Congrats dte on a strong season win!
Also congrats to silkster for not punting any rounds, making it hard to close the gap!
Thanks Asthereal for smoothly organizing such a fun game for 12 seasons!
I would not make a good organizer, but I like the Backbuild idea if someone is willing to take it on. Beating multiple decks is too much to validate entries. What about a Backbuild Bannathon? Each deck must 6-0 the last week's winner, then previous winners get banned. That shouldn't take much work to validate entries and avoids it turning into a rotating Rock-Paper-Scissors.
Holy moly, Asthereal, what a run. Great job.
It seems there is a general consensus for a backbuild banathon season.Originally Posted by FTW
I can start one soon, with a first deadline in a month for Summer break.
Everyone would be OK with that?
Sounds great to me!
New thread -> https://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/...nnathon-season
Awesome, see you there!
And thanks everybody for the nice comments and remarks. It's been a heck of a ride.
Join the 4 Card Blind competition!
Here is what I am proposing for the next 4CB season. Let me know if you would like it, and/or if you want to change something.
Format: legacy. All legacy legal cards are legal.
Special rules: If a source controlled by an opponent would force a card in your hand or a land on the battlefield under your control to change zone, you can chose to ignore that effect. If an effect would allow a player to win the game due to an empty library, that effect is ignored.
Bannnathon: Cards that have appeared in 3+ decks over the season are banned. Scores are irrelevant. Note that individual cards are banned, not full decks. There are three motivations for me to do so: i) we avoid mid-scoring decks that come back again and again; ii) a card that overperformed in a deck can be used in another context; and iii) as soon as decklists are published, we immediately know the banned cards for the next round. This is particularly relevant as I propose a new automated system, see below.
Also I propose a few changes on the organization:
Median season scoring: the season would be 9 rounds, and the season overall score is the median one (so we exclude the four best and four worst scores) instead of sum/average as is now. The upside I see is that “accidents” such as missing a round, misunderstanding a given rule, submitting an illegal deck, do not have as strong an effect.
Automatic start, there is no messages to warn of a new round. I found it not easy as a TO to decide whether to start or to wait, and not practical as a participant to wait for the lists to arrive.
- Every round ends at 19h CEST on Wednesdays.
- Every round starts on Thursday at 19h CEST.
If I failed to send myself a deck before Thursday, then I am not participating in the round. If anyone else fail to send one for Wednesday, they are not participating. It is harsher than what we were doing, but hopefully that is alleviated by using median instead of sum/average.
All in excel sheet: as there would be no posts to warn of a new round, all can be handled directly from the excel sheet. Then I would continue on Asthereal’s old thread, as there are many resources already available. The link to the excel sheet would be available in my signature, as well as in the one of all the participants willing to do so.
I assume we'd still send decks via PM, right? If we send decks by posting them in a Google spreadsheet, I would be able to see other decks and adjust my deck accordingly.
So the proposal would be to handle everything in the spreadsheet except for sending in our decks?
This would have the disadvantage that if I score brilliantly in round 1, I have a strong incentive to never send in decks for later rounds.
We'd need to mitigate this, perhaps by stating in the rules that you need to have played 5 rounds minimum to be eligable for the championship.
This could work. In order to benefit fully from this method, you would need to be able to post decks at the exact time when the deadline ends, though.
I can't look into your schedule, but for me that would have been impossible. I usually posted decks from work, but when work was busy, that of course got delayed.
But if you are able to consistently post decks right after the deadline expires, sure. This kind of stuff is up to the TO. Whatever works for you. :)
(PS. I offer this point mainly because you as TO would need time to make your next deck, and if the round always opens at time X, but posting decks gets delayed, you run yourself out of time to create a new deck for the following round. Must make sure the TO can, and wants to, play 4CB! ;) )
Other questions:
-Will we start with a banned list, or do you want to start with everything legal and trust your special extra rules?
-How do we handle mishaps when the automation fails? (For example a card that should have been banned doesn't get added to the banned list, and someone ends up playing it later on?)
Join the 4 Card Blind competition!
Thanks for the feedback!
I like that you're innovating the structure of the season. I think median scoring is really nice for forgiving missed weeks, illegal entries, or a misunderstood rule. It'll make grand victories a little less exciting, but that's probably a fine tradeoff. It might also encourage people to play slightly wackier decks, though I'm not sure.
I like the simplicity of the banathon style. I think it'll be a bit awkward in the starting rounds. It's entirely possible that no cards will be banned in round 1, and I'm not excited by the round 2 that would follow. I do like that cards can be used more than once, and I do like that cards won't perpetually hang around getting ~2.6 points every week.
The lack of round opening/closing announcements seems mostly irrelevant, but I think I'm fine with it.
I've thought of trying to implement many special rules like that one, and I always have trouble getting them right. I'm not sure this is the right phrasing of the right things, but it's equal for everyone, so it's probably fine.
4CB Season 14 banned list in the second post and link to the google sheet.
There are probably some unforeseen consequences of this policy, but it's more complicated than it looks on the surface.
You probably have to do something with Meddling Mage effects because those act like virtual discard.
Ah so if I score 5 points and then score 0 for 8 rounds, my 0 will count. Got it.
It's a weird one, but it's starting to make sense in my foggy brain.
It could work. I'd have to see it in action to get a grasp of all the consequences.
Join the 4 Card Blind competition!
Meddling Mage / Curse of Silence could be handled by adding roughly
"If an effect would prevent spells with a chosen name from being cast, or increase the cost of such casting, this prevention or cost increase is ignored."
, although one would need to decide whether-or-not that also applies to Null Chamber.
However, strengthening animated lands is a consequence that I imagine was not foreseen:
Although damage would still work on them, things like "Destroy target creature." would not.
One would presumably want an exception to make Destroy still work against those, although the possibilities I have thought of for that would have further annoying consequences.
(Dryad Arbor is one, and although I don't know of any examples for the following, I imagine there are ways to turn an originally-just-creature into a Land Creature .)
I've now thought of some ways, and then realized that even the original can be clarified: Do we take the "force" part seriously?
(The alternatives I see are "can't cause" like Tamiyo, Collector of Tales, and and a replacement effect. If it's a replacement effect, then would a discard become not a discard, or become discard from hand to hand, like how Madness is discard from hand to exile? If it's discard from hand to hand, does that interact with Bone Miser like Library of Leng or like Nephalia Academcy?)
Specifically:
What happens with something else unless discard ?
( Court of Ambition , Forbidden Ritual , Kroxa, Titan of Death's Hunger , Nicol Bolas, the Deceiver , Ob Nixilis, the Adversary , Painful Quandry , Perplex , Reality Smasher , Remorseless Punishment , Tergrid's Lanterns , The Long Reach of Night , Torment of Hailfire , Torment of Scarabs , Torment of Venom )
What about Flay, when its target is able to produce the mana to make the payment?
What about discard unless something else other than a mana payment?
( Sirocco , Skullscorch , Tyrannize )
What about "may discard a card" ?
( Apathy , Borderland Explorer , Chain of Plasma , Dream Halls , Professor Onyx )
"If a source controlled by an opponent would force a card in your hand or a land on the battlefield under your control to change zone, you can chose to ignore that effect."
We could go with
The phrasings of my ideas might need to be changed accordingly, but otherwise, they are adding
", except for zone changes of lands you control which require that the land be a Creature"
or
", except for zone changes of lands you control where the effect specifically includes Creature for the zone-change"
or
similarly for Enchantment too, to allow Enchantment removal to work against Urza's Saga
between
"If a source controlled by an opponent would force a card in your hand or a land on the battlefield under your control to change zone, you can chose to ignore that effect"
and that sentence's period.
This way, "Destroy target creature." works even if the creature is also a land, but "Destroy target land." can be ignored even if that land is also a creature.
Similarly, Crack the Earth fails against players who control only lands
(even if some of those are also creatures, since Crack the Earth doesn't care about supertypes at all and so in particular is not covered by the exception)
, though what it does if the player controls both lands and nonland permanents would depend on the answer to my question at the top of this post.
The difference between my two ideas is, does "Destroy target creature or land." work against an animated land?
After relinquishing hosting duties (except for a wrap-up post that I should write) and starting March break, I'd completely forgotten about time passing on this. Are we starting this week, like in one minute?
It looks like there are still many questions about the special rules that prevent the usual Thoughtsieze meta. Which is good. I tried to do something similar in the "you get a few turns protected" round, but I didn't put enough exception clauses and I lost to poison.
4CB Season 14 banned list in the second post and link to the google sheet.
I should have answered sooner, sorry!After relinquishing hosting duties (except for a wrap-up post that I should write) and starting March break, I'd completely forgotten about time passing on this. Are we starting this week, like in one minute?
It looks like there are still many questions about the special rules that prevent the usual Thoughtsieze meta. Which is good. I tried to do something similar in the "you get a few turns protected" round, but I didn't put enough exception clauses and I lost to poison.
Start date, Thursday April 30th, at 19h CEST!
Like this we have a bit of time to fix and decide things.
Fully agree, but that's part of the fun!
You both have a good point that these cards would be pretty strong. But I think they should be here, otherwise, what is to stop combo?
None of these cards stop a marit lage, they at best draw to Show and tell into barren glory (or any other thing showed), are weak to removal or storage land (and I think removing discard and LD should promote storage lands).
So I am leaning towards keeping them unmodified. They will be strong control cards.
Good point, I will add "non-creature" to the land clause.
It is "you can chose". So madness works the same. I think "can't cause" is dangerous as it can be exploited, e.g. if you have a plains and a Marit Lage and your opponent has a smokestack with one counter, you can chose to sacrifice your plains.
So I would keep the current wording, after the non-creature land update:
"Special rules: If a source controlled by an opponent would force a card in your hand or a non-creature land on the battlefield under your control to change zone, you can chose to ignore that effect. If an effect would allow a player to win the game due to an empty library, that effect is ignored."
I think it works with all your proposed examples:
They almost work as intended, eg if you play kroxa, I can chose to discard, or I can chose not to even if I still have cards, but then I would lose life.
Flay has no effect.
All those cards do not "force" anything, so they work as intended (ie, they are unaffected by the special rule).
Would that work for all?
To sum it up:
- keeping meddling mage effects,
- adding "non-creature" to the land clause
- not changing anything else
I am cool with all of the above.
Join the 4 Card Blind competition!
For Sirocco and Tyrannize, should this instead be, they are affected by the special rule if and only if the player can't pay the life? (due to either not having enough or Platinum Emperion)
Is the interaction of this rule with Flay the same as the interaction of Mindslaver effects with the Pact spells?
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/...the-pact-cycle
That is: The target can decline to generate mana for the effect even if that player would've been able to generate such mana, in which case Flay's second sentence normally would force the target to discard a card, and the rule applies. However, if the player already has the mana as Flay starts to resolve, then the discard is not forced, so the target must either do that or pay.
"a non-creature land" :
This still allows Animate Land + Strip Mine .
I imagine that combo would in fact get used, although it's
maybe ok since it's slightly worse than Raze. (1 turn slower)
If we word it right, Sirocco will give you the choice between paying 4 life or no effect at all.
Also, if we're worried about Animate Land, we should be in good shape.
Join the 4 Card Blind competition!
other thing: Would basic lands be exempt from banning?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote