This thread serves as the area to discuss Perfect Hand Magic (previously named "Card Blind") as a whole, outside of a given round. Banned Lists, Rules, Strategy - they're all welcome here.
The one thing I miss is being able to discard a single card on the first and/or second turn. My favorite 3CB deck of all time was "Lotus / Pox / Nether Spirit". I understand that first turn discard is a little too harsh in many of our formats, but discarding a single card on second turn only gets harsh in very limited formats, such as two cards with a land rule. I would love to do a land rule round being able to play Smallpox.
What I love most in XCB is to do outside-the-box decks. I love just tossing out a really odd deck and seeing how well it does, without regards to figuring out the meta and going for points. The last round, I was just curious as to how well Form of the Dragon would do. While it's not quite outside-the-box, it's a very interesting idea. It's simplistic, narrow, and all-in. But, it's very powerful. I have a form of the dragon. Can you beat it?
I was debating between that and Ritualing out a Sorin.
Interstingly, Sorin would have scored slightly higher, crossing the 300 mark.
I miss the discard rule too. It was changed while I was on a lengthy break, and the game felt different afterwards. Does anyone know when exactly the discard rule was changed from the old 'no more than one card' rule?
We had a brief rules discussion in February of last year. I was in favor of it changing, actually. Mainly because of Land Rule rounds. Unlimited 1st/2nd turn discard is too harsh for land rule rounds. Discard basically forces everyone in 2CB to go with a 1 drop to survive. If we go with the rule of "you can play an additional land from your hand" that can even be 1st turn if the rule allowed (Chain of Smog/Mishra's Factory).
The issue is that non-land-rule rounds can compensate much more easily, and discard in lotus rounds isn't event relevant. With lotus abound, people often play out on first turn. Saying "No more than 1 on 1st" suffices to make discard a viable option while not limiting the format.
I'd love to find a way to make the discard rule change per format, but previous attempts have just lead to more round confusion, and illegal entries. Or at least some rule that makes discard not break the game in small non-lotus rounds, while still viable in lotus rounds.
I'm somewhat confused by the ban of Maralen of the Mornsong in the Land Rule format. Her tutor instead of draw ability doesn't do a lot, as the lands don't need to be drawn, and a two sided 3 damage a turn doesn't seem close to overpowered. Is something going on there that I'm missing?
One of our Land Rule formats is that you draw your lands.
"Whenever a player would draw a card from an empty library, that player instead puts a basic land card of the type of that player's choice into his or her hand."
Maralen stops the drawing of lands.
We very rarely go with the draw-your-lands rule, but Maralen is basically useless outside of these rounds anyways.
separate ban lists for separate formats is good in theory, but its more work for the mods.
the maralen ban came about because i didnt check the suggested banlist for an ALR round, and this is what happened.
The issue is that non-land-rule rounds can compensate much more easily, and discard in lotus rounds isn't event relevant. With lotus abound, people often play out on first turn. Saying "No more than 1 on 1st" suffices to make discard a viable option while not limiting the format.
I disagree. Thoughtseize was one of the most powerful cards in 5CB, and I don't think it led to good gameplay. It's true that's it not effective on the draw against an all-in Lotus deck, but it also single-handedly wins against many of those decks on the play, while also being good in most other match-ups. I think the current XCB is more diverse and enjoyable for not having to worry about turn one Thoughtseize every round, and I hope it stays that way.
If we decide to make earlier discard an option, I don't think it should be by more than a single non-targeted card on turn 2.
as of right now, the most powerful discard is either a turn 3 wistful thinking or a turn 2 anvil of bogardan (and if you want to get really fancy, do it a turn earlier on the draw with something like gemstone caverns)
do we want it to be better than that?
i think some rounds with an alternate discard rule could be fun, but i wouldnt want the rule to change.
Looking back, I'm definitely an aggro player. My favorite decks from the ABT are from 4CB LF and 3CB LR Only White/Ban Week. On the spectrum of decks I like to play, I'd categorize them as closer to control, but five of the seven cards are win conditions.
I'm trying to come up with some 3CB & 4CB 'shells' that can be easily adapted to higher numbered Card Blinds, and the fastest number of turns the deck can take in order to win. This takes into account the ABT Banned List and any banned lists that the shell can be used in. Some examples below:
Brain Maggot Proposal: Banned in 3CB. Explanation: Brain Maggot is very similar to Mesmeric Fiend.
Vampire Hexmage Proposal: Unbanned in all formats. Dark Depths becomes banned in all formats. Explanation: With the recent printing of Thespian's Stage and the changes to the Legendary rule, the ban on Vampire Hexmage seems to be more akin towards treating the symptom, rather than fixing the problem. With Thespian's Stage, the process of producing the token is uncounterable, though it is one turn slower than Hexmage/Depths. Hexmage can be countered to disrupt the engine, but the tradeoff is a turn faster and a backup threat.
Lion's Eye Diamond Proposal: Banned in ABT, 4CB, & 5CB. Explanation: The difference between LED and Black Lotus is the self discard in LED. LED combos well with both Shelldock Isle and Unburial Rites to churn out one deadly creature, such as Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre and Iona, Shield of Emeria. Isle decks and Rites decks can circumvent most creature disruption and work around counterspells. They often upstage all-in Lotus + threat decks.
Smokestack Proposal: Banned in ABT, 4CB, & 5CB. Explanation: Smokestack decks proved itself as a powerhouse throughout the history of Card Blind. Compared to other recursive disruption, such as Anurid Scavenger/Beast Within or Necrotic Sliver/Volrath's Stronghold, Smokestack's permanent destruction builds up over consecutive turns. Scavenger and Sliver have to 'recharge' at least one turn before they can destroy a second permanent.
Overall Thoughts: Speaking about the Card Blinds without a Land Rule. I feel that aggro in general is not represented very well. There are no shortage of ways to disrupt creature threats (Tabernacle, Bridge, Karakas, etc.) The emphasis in winning the meta is working around counterspells (Foil, Commandeer) or using a threat that avoids creature destruction as a win condition (Tongs, Scepter). Its unfortunate that some deck archetypes are lost over Magic's rules changes over the years (Vineyard & Mana burn) or Card Blind rules changes (Anvil). Maybe the nostalgia glasses are ruining the experience. I don't know. I haven't played in awhile, but I lurk every once in awhile to see how things are going.
i don't see the problem with brain maggot or mesmeric fiend - we have already got the "no discard before opponent's turn 2" rule, which means mesmeric / brain maggot can't be included in most decks.
In the XCB Repository, there is an ABT banned list and a separate banned list for each sized Card Blinds. Before ABT came about, the discard rule was different and allowed cards like Mesmeric Fiend to be used. Since the discard rules have changed, the ban list hasn't been updated to reflect the new discard rule.
With Pact of Negation, the card itself is banned in 5CB, but not in ABT. Seems like a good candidate to ban for ABT.
Yeah... I for one didn't actually realize Pact of Negation was legal. My kneejerk reaction was "that card is banned, dudes".
As for Hexmage/Depths/Stage: I'd recommend adding Stage, rather than swapping Hex/Depths. Dark Depths is playable even when you're not cheating the counters off it - running it with another land and Urborg has been done in various 4-5 land builds. I'd be sad to see that go.
Also, I'd like to second a Smokestack ban. Any card which produces literally incalculably complicated matchups needs to go.
i don't see the problem with brain maggot or mesmeric fiend - we have already got the "no discard before opponent's turn 2" rule, which means mesmeric / brain maggot can't be included in most decks.
Also, point for discussion: is the following deck problematic?
It's very fast like an all-in, immune to foil, and able to use pact as very powerful disruption or combo protection. Ulamog destroys a permanent upon casting, and annihilator takes care of other issues. Ulamog can even shuffle the deck back together if it ever gets killed.
I think the pact puts this deck over the top - It makes the deck nearly unbeatable without dedicated hate.
While I love playing with Pact, I think banning it was justified in 5CB, and I think the same holds for ABT. Like many previously banned cards, Pact is generally either useless or dominant.
Hexmage/Depths/Stage:
We discussed this last year, and decided Depths should be legal for the reasons WW has given. Stage has not proven to be problematic after nearly a year-and-a-half of the combo's existence, and I doubt that it will barring future printings. If it does, we can ban it then.
Smokestack:
I think it's been less than a month since we voted on this. The only relevant change since than is an increase in the number of players - such that each bit of extra calculation time is more costly - but I think the complexity of Smokestack is exaggerated, barring a few instances. In general, if a score is too difficult to calculate, it's due to specific round rules - not a card that we all by now have a lot of experience playing with.
The discussion here is on how to determine deck composition. In the first case, a first turn kill is possible based on the potential costs of the cards in your opponent's deck. In the second case, the deck potentially has no win condition.
Last round, the proposition in regards to Ignite Memories was to consider every range of characteristics possible when considering whether or not a deck is legal. So, the existence of Emrakul, the Aeons Torn would make an Ignite Memories deck like this illegal. My interest is in whether or not this is an easily understood rule, and whether or not it's the right rule to have. The same rule allows a deck centered around Karn Liberated (and similar decks should they exist) to be legal, so that's a plus. (Although the rule about a deck needing to win is probably unnecessary; it's doubtful that a huge number of submissions will ever come in strictly based on punching out ties, especially with the currently scoring system.)
Right now, a deck that wins through Karn alone is illegal in 4CMM. I plan on changing that this upcoming round seems it seems unnecessary, but I want a good rule to structure it around. I hate that the rules get in the way to the game sometimes, but the benefits are by far greater.
I'm very much a Johnny when it comes to this game. I really enjoy the metagame aspects, but if the best deck is boring, I'm more likely to play something crafty to beat it than it itself. This round's Leyline of Punishment/Illusions of Grandeur combo was sweet. The previous round's Seismic Assault/Foil was bore-tastic.
The same rule allows a deck centered around Karn Liberated (and similar decks should they exist) to be legal, so that's a plus.
I disagree that that rule would make the Karn deck legal. If the argument is 'a deck is not legal if it potentially has a first turn kill,' then a deck should not be legal if it potentially has no win condition. There exists decks that win using non-permanent based win conditions, which means it is possible for Karn to play against an illegal deck and have no win condition. Therefore, a deck that only uses Karn as a win condition is illegal.
In a similar manner, a deck that, after turn 3 (but not before) is able to cast ignite memories for storm count 100 should also be illegal, because it has no win condition against an all lands deck (which we all know is very capable of winning)
true. i don't mean to be a pedant. maybe i'm just parsing the sentence wrong, but the answer to the question: 'can the deck win against any legal deck' is no, because there are legal decks it can't win against. i guess the wording is ambigous. here i take the sentence to mean:
'given every combination of cards your opponent plays, does your deck have a way to win?'
student of warfare will beat any combination of cards, even path, if the pilot is a goldfish. karn won't.
in the end i don't think the rule is an overly important one, compared to the kill turn and discard rules.
2.3a. An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force any cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before an opponent's second turn. A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could make no sequence of decisions that would not result in either that card changing zones or that player losing the game before his or her second turn.
2.3b. An entrant may not submit a deck that wouldn't enable the player of that deck to win a match (see Rule 2.4d) against the player of at least one deck satisfying all rules.
The intent of the discard clause in 2.3a is to keep the metagame diverse and not have games determined entirely by who plays first. If this rule did not exist, the banned list would have to be much, much larger to cover the many uninteresting forms of hand disruption. 2.3a is worded to consider every possible opposing deck list. If it wasn't, we would be able to cast Thoughtseize on turn one, because there are legal decks that run no nonland cards. Because there are no mandatory choices revolving around hidden information, and this hypothetical opponent is making the sequence of decisions that make it most likely to avoid discard, this rule is adequately tested against "Schrodinger's goldfish", a deck that takes no actions but with a hand could contain any possible combination of cards. I would consider the current application of the discard rule to accomplish its purpose effectively.
Similarly, the intent behind the win clause of 2.3a is to keep the banned list small without having the game devolve into battles of turn one wins and counterspells. It helps to keep the metagame diverse and interesting rather than becoming a simple rock/paper/scissors. Because it is combined with the discard rule, it is also worded so it can be tested against any legal deck controlled by a player who takes no actions. Unfortunately for Ignite Memories, a deck of all Chancellor of the Forge is legal, so no storm wins can get around the rule.
However, 2.3a can have some strange effects in rounds with special rules. For example, imagine a round of 5CB where players begin the game at 5 life. Black Lotus into Inquisition violates the rules against a goldfish, but there is not a single deck of five white cards that is able to win a game. In a round where players are not allowed to play more than one card of each card type, Barren Moor into Encroach would be legal, because every land card can be played on the first turn by an opponent trying to avoid discard. This gets even more complicated when the round involves gifts or backbuilds. 2.3a can interact paradoxically with 2.3b, where the legality of one deck depends on the legality of another deck, which can create a loop.
The intent behind 2.3b is a little harder to discern. Here is Madmanquail's justification from the reddit thread:
That rule exists purely so that new players can be helped by the moderator when they unintentionally submit a deck which cannot win on its own. For example, the deck [[Foil]] / [[Island]] / [[Nether Spirit]] might look like a strong deck, but it cannot ever win a game, since the opponent can always just hold their cards for a draw. This rule allows me to inform the player that their deck doesn't work. Normally, the moderator cannot provide any kind of advice or coaching for the submissions, but if the deck is illegal then they can intervene via this rule.
There may be a more subtle purpose behind this rule as well, to prevent decks that can force a draw every game with Timesifter or similar cards from being legal. 2.3b is worded differently than 2.3a, and is somewhat ambiguous. A deck is illegal if it cannot win a match against at least one legal deck. This could be interpreted to mean a deck is illegal if there is at least one legal deck it cannot win a match against. However, by this definition every deck is illegal, because if it were legal it would be unable to win against itself, since mirror matches result in a draw. The sensible interpretation of 2.3b is that a deck is illegal if there is no legal deck it can win a match against, with both decks playing optimally. A deck centered around Karn Liberated is legal, because there are plenty of legal decks it can win against, and while it will naturally lose some matches, no deck can be perfect.
The XCB comprehensive rules should be worded clearly to mirror the official comprehensive rules, and the abridged version that the majority of players read should reflect the meaning of the comprehensive rules, which they currently fail to do. If the moderators want to add a clause that a deck must be able to defeat a goldfish, they may, but currently that is not a limitation.
In a round where players are not allowed to play more than one card of each card type, Barren Moor into Encroach would be legal, because every land card can be played on the first turn by an opponent trying to avoid discard...
Not quite. The definition of "forced" encompasses more than discard. In this case, the player either plays or discards the land, but it is forced to change zones either way, so the Enroach deck is illegal.
The XCB comprehensive rules should be worded clearly to mirror the official comprehensive rules, and the abridged version that the majority of players read should reflect the meaning of the comprehensive rules, which they currently fail to do.
When you say they don't reflect the meaning, are you only talking about the "goldfish rule" or is there something else? The "goldfish rule" isn't actually rule. I think MMQ either misremembered the exact rules when posting on reddit or was giving a simplification that happened to not align.
Reference: PHM Rules & Banned Lists
For anyone new to PHM, I recommend reading the following articles:
No longer staff here.
No longer staff here.
I was debating between that and Ritualing out a Sorin.
Interstingly, Sorin would have scored slightly higher, crossing the 300 mark.
No longer staff here.
a pretty large portion of my decks have elixir of immortality, wheel of sun and moon, serene remembrance, soldevi digger... sometimes even academy ruins or volrath's stronghold
hard to remove my threats when they come back over and over again.
We had a brief rules discussion in February of last year. I was in favor of it changing, actually. Mainly because of Land Rule rounds. Unlimited 1st/2nd turn discard is too harsh for land rule rounds. Discard basically forces everyone in 2CB to go with a 1 drop to survive. If we go with the rule of "you can play an additional land from your hand" that can even be 1st turn if the rule allowed (Chain of Smog/Mishra's Factory).
The issue is that non-land-rule rounds can compensate much more easily, and discard in lotus rounds isn't event relevant. With lotus abound, people often play out on first turn. Saying "No more than 1 on 1st" suffices to make discard a viable option while not limiting the format.
I'd love to find a way to make the discard rule change per format, but previous attempts have just lead to more round confusion, and illegal entries. Or at least some rule that makes discard not break the game in small non-lotus rounds, while still viable in lotus rounds.
One of our Land Rule formats is that you draw your lands.
"Whenever a player would draw a card from an empty library, that player instead puts a basic land card of the type of that player's choice into his or her hand."
Maralen stops the drawing of lands.
We very rarely go with the draw-your-lands rule, but Maralen is basically useless outside of these rounds anyways.
No longer staff here.
the maralen ban came about because i didnt check the suggested banlist for an ALR round, and this is what happened.
I disagree. Thoughtseize was one of the most powerful cards in 5CB, and I don't think it led to good gameplay. It's true that's it not effective on the draw against an all-in Lotus deck, but it also single-handedly wins against many of those decks on the play, while also being good in most other match-ups. I think the current XCB is more diverse and enjoyable for not having to worry about turn one Thoughtseize every round, and I hope it stays that way.
If we decide to make earlier discard an option, I don't think it should be by more than a single non-targeted card on turn 2.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
do we want it to be better than that?
i think some rounds with an alternate discard rule could be fun, but i wouldnt want the rule to change.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Turn: 08
Black Lotus | Black Lotus | Vraska the Unseen
Turn: 04
Cenn's Tactician | Karakas | Leyline of Singularity
Turn: 09
Chalice of Life | Ensnaring Bridge | Mishra's Workshop
Turn: 14
Chancellor of the Forge | Storm World | Undiscovered Paradise
Turn: 10
City of Traitors | Geth's Verdict | Isochron Scepter
Turn: 21
Dark Depths | Thespian's Stage | Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
Turn: 04
Kozilek, Butcher of Truth | Lion's Eye Diamond | Shelldock Isle
Turn: 04
Mishra's Factory | Orzhov Basilica | Vindicate
Turn: 13
Turn: 05
Black Lotus | City of Traitors | Dramatic Entrance | Progenitus
Turn: 03
Epochrasite | Mishra's Workshop | Smokestack | Sol Ring
Turn: 09
Foil / Island / Chancellor of the Forge should be considered for your list, Draco.
No longer staff here.
Whoops. I failed to mention that I'm also trying to respect the banned list that the shell can be used in. Foil is banned in both 3CB and 4CB.
Brain Maggot
Proposal: Banned in 3CB.
Explanation: Brain Maggot is very similar to Mesmeric Fiend.
Vampire Hexmage
Proposal: Unbanned in all formats. Dark Depths becomes banned in all formats.
Explanation: With the recent printing of Thespian's Stage and the changes to the Legendary rule, the ban on Vampire Hexmage seems to be more akin towards treating the symptom, rather than fixing the problem. With Thespian's Stage, the process of producing the token is uncounterable, though it is one turn slower than Hexmage/Depths. Hexmage can be countered to disrupt the engine, but the tradeoff is a turn faster and a backup threat.
Lion's Eye Diamond
Proposal: Banned in ABT, 4CB, & 5CB.
Explanation: The difference between LED and Black Lotus is the self discard in LED. LED combos well with both Shelldock Isle and Unburial Rites to churn out one deadly creature, such as Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre and Iona, Shield of Emeria. Isle decks and Rites decks can circumvent most creature disruption and work around counterspells. They often upstage all-in Lotus + threat decks.
Smokestack
Proposal: Banned in ABT, 4CB, & 5CB.
Explanation: Smokestack decks proved itself as a powerhouse throughout the history of Card Blind. Compared to other recursive disruption, such as Anurid Scavenger/Beast Within or Necrotic Sliver/Volrath's Stronghold, Smokestack's permanent destruction builds up over consecutive turns. Scavenger and Sliver have to 'recharge' at least one turn before they can destroy a second permanent.
Overall Thoughts: Speaking about the Card Blinds without a Land Rule. I feel that aggro in general is not represented very well. There are no shortage of ways to disrupt creature threats (Tabernacle, Bridge, Karakas, etc.) The emphasis in winning the meta is working around counterspells (Foil, Commandeer) or using a threat that avoids creature destruction as a win condition (Tongs, Scepter). Its unfortunate that some deck archetypes are lost over Magic's rules changes over the years (Vineyard & Mana burn) or Card Blind rules changes (Anvil). Maybe the nostalgia glasses are ruining the experience. I don't know. I haven't played in awhile, but I lurk every once in awhile to see how things are going.
In the XCB Repository, there is an ABT banned list and a separate banned list for each sized Card Blinds. Before ABT came about, the discard rule was different and allowed cards like Mesmeric Fiend to be used. Since the discard rules have changed, the ban list hasn't been updated to reflect the new discard rule.
With Pact of Negation, the card itself is banned in 5CB, but not in ABT. Seems like a good candidate to ban for ABT.
As for Hexmage/Depths/Stage: I'd recommend adding Stage, rather than swapping Hex/Depths. Dark Depths is playable even when you're not cheating the counters off it - running it with another land and Urborg has been done in various 4-5 land builds. I'd be sad to see that go.
Also, I'd like to second a Smokestack ban. Any card which produces literally incalculably complicated matchups needs to go.
While I love playing with Pact, I think banning it was justified in 5CB, and I think the same holds for ABT. Like many previously banned cards, Pact is generally either useless or dominant.
Hexmage/Depths/Stage:
We discussed this last year, and decided Depths should be legal for the reasons WW has given. Stage has not proven to be problematic after nearly a year-and-a-half of the combo's existence, and I doubt that it will barring future printings. If it does, we can ban it then.
Smokestack:
I think it's been less than a month since we voted on this. The only relevant change since than is an increase in the number of players - such that each bit of extra calculation time is more costly - but I think the complexity of Smokestack is exaggerated, barring a few instances. In general, if a score is too difficult to calculate, it's due to specific round rules - not a card that we all by now have a lot of experience playing with.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
You can get your opponent to 5 life before their first turn, but you can't win before their first turn with it alone, right?
Edit: Ignore me, the rules say before your opponent's second turn, not first.
It can win before an opponent's second turn.
Playing first:
You 1: Emrakul
You 2: [Extra Turn] : Swing (Opponent at 5)
Opp 1: ...
You 3: Swing (dead)
No longer staff here.
1. Is a deck of Black Lotus/Black Lotus/Twilight Shepard/Ignite Memories legal?
2. Is a deck of Cloudpost/Cloudpost/Glimmerpost/Karn Liberated legal?
The discussion here is on how to determine deck composition. In the first case, a first turn kill is possible based on the potential costs of the cards in your opponent's deck. In the second case, the deck potentially has no win condition.
Last round, the proposition in regards to Ignite Memories was to consider every range of characteristics possible when considering whether or not a deck is legal. So, the existence of Emrakul, the Aeons Torn would make an Ignite Memories deck like this illegal. My interest is in whether or not this is an easily understood rule, and whether or not it's the right rule to have. The same rule allows a deck centered around Karn Liberated (and similar decks should they exist) to be legal, so that's a plus. (Although the rule about a deck needing to win is probably unnecessary; it's doubtful that a huge number of submissions will ever come in strictly based on punching out ties, especially with the currently scoring system.)
Right now, a deck that wins through Karn alone is illegal in 4CMM. I plan on changing that this upcoming round seems it seems unnecessary, but I want a good rule to structure it around. I hate that the rules get in the way to the game sometimes, but the benefits are by far greater.
My two biggest pet decks are Storm World and Gibbering Descent. The first I've played in a number of 3 card formats. My main attraction to it is that no one seems to know that Storm World exists! Storm World/Chancellor of the Forge/Undiscovered Paradise is one of my favorite options. Gibbering Descent I'll only play if I can pair it with Glacial Chasm. The thought of breaking upkeeps like that just makes me giddy.
I'm very much a Johnny when it comes to this game. I really enjoy the metagame aspects, but if the best deck is boring, I'm more likely to play something crafty to beat it than it itself. This round's Leyline of Punishment/Illusions of Grandeur combo was sweet. The previous round's Seismic Assault/Foil was bore-tastic.
I disagree that that rule would make the Karn deck legal. If the argument is 'a deck is not legal if it potentially has a first turn kill,' then a deck should not be legal if it potentially has no win condition. There exists decks that win using non-permanent based win conditions, which means it is possible for Karn to play against an illegal deck and have no win condition. Therefore, a deck that only uses Karn as a win condition is illegal.
In a similar manner, a deck that, after turn 3 (but not before) is able to cast ignite memories for storm count 100 should also be illegal, because it has no win condition against an all lands deck (which we all know is very capable of winning)
true. i don't mean to be a pedant. maybe i'm just parsing the sentence wrong, but the answer to the question: 'can the deck win against any legal deck' is no, because there are legal decks it can't win against. i guess the wording is ambigous. here i take the sentence to mean:
'given every combination of cards your opponent plays, does your deck have a way to win?'
student of warfare will beat any combination of cards, even path, if the pilot is a goldfish. karn won't.
in the end i don't think the rule is an overly important one, compared to the kill turn and discard rules.
The intent of the discard clause in 2.3a is to keep the metagame diverse and not have games determined entirely by who plays first. If this rule did not exist, the banned list would have to be much, much larger to cover the many uninteresting forms of hand disruption. 2.3a is worded to consider every possible opposing deck list. If it wasn't, we would be able to cast Thoughtseize on turn one, because there are legal decks that run no nonland cards. Because there are no mandatory choices revolving around hidden information, and this hypothetical opponent is making the sequence of decisions that make it most likely to avoid discard, this rule is adequately tested against "Schrodinger's goldfish", a deck that takes no actions but with a hand could contain any possible combination of cards. I would consider the current application of the discard rule to accomplish its purpose effectively.
Similarly, the intent behind the win clause of 2.3a is to keep the banned list small without having the game devolve into battles of turn one wins and counterspells. It helps to keep the metagame diverse and interesting rather than becoming a simple rock/paper/scissors. Because it is combined with the discard rule, it is also worded so it can be tested against any legal deck controlled by a player who takes no actions. Unfortunately for Ignite Memories, a deck of all Chancellor of the Forge is legal, so no storm wins can get around the rule.
However, 2.3a can have some strange effects in rounds with special rules. For example, imagine a round of 5CB where players begin the game at 5 life. Black Lotus into Inquisition violates the rules against a goldfish, but there is not a single deck of five white cards that is able to win a game. In a round where players are not allowed to play more than one card of each card type, Barren Moor into Encroach would be legal, because every land card can be played on the first turn by an opponent trying to avoid discard. This gets even more complicated when the round involves gifts or backbuilds. 2.3a can interact paradoxically with 2.3b, where the legality of one deck depends on the legality of another deck, which can create a loop.
The intent behind 2.3b is a little harder to discern. Here is Madmanquail's justification from the reddit thread:
There may be a more subtle purpose behind this rule as well, to prevent decks that can force a draw every game with Timesifter or similar cards from being legal. 2.3b is worded differently than 2.3a, and is somewhat ambiguous. A deck is illegal if it cannot win a match against at least one legal deck. This could be interpreted to mean a deck is illegal if there is at least one legal deck it cannot win a match against. However, by this definition every deck is illegal, because if it were legal it would be unable to win against itself, since mirror matches result in a draw. The sensible interpretation of 2.3b is that a deck is illegal if there is no legal deck it can win a match against, with both decks playing optimally. A deck centered around Karn Liberated is legal, because there are plenty of legal decks it can win against, and while it will naturally lose some matches, no deck can be perfect.
The XCB comprehensive rules should be worded clearly to mirror the official comprehensive rules, and the abridged version that the majority of players read should reflect the meaning of the comprehensive rules, which they currently fail to do. If the moderators want to add a clause that a deck must be able to defeat a goldfish, they may, but currently that is not a limitation.
CubeTutor Link
Not quite. The definition of "forced" encompasses more than discard. In this case, the player either plays or discards the land, but it is forced to change zones either way, so the Enroach deck is illegal.
It's the anti-troll rule. A deck that can't win goes against the spirit of trying to figure out the best deck for a metagame.
When you say they don't reflect the meaning, are you only talking about the "goldfish rule" or is there something else? The "goldfish rule" isn't actually rule. I think MMQ either misremembered the exact rules when posting on reddit or was giving a simplification that happened to not align.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy