GoblinSmashmaster Results for Round "Flail"
15 GoblinSmashmaster Saprazzan Cove, Copy Enchantment, Kiora's Dismissal, Mindslaver GT NA
That's me, playing illegal deck
Total: 0 points :(
It seems that it escaped notice: Flailing Manticore is banned.
There are no longer any legal Flailing creatures.
This makes no sense to me as Noxious Revival Leyline of Sanctity and Veldt are unique cards. You could argue there are other lands like Veldt, but not of that particular color combination (e.g. it is 1 of only 2 that work with Helix Pinnacle). But Leyline of Sanctity is very different than Ivory Mask (turn 0 protection for any deck, vs slow protection needing white mana). Noxious Revival is also unique in being playable for 0 mana in any deck, while the other effects are not instant, need colored mana, or can't target opponent's graveyard.
Banning all Flailing creatures, on the other hand, makes sense to avoid repetitive rounds.
Anyway, are the rules and bannings locked in for Round 2?
Rules and bans are locked in, we are three that have already submitted decks for round 2.
Leyline and noxious, it is because no one actually played it. Helix is still ban as a particularly slow, efficient one card win.
The goal of the bans is to avoid strategic repetition and copycats: hence the preventive ban of flayling Manticore, and Blinkmoth Infusion not being banned. I will also try to keep the banlist as small as possible.
Like most people here, I liked the consistency of previous seasons. Some of these bans seem arbitrary, and even from your description of how you would choose bans, I wouldn't have been able to predict which cards would be banned. A few times in previous seasons I started planning decks before the next round opened by just looking at the results. I guess if you're checking here frequently and making the declaration quickly then it doesn't really matter.
That said, I do appreciate that Flailing Manticore is banned. I was almost certainly going to play it this round, but I didn't really want to.
So, I asked while posting the round if anyone had strong reservations about my proposal (test out 2 rounds of a new banning system, and to argue and vote afterwards), and you were the only one who commented on it, while everyone posted. So I decided to go on with it.
The other banning system (systematic bans of each cards in deck that post a minimal score) has been tested, so it is hard to compare just by theory crafting.
I do take note that there are already three people that appreciate not having a R2: the flailing manticore (whether playing it or against it). I also do see that there seem to be a shared dislike of the arbitrary.
In this case I do value arbitration over systematic, but let's see what is decided by all after R3.
For next round I will try to explain the reasons behind each ban, maybe that will help?
I don't think anyone is going to miss Flailing Manticore. (Really, backbuild win conditions can be far more ridiculous.)
Explanations would help for next round.
My disagreement is over the relevance of bans to strategic diversity. Because Leyline and Noxious are free turn 0 plays, they're strategically different from the other similar effects. They enable much more than you get with Ivory Mask and Reclaim. Although Leyline and Noxious weren't explicitly used in matches, submissions had to play around that protection in deck construction (Aura Thief, Kiora's Dismissal, Detection Tower, Shivan Gorge instead of targeting), so they were very relevant to the round results. That's different from Blinkmoth Infusion, a filler card.
For Veldt, there are other lands with that effect, but few. Especially once you consider colored mana requirements. Banning Timberland Ruins doesn't change much, but banning Veldt means there's only 1 green slowland and 1 white slowland. If either of those get banned next, you get shut out of a color, forcing different win conditions and different interaction. That only takes 2 bans for a major strategic effect. Saying there's no point in banning 1 because it would take 2 bans to see format change makes no sense to me. 2 bans happen quickly. Colors matter. If you never ban them, there's even more repetitiveness.
I think it deserves more discussion after the next 1-2 rounds.
I agree for noxious and leyline, I just thought someone may want to play them? No one did, it was the sample deck. They had to be banned on R1, to avoid players mimicking the sample deck too hard, but players can enjoy them now.
For Veldt or lands in general, it is more that why a whole color could be removed, because one deck happened to play it? Many decks can play veldt and be all different, I doubt that decks playing flailing soldier or helix pinnacle would be extremely different from each others. So it is not that there is no point in banning veldt, it is that I think it is a very counterproductive point.
Fully agree! Even if we revert to the old system afterwards, I think it is worth trying. It does not change completely the game, I do think the only relevant difference for round 2 is the ban of flailing manticore, which seemed to be appreciated. A compact banlist may also be appreciated later, if it continues.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)