule were probably not doing anything helpful.

[Asthereal]

... I'm sad that my suggestions of "you play X turns as a one-player game before joining the 1v1" wasn't taken up ...

Well, that's kinda what I went for with my deck, but you're right that it wasn't even close to optimal.
Then again, playing around the special rule, rather than with it, is a large part of the entire season so far.

Maybe we can add this idea to next season though. Playing X turns in single player mode before joining the 1v1.

[dte]

I do have two questions about bannings, and how to discuss them.
Up to now, we were just mentioning the cards here.
The drawback is that once a card is mentioned, it cannot be forgotten, and somehow the card gets nerfed without much we can do about it even if it is not banned. Then players may want to change decks, etc..

For instance, there is a card I do believe is format defining for the next round (curio), and not in a good way.

I do not see great alternatives.
One could be that there is a member, player or not, that could be MP'ed about the cards.

After this lengthy introduction:
- anyone has an idea on how to proceed better for worrying cards?
- should I mention the card I am worried about in the thread?

[Asthereal]

I do have two questions about bannings, and how to discuss them.
Up to now, we were just mentioning the cards here.
The drawback is that once a card is mentioned, it cannot be forgotten, and somehow the card gets nerfed without much we can do about it even if it is not banned. Then players may want to change decks, etc..

For instance, there is a card I do believe is format defining for the next round (curio), and not in a good way.

I do not see great alternatives.
One could be that there is a member, player or not, that could be MP'ed about the cards.

After this lengthy introduction:
- anyone has an idea on how to proceed better for worrying cards?
- should I mention the card I am worried about in the thread?

These are excellent questions. We should probably figure out a good way to do this.
So far, I've asked to drop troublesome cards in the thread, but if people feel that's a bad way to talk about troublesome cards, we could find a different way.

The only thing I can think of right now is that if you feel like there's a card that will screw up the round, you PM me with explanation, we can have a conversation about it, and if we feel the card is too good, I'll then drop an annoucement in the thread that we'll be banning a card, or rewording the rule for the round.
Advantage of this would be that if we come to the conclusion that the card isn't oppressive, you can still play it, and only I will know about it.
Disadvantage would of course be that this is slower and we might still overlook things with just two people thinking about an OP card.

What do you guys think?

[Serguei]

I do have two questions about bannings, and how to discuss them.
Up to now, we were just mentioning the cards here.
The drawback is that once a card is mentioned, it cannot be forgotten, and somehow the card gets nerfed without much we can do about it even if it is not banned. Then players may want to change decks, etc..

For instance, there is a card I do believe is format defining for the next round (curio), and not in a good way.

I do not see great alternatives.
One could be that there is a member, player or not, that could be MP'ed about the cards.

After this lengthy introduction:
- anyone has an idea on how to proceed better for worrying cards?
- should I mention the card I am worried about in the thread?

It is a very tough question indeed.

If you really think it will be unbeatable and goes almost against the rule, The simple is to post the card and submit it to a vote. On the other side people may have thought about it as well.

For the +3/+3 round, so many cards were banned where everyone has them in mind. People could have just adapt to them and they would have just defined the round format.

So I would say as you wish :)

[dte]

These are excellent questions. We should probably figure out a good way to do this.
So far, I've asked to drop troublesome cards in the thread, but if people feel that's a bad way to talk about troublesome cards, we could find a different way.

The only thing I can think of right now is that if you feel like there's a card that will screw up the round, you PM me with explanation, we can have a conversation about it, and if we feel the card is too good, I'll then drop an annoucement in the thread that we'll be banning a card, or rewording the rule for the round.
Advantage of this would be that if we come to the conclusion that the card isn't oppressive, you can still play it, and only I will know about it.
Disadvantage would of course be that this is slower and we might still overlook things with just two people thinking about an OP card.

What do you guys think?

Second disadvantage for you, it's also that much more "work".
If you're good with it, for me it is a great solution.

Except if someone post against it today, I'll send you a PM.

For the +3/+3 round, so many cards were banned where everyone has them in mind. People could have just adapt to them and they would have just defined the round format.

That's why I am asking :)
Here I think about a card I think at least half of us have thought about, but that playing around it make it maybe less about the round rules.

[FTW]

For instance, there is a card I do believe is format defining for the next round (curio), and not in a good way.

I do not see great alternatives.
One could be that there is a member, player or not, that could be MP'ed about the cards.

After this lengthy introduction:
- anyone has an idea on how to proceed better for worrying cards?
- should I mention the card I am worried about in the thread?

I would prefer you don't mention it in the thread and spoil my deck. Just play to beat it instead :)

11. FTW: Aether Vial, Meddling Mage, Deputy of Detention, Chancellor of the Tangle
With the Smallpox discard, I think I'm fast enough here, but I haven't done the math yet. WW

You win both. I did the math. It's very close when I'm on the play. If I name Vendetta with Meddling Mage and discard Deputy to Smallpox, I get some hits in with Mage and Chancellor before you recover your mana, but you do stabilize at around 4-5 life.

For people who remember our discussion of pacts, that was about the Life Gain round.

This was separate. Many weeks ago, when Asthereal first posted all the deviant rounds in the OP, some already had advance bannings. I believe this one had 3 of the 5 Pacts added (Titan, Negation, and maybe the white one). But they're not there anymore. Anyway, I designed decks for some deviant rounds weeks in advance. In this case, since there was no discussion about additional bannings or rules changes, I didn't bother to check the wording or banlist posted and failed to notice the subtle change or loopholes. Like you, I played myself. Guess it's better to do a last minute deck and actually read the posted rules.

[Reeplcheep]

The whole point of this is to play with broken stuff. I think the advance bannings on the 3/3 round screwed it up and let my deck do way better than it should have. This is said as someone who hasn’t thought about the next round at all.

I think we shouldn’t have last minute bans as it hurts people who put the most work into the format. If people wanted crazy formats it’s natural some of them will be totally broken.

[Wrath of Pie]

I look forward to someone forgetting that Cloudstone Curio has a "nonartifact" clause. (Oh, and Asthereal submitting Elspeth again.)

[FTW]

I look forward to someone forgetting that Cloudstone Curio has a "nonartifact" clause. (Oh, and Asthereal submitting Elspeth again.)

Did we decide if it's an emblem or still an artifact token?

I think we shouldn’t have last minute bans as it hurts people who put the most work into the format. If people wanted crazy formats it’s natural some of them will be totally broken.

I don't mind. Losing to RTFC is part of Magic. The format should also be fun for everyone. But I agree that some of these deviant rounds will just be more broken than others by design, and we should just roll with it.

[dte]

The whole point of this is to play with broken stuff. I think the advance bannings on the 3/3 round screwed it up and let my deck do way better than it should have. This is said as someone who hasn’t thought about the next round at all.

I think we shouldn’t have last minute bans as it hurts people who put the most work into the format. If people wanted crazy formats it’s natural some of them will be totally broken.

Well, my concern is more than broken stuff cannot be played, due to broken answers.
And then we have yet another round of normal legacy 4CB.

[Asthereal]

Oh, and Asthereal submitting Elspeth again.

Gotta play with my girlfriend every now and then.

The first time I made top 8 in Legacy was with a Maverick brew with 3x Elspeth, Knight-Errant.
That was probably overdoing it, but she won me many games and I just love the card.

Did we decide if it's an emblem or still an artifact token?

I would rather have it as a token that can be destroyed, because that adds another layer of options.
- Decks that use it to full effect
- Decks that answer the cards that use Curio
- Decks that answer Curio itself
- And of course decks that completely ignore the whatever we do this week.

I don't mind. Losing to RTFC is part of Magic. The format should also be fun for everyone. But I agree that some of these deviant rounds will just be more broken than others by design, and we should just roll with it.

I support both these points. That's why I typically put it up for votes.
More fun for more people is what I'm after. And I'm a Legacy player, so sick stuff is definitely fun for me.

[Tylert]

Well, my concern is more than broken stuff cannot be played, due to broken answers.
And then we have yet another round of normal legacy 4CB.

Yeah. I hate when we we have something that should be cool and that is broken in half by LD or Tabernacle...

[Asthereal]

Standings for round 10 look as follows:
1. alphastryk: 48 - 4
1. Tylert: 48 - 4
3. maxx!: 47 - 3,9
4. H: 46 - 3,8
5. dte: 41 - 3,4
6. FTW: 40 - 3,3
7. Serguei: 39 - 3,3
7. Reeplcheep: 39 - 3,3
9. Asthereal (TO): 33 - 2,8
10. Wrath of Pie: 31 - 2,6
11. silkster: 24 - 2
12. GoblinSmashmaster: 15 - 1,3
13. jhhdk: 6 - 0,5

Which would lead to these standings in the season:
1. dte: 40,4
2. FTW: 39,3
3. Serguei: 34,5
4. Tylert: 34,3
5. maxx!: 32,2
6. Wrath of Pie: 31,9
7. Asthereal (TO): 28,2
8. Reeplcheep: 27,2
9. silkster: 26
10. H: 22
11. GoblinSmashmaster: 20
12. jhhdk: 18,7
13. alphastryk: 15,5

So not much changes, but alphastryk seems to have decided to start a serious attempt to vacate the last place.


For next round: I've had a PM conversation with dte about concerns that a certain card might dominate the bouncy castle.
My personal conclusion was that, while strong, the card wasn't unique in its functionality, and should not be too problematic.
So I think we're okay, and can play the round as planned with no additional bannings.

Also, nobody posted opposition to my preference for keeping the Curio as a token rather than an emblem, so that will stay "as is" as well.

I'm hoping to create my deck soon, so stay tuned.

[Tylert]

Also, nobody posted opposition to my preference for keeping the Curio as a token rather than an emblem, so that will stay "as is" as well.

i'd prefer to have it as an emblem so that we're playing the rules and not bending the rules.

[dte]

i'd prefer to have it as an emblem so that we're playing the rules and not bending the rules.

+1

[Asthereal]

EDIT: Just as I post this, I see people wanting something else. I'll hold for a sec.
Who else is in favor of making the Curio an amblem?