Should we stay close to the original ban list, is that something we should aim for? (That is a tricky one for me, because I see definitely advantages here, but on the other hand would rather like to increase the ban list with several instant-victory combo cards ).
Yes and I mean the original 2011-2014 one used in Season 1 not the 2015 one.
Do you have a link to the old one? Or can you list the differences?
Unfortunately the 2011-2014 ban list disappeared with the wizards.com forum, the other 100CS MTGSalvation post got updated with the 2015 ban list.
Historical trivia: Merchant Scroll and Mana Drain both used to be legal. Players would usually Scroll for Drain but once they got up to six mana then they would Scroll for Cryptic Command/Fact or Fiction instead
@stsung: I like your quote: "I wanted Pod and Order get banned because Green color is very strong. It is actually the strongest as a base color and there should be some kind of balance between non-blue decks and blue decks."
Another player suggested to me recently that I should remove my Pithing Needle from my Azorius deck, saying that it is too weak to waste a slot on a needle. No I will not remove my Needle (or Trinket Mage)! It helps protect me against the most powerful artifact in this format, Birthing Pod.
Stsung, I watched fully my game with you, and enjoyed it very much, and then found the other two, but was already very hungry and just added the links without further inspections(p9 is removed now).
Lowman, I see absolutely no reason why your recording should be crappy! I had no problems watching it.(added to starting post)
I like your post, Michael. From the perspective of the new player experience, it seems the best position.
But I don't see how it's achievable in chainsaw massacre really. Why? Because the instant-combo win you talk about is only 1 example of many strategies which players can find annoying. What is annoying differs amongst players. For example, I find Land Destruction decks the most un-fun decks to play against (not because of power level, but because it is not enjoyable). I also find playing against Red Deck Wins decks to be very unsatisfying (unsatisfying if I win, and frustrating if I lose quickly, mainly because I feel that a "game of Magic" has not been played in the "old-school" style, like you say.
I think RDW ( Red Deck Wins) is THE starting deck for new players in S100.In both main criteria: Financially and considering deck creation. As lowman would say a 'laser beam focus game plan', others could say it's an one-trick pony. However, a very, very successful one, in fact the most successful one in CM history(you can check by our records, administrated and summarized by The_Sensei). Especially remarkable, if you consider the dumping price of mono-red decks.
Just a side remark: Surprisingly, I saw several WW ( White Weenie) decks in the hand of newcomers in the past months, probably because of my recorded games and the links in starting post.
But back to my point. RDW as LD or a control deck, may be unsatisfying or even frustrating for some players/decks but won't win instantly! I'm not against combos at all, just the instant victory ones.
Same goes with decks which have 75% of their cards as counterspells and who try to counter almost everything you cast, or players who devote most of their deck to discard cards to win with The Rack effects.
I disagree, that's exactly the kind of combo, which I would consider not broken and absolutely suitable to S100! You have several turns to find an answer or relief. If you get 3 damage per turn by a creature, or by Lightning Bolt-clones, or by The Rack, where is the difference? But, when no matter if you have 1 life and I have 99, you 1 creature and I have 10, NOW, the game ends because you have the 2nd combo piece in game. That is really a difference.
But of course the logical development of real combo-decks( The Rack is rather a discard deck, with some combos), why bother of making some damage and having the risk that the other could draw or search for an answer, if I could win instantly with one of several combos in my deck!? And it's also logical, that it's better to include cards that let me search/shuffle my deck or draw cards, instead of anything that interacts with the other player, because I just need to get one of my combos. I could add some counterspells, just in case, by chance the other has an answer to prevent my instant victory combo, and blue is already in my color pool.
So we have one 'Solitaire'- player, and the other plays magic, or is trying at least, then the game ends.
We had a new (and budget) player who won the door prize with first appearance, he was very enthuastic about the format and used the ticket to improve his deck with 2 critters, which is of course absolutely pointless vs. such an Anti-S100 deck.
I think it exploits the fact that S100 games tends to be slower/longer lasting, even RDW is much slower than in other formats. So I don't think the metagame is unhealthy or unbalanced if this kind of decks would be handicapped or even banned. I would rather think that it stops exploiting a constitutional character of S100 games. Which is for me a unique treat.
The combo pieces themselves are all rather mana low, you must only find the missing piece. While Red Aggro does not have 4 Lightning bolts or 4 Goblin Lackeys( in just 60 cards!) like in the other formats, to be really fast and consistent, 'I' don't care because I need only to cycle or tutor for 1 card most of the time. No big difference for 'me' if I search my Library with 60 or 100 cards.
I think new players will agree with me, at least in the case of Land Destruction and Discard and Counterspell decks (and I think you mentioned that a new player quit when he lost to an LD deck). But we cannot ban those cards just because they are annoying to some people. I personally do not find instant-combo wins to be so painful to lose to, because I know the effort which it takes for my opponent to actually win like that. Allowing other people to have their fun sometimes is OK. Some players like playing Magic differently, and I accept that.
If a new player came to our tournament and quit because of ONE instant-win combo deck or ONE land destruction deck, then that player is not giving the chainsaw massacre a fair chance (and in my heart I would suspect that the player is probably one of those salty Commander players who rage-quits frequently. I would be surprised if you haven't met those types of people).
Therefore my position is that:
1. it's not realistic to ban "un-fun" cards. If we use the word "un-fun" as the criteria for banning cards, then we need to outlaw several strategies for example land destruction, which is only 1 example.
2. the best criteria when voting is "Will this keep the metagame healthy, allowing a wide range of strategies to compete fairly".
I think the instant-win combo decks do not compete fairly in a S100 environment, as explained above.
I find the metagame now to be quite healthy, that's why I voted for only 1 card to be banned (ie. haven't we seen enough of Natural Order? Isn't that card rampant now?). I voted to un-ban some cards because they will help legitimate strategies which are under-represented right now, and I know I will enjoy casting those spells, and hopefully some other players will get enjoyment from casting those spells.
I see your point about Natural Order. There are good reasons to ban it and Birthing Pod, too. Although definitely not: haven't we seen enough of it?
But I would not change if we decide to stay close to the last ban list. If we decide to brew our 'own S100-soup' this card should get a voting and discussion, as I see also reasons to not ban it.
However, I want to first know which direction we should head for generally.
Think you may have misunderstood my point, or I've misunderstood yours. I firmly do not believe you need to be a legacy or vintage player to provide solid insight and formative opinion in the 100s format in regards to bannings or any other topic involving it. So, I truly hope I did not come off as sounding elitist about the cards or my knowledge, opinions of them, because that is a common complaint against the eternal community, which I very much try to avoid. I'm very much so a fan of inclusive cultures that are self teaching, aware and joint contributors to the betterment, success of all involved.
However, I think experience with the applicable cards is helpful in understanding how they will or can shape a meta (which by no means is saying it's unhealthy, but I think it could be wider, encompass more mechanics), but by no means does my theory or belief mean I'm right. Because we should all have a say in how we, as the sole stewards of this format, keep it going.
But, I would offer up a few additional thoughts, in regards to your fairly stalwart sense of remaining with the status quo: We can cling to the banned list that was last published by WoTC, or an older version that was published prior to their last sending on this dead format. But I would ask if you firmly believe they put much thought into these bans, I do not know if that was the case prior to the last set, but I would argue that their last ban publication was slip-shod at best. For instance, it feels like they took a list of, at the time, the restricted cards in vintage and just blanket banned them. Specifically with trinisphere and memory jar. On my first and second look through the banned list I didn't even notice trinisphere because I'm so used to the card being powerful, but it's effect in a singleton deck is pretty much parallel between both players, if I random into a initial 7 or 8 on the draw with this and workshop then it's possible I could close a game quickly, but I would have to play pretty much exclusively artifact threats, if I was playing colored spells then I would slow myself down just as much as my opponent. This card might as well be titled card name: Rock, CMC 3, Flavor Text: None, Rules Text: You and opponent both skip three turns. The same is true for Memory Jar, it's not a good card in this format, it would fight to be an okay one in my estimation and experience of the cards it takes to make it good. These appear to have been banned solely by the laziness of the individual(s) responsible for the last review of this format; and being fair they probably knew it was on the chopping block and just wrote it off as an irrelevant task.
But the arguments for these cards are in the negative, I think we can include them because they're not even really good. In the affirmative, I think another part of our responsibility as the final stewards of this great, but dead, format is to understand the current and recent past design direction of WoTC, as the new cards they mint are the evolution of our playable card base. This being said those cards which were historically epic for degeneracy, abuse are reduced in their capability to be so by the changes over the last few years. Like you said, most on the banned list are "stone-old" and their power has waned, due to the exponential (excuse the hyperbole) power creep and design push of critters. I would offer up new Eldrazi and Siege Rhino as examples. In the initial printing of 93-94 MTG we go Juggernaut at 4 mana. This card doesn't even compare to Siege Rhino or Thoughtknot Seer, and it died to the most common removal spell (lightning bolt) in the format. On the other hand, in the initial printing we got one time effects (instants, interrupts [sic], and sorceries) like counterspell, wheel of fortune, and lightning bolt) that cost 2-3 more mana (in some cases 4 more, exp. ancestral recall to tidings (sorc) or jace's ingenuity or mystic confluence) for the same effect in the current printings. The push of more efficient, powerful recurring damage sources (critters mostly) has rendered these "Old Stones" in my assessment once more fair to enable a level playing field. So my point at the end of this lengthy tirade, is that I don't feel we can sit static because the cards and the game have changed so much, that if we do, then we will close off several creative lines in building and choice; the meta is not unhealthy by any means, but I think were you get new players is offering greater latitude in choice, because in a lot of ways each game is an extension of ourselves, our choices, our preparations, and the more latitude you give to people to exercise creative design in an equitable and equally viable meta across all mechanics in the game (given this is a theory impossible to fill just due to printing of enough of some mechanics) then I think you'll find a larger player base.
The other part of accruing a player base I also believe is plain old solid marketing, more intelligent, engaging dialogue in the written format, video content (Travis R Chance's [SoManyTrolls, Book] content on MTGO academy got me hooked on this format like half a decade ago), and an inclusive community that offers games, build advice, and play advice to new players. Just some additional thoughts, and thanks everyone for the thoughtful debate.
Take it easy.
--Kyle
PS: Ancestral Recall was a bad example, that card is not something I even remotely think is fair, it was used to present a comparative analysis of design change. I still do stand by my second look at unbannings with the inclusion now of Trinisphere (although I don't think it will see much play). I also think natural order and birthing pod should stay in the format as they are exciting and fun to cast for new and old players and can be balanced with inclusion of some of the control tools that are a part of my assessment on our current ban list
PSS: Did this deck tech recording if anyone's interested, apologize for sound quality probably need to invest in a headset, first time doing it so I think for newer players it may be more difficult to follow, because I don't start pulling the cards out from their piles until about .75% of the way through. Plus I prolly should have had the preview window up. For folks that know the card base pretty well though it should be okay. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmKlciitRn8&feature=youtu.be
All this talk of banning green cards and green being the best 100cs color? As a loyal green based player allow me to rebut, Nonsense I say! Sounds like spoiled blue-mage talk to me haha!
Let's talk natural order for a minute. Natural order does not come without risk. It's a 4cc sorcery that requires you sacrifice another creature for (presumably) a big pay off in the form of a fattie and/or answer to something. People say you sac "just" a mana dork but that is/can be a fairly significant loss in a green deck. The real threat is the Natural order getting counter spelled and if it does the green player may be unable to recover. You are risking 2 cards for 1. Now if that 1 card comes to fruition then yes look out. I won't deny the potential powerfulness of Natural Order but Overpowered to the point of needing banned? Hardly.
Blue has an equivalent (not exactly) and arguably even better card (at times) in bribery. The reason no one is clamouring for its banning is blue is just overall levels above green in power so bribery, while very good, blends right in with all of blues other overpowered toys. Not so in green where the power baseline is much lower so a card like natural order stands out that much more.
And birthing pod, while good doesn't instawin you the game (typically), it wears the opponent down gradually over a few turns through card advantage. It's easily answered with artifact removal and is relatively costly to get going. Powerful, absolutely but game breaking to the point of needing the ban hammer? I say again absolutely not.
I err more on the side of banning cards that are completely broken, not just overpowered. I agree that some of the cards on the ban list might be worth making legal for a trial run. And I don't even think those are the best green cards. I'd argue sylvan library and primeval Titan are both superior to natural order and birthing pod in sheer power but that's another conversation.
Overall from what I see the meta looks healthy to me. Almost any deck type can be competitive and viable if tuned and played well. It can be expensive to build 100cs decks so a lot of people stick with one deck over a long period of time (I know I do) therefore the meta may stay relatively the same unless new players are introduced. I don't think that's cause for banning regularly used powerful cards. Anyway, that's my 2cents.
1. Green-based decks are the best in 100CS; or at least the most flexible from a build standpoint. They offer the base (fixing) for most 3 color midrange strategies in the format or the good stuff, value decks, and have a vast array of card selection options available; and let's face it 100s is primarily a critter based format, and G's critters are great, or at least that's how we win (even RDW, although rarities and odd builds occur, tends to run 30-34% critters for recurring damage, and they may not end the game but they generally start it).
2. However, I also have no appetite to see Natural Order or Birthing Pod go (and yes Primeval Titan is better, Sylvan Library is debatable, much more situational and build around, land is still just land in every deck and it's actively great in some builds [outside of dredge maybe]). I think the point that the U players are trying to get after (and of course they're whiny, they play U; they're all tricksters that want to break the rules of the game and say they didn't) is that the ban list has systematically nerfed U card selection, ie mystical tutor, intuition (does a bit more than selection, fully acknowledged), merchant scroll, and the delve draw/selection spells to a lesser extent. Whereas, comparatively, green has fairly unfettered access to critter selection, for instance: worldly tutor (mystical), birthing pod, natural order, chord of calling, green sun's zenith, eldrich evolution, fauna shaman, traverse the ulvenwald, eldamari's calling, congregation at dawn, duskwatch recruiter, bellowing bearmanpig with antlers (can't remember this goofy looking card's name, but the art cracks me up; it's the one that get's a free 3 drop [normally fierce empath{surprise, another tutor}]), etc.
I tend to agree that it would be fair to the U portion of the color pie to offer up these cards to the available pool. I think they're right, but I think chiefly they're attacking the issue in the negative as opposed to the affirmative; ie, why not leave the G players to their fun (Nat Ord and BPod stay in) and just add better capability to find solutions with at least mystical, intuition, and merch scroll (and I think we should toss back in trinisphere and memory jar, because if someone wants to try and make those cards great (they're not in this format), then I think we let them show us wrong because if that deck exists then I'd really like to see it :)).
I change up decks regularly (across the spectrum of archetypes), mostly for play value, tuning, and fun, and acknowledge that most players don't. I've dabbled in every section of the color pie in the last few months at the CSM; I only mention this because I like to think most of my decks are fairly well built and thoughtful, but I've empirically, results based, found G to be the strongest base color in the format (personally think it's most powerful paired with B/W or B/W/r). But I also may have just put together some clunkers in the other colors. In play testing and tourney play, I've found the card selectivity of G to be extremely strong and deep (critters and lands), the G decks I've made tend to play out very similarly each time due to redundancy in card selection capability and while they may not always Prime Time on T3, they generally get the old lug on the battlefield on or around turn 6/7. For instance, in the RecSur build I ran last week, which has a multitude of ways to win, but wins fastest off of Prime Time, DD's combo, I got both cards into play in 6/7 games I played, only in 2 of these games did I natural order the card(s) into play and I never saw my pod :/. I took a further look at the 31 games I've played with the deck (including the 7 I played last weekend), to see how often I managed to get titan into play and it came to 27 games (and it could have been 28 if I had desired it in one game) out of 31 with a 100CS deck or about 90% of the time I could count on finding a way to generate 26 power in one swoop--that's consistency and it led to alot of results that felt pre-deterministic (and it happened thanks to vast amounts of card selection enabled by the array of tutors available to G/W/B).
So the biggest point I'm trying to make is that natural order and birthing pod are not the problem: It's far more difficult to exercise this kind of card selection in non-G decks, that's the problem, and maybe that's how we want the format to be (I don't; I like surprises, and I think you know I can take a nat order like a champ :)...ie Atarka FTW on WW is a beautiful thing [don't know if you recall making that play JRogue; I do, and I laughed pretty darn hard and then lost], because aggro needs to be hated upon too). This being my assessment, I think we open up card selection cards that are currently banned to an archetype that is a natural predator of midrange (control and combo-control) and level the playing field for them a bit and put some fear into the hearts of those linear R/G/W players because even the path of action should have a little room for doubt that the reactive can just get them ("Korfirewalker, Warmth, damn it Michelle, not again.").
Take it easy y'all
--KB
P.S. I really think the analogies between Natural Order and Bribery are fairly weak. Yes, Natural Order is an automatic 2 for 1. But if you intentionally put Natural Order in your deck and build around it, it will always have an effect (worst case: it's a reverse hymn to torach [possibly a reverse One with Nothing/Mindtwist {in terms of raw card delta}, if it happens to be Cryptic Commanded], but it'll take a counterspell out of someone's hand [and why would you ever cast this into a boat of open U mana?]) and generally it wins games (if the deck is built correctly to win with it; reference our assessment of primeval titan, this card wins games, natural order gets it out 2-3 turns early). Bribery will always have an effect too, but its worst result is frankly more cataclysmic than natural order at its worst; i.e. if it's the last spell you're casting against aggro, you're likely doing it to have the best set of Urza's Limited Edition Ray Ban Glasses ever made and develop your board plan (which probably doesn't vary that much) by looking at their deck and promptly conceding the game. A quick question that I think highlights this is how often have you SB'd out a Natural Order in your deck (maybe if they printed containment priest with a ravenous rats clause that applied to 100CS and someone came packing that deck)? Proactivity tends to be triumphant over reactivity; yeah sometimes you guess right, but when you have to hedge against 100 probabilities, all of them going for your throat, you'll lose that one (I feel pretty confident that Enter the Dragon ends differently if all those dudes gang beat Bruce Lee to death as opposed to coming in one by one)--this is why all formats converge at midrange (plus it's a heck of alot easier to play, control needs to be techy; the pilot/builder needs to understand where the meta is and where it's going very well).
Definitely, I enjoyed our matches as well, look forward to more :), and yeah I think most people over-evaluate, value cards that let you impact other player's decks (Jester's Cap why were you worth $40 when I was a kid), in rare circumstances they are the best thing ever to be doing, so often they're deader than dead.
Well said Lowman02. I'm not opposed to throwing the Pesky blue-mages a bone and unbanning a few toys. As previously stated I prefer less bans to more in most instances unless there is just a ridiculously aggregious offender.
Anyway, I love this format, wish it would make a comeback. Oh well, I'm thankful for people like ML_Berlin and Michelle for organizing these events and keeping the 100cs spirit alive!
Glad to see everyone talking in here, about this great format. Michelle, I know you said one and the other, or none, but I'd be remised if I failed to cause a U player a little bit of frustration by feigning some level of ignorance to that fact to further push my point (Quit being whiney you U mage) and share observations.
ML,
I've read a lot through your historical messages and definitely agree that RDW's is the best entry point for new players to the format. That said, I've linked a video deck tech of the RDW I played to a 3-1 finish (it's within 2-3 cards of that build at least) a few weeks back. I'm definitely not the best public (private?) speaker, but I think the assessments are decent and I actually remembered to pull up the preview window so folks watching can see the cards. Anyway, if you'd like it might be an acceptable candidate for page 1, so newer players can get an idea of how to build, play a fairly budget but effective deck. Thanks man and I truly hope it does help expand the player base. RDW Deck Tech Link
Imagine this scenario: Against Mono Red Aggro, I have this opening hand post-board (attached).
Would you have kept this hand? (note that I am on the draw).
If you answered yes, then you would have lost.
I chose to keep this hand on Saturday, but I drew no lands for the rest of the game (I have 42 lands in the deck). On reflection I am still not sure if the correct decision is to keep that hand, since one of RDW's strengths is to punish stumbles, and I knew that keeping that hand was like playing with, well....... fire! I put myself willingly into a situation of "Draw a land quickly or die!".
Does anyone else have any amusing "I got Rekd" stories to share in this format?
That makes a 93 card deck with 41 lands, a 2.29 ratio. That is probably the best ratio for drawing a land ever in the history of S100. A 2nd land wins the game, even if only drawn on 3rd or 4th turn. I don't know how much more anti-red spells for up to 2 mana you had in deck, but I would have kept this ,too!
Michelle, that's a fine keep, the cycler/wall plus the hate and art mana makes it pretty solid, the cryptic is essentially already a mull to 6 in the RDW game because you should always want early interaction in that matchup. But, if you threw away hands like that you'd lose more than you win... wouldn't think to hard about it, sometimes red deck just wins
The only consideration that I would offer after a bit of thought, and currently on layover in Huston, is that while I think mana ramp (artifact type) is great in formats like commander (where you have a recurring threat at worst) I do think where it shines least is in a pure control deck, this cards shelf life is about 4 turns, turn 2-6, after this or too early and it's worse than a land unless you can sac it off for a card (mind stone (good), commanders sphere (meh), or the new one that taps for 2 mana and sacs for 2-3 cards (4 CMC, forgot it's name) (not great in this deck), better for this deck). Just an idea or add another removal option at the one spot are you already running stp, pte, condemn, and oust (which is better than you'd think, esp on mana dorks, pretty much miniplow under). Just some more thoughts though.
Hi Lowman, I see your point regarding mana rocks. The interesting thing is, that mana rocks shine in the early game, where you can ramp up to 4 mana on Turn 3, and to 5 mana on Turn 4. This can make a big impact on the game given that a lot of my most powerful cards occur on 4 mana (Wraths, Planeswalkers, Cryptic, Moat, Humility etc...). And in the mid and late game they are only slightly worse than a land, especially since I can tap it for mana on the turn it comes into play. But the early game (which is when you most want to see them) is where they can backfire most easily, for example if you fail to draw your second land.
The mana rocks I use give me some protection against color screw, and occasionally synergises with my own cards (Land Tax and Back to Basics and Thirst for Knowledge) or my opponent's cards (Winter Orb, Armageddon, Hokori, Ruination, Blood Moon, Price of Progress etc). The question is whether the cons outweigh the pros - it's difficult to say but it certainly has cost me a match now so that is one big blow to the talismans.
Big Xmas special event on the 24th of December!
We will start 30min earlier on the 24th! 3pm EST!
Because of top8 modus, we will have more rounds altogether. Winning in Tribal finals won't give you a higher prize, so I think it's acceptable to forfeit it exceptionally, for Triple Prizes! in Chainsaw Massacre.
Keep in mind, if you registered a legal deck before event start, you ALWAYS have a 10 min buffer before you must commence your match or lose the match.
If necessary I will allow still playing Tribal players( in the 4th round) the well tried +10min extra buffer.
That would be the latest starting time for their matches at 3.20 pm , or 3h and 20 min after Tribal started= 4x50min.
Maybe Tribal will only have 3 rounds, or players lost already 2 times and the 4th round has no relevance for them, anyway.
However, a placement in Top8 of our Xmas special guarantees already 2 tix at least, and depending on number of players, 2 victories defintely, and some lucky ones with just 1 victory will reach that.
Hope all is well and looking forward to seeing you all this Saturday. In response to Michelle's call to arms for bad beats I've included a video here: JRouge vs lowman02, that displays a game I completely luck sacked out of and had no right to win. I also apologize to JRouge in advance, I fully intended on using the bad beat he put on me playing D&T, but MTGO screwed up the recording.
Also, to complement the RDW deck tech I made a few weeks ago, I've also made a video showing the gameplay of the deck to the finals of one of our 100CS tournaments from a few weeks back. The commentary I think is fine, but the hand cam got cut due to the display settings on my recorder...apologies, but the games are pretty decent and it's likely far more entertaining, if less informative, than the deck tech. The link is here: RDW games. If we think it's alright, then it may be something worth throwing up on page 1.
Great games today and hope everyone had a great time playing. I've linked a tournament report, video series from my play experience with Blue Moon. Hope you enjoy the matches: Blue Moon CSM Matches
Found I enjoy doing these videos, so I plan on going back through and uploading the rest of the tournaments I've played in on my YouTube account, peruse if you too enjoy watching them. But I'd like to highlight a recent upload that highlights a more wild build I'm working on: Storm; in 100CS it's been the most difficult build I've tried my hand at building or playing, but it's terrific fun. If anyone's tried this and been highly successful with it, then I'd be happy to collaborate on the build (I've tried G for rude awakening, heartbeat, and gyard recursion, ie witness and regrowth, it's just not as fast; and I've tried 4 color which beats itself too often). If you watch it, I hope it make's the "Timmy" portion of your heart a little lighter; not to mention it's got the Best/Worst musical accompaniment with most certainly the Worst sound quality (could have fixed it, but you'll understand why I didn't if you watch--somethings just can't be fixed). Enjoy
Congratulations Michelle on the victory and well played
--KB
Note: RECSUR and Death and Taxes tournament matches are now up on my youtube page; enjoy
Unfortunately the 2011-2014 ban list disappeared with the wizards.com forum, the other 100CS MTGSalvation post got updated with the 2015 ban list.
Historical trivia: Merchant Scroll and Mana Drain both used to be legal. Players would usually Scroll for Drain but once they got up to six mana then they would Scroll for Cryptic Command/Fact or Fiction instead
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-online/100-card-singleton-challenge-130515610-2010-06-13
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/11768#online
Another player suggested to me recently that I should remove my Pithing Needle from my Azorius deck, saying that it is too weak to waste a slot on a needle. No I will not remove my Needle (or Trinket Mage)! It helps protect me against the most powerful artifact in this format, Birthing Pod.
Lowman, I see absolutely no reason why your recording should be crappy! I had no problems watching it.(added to starting post)
Think you may have misunderstood my point, or I've misunderstood yours. I firmly do not believe you need to be a legacy or vintage player to provide solid insight and formative opinion in the 100s format in regards to bannings or any other topic involving it. So, I truly hope I did not come off as sounding elitist about the cards or my knowledge, opinions of them, because that is a common complaint against the eternal community, which I very much try to avoid. I'm very much so a fan of inclusive cultures that are self teaching, aware and joint contributors to the betterment, success of all involved.
However, I think experience with the applicable cards is helpful in understanding how they will or can shape a meta (which by no means is saying it's unhealthy, but I think it could be wider, encompass more mechanics), but by no means does my theory or belief mean I'm right. Because we should all have a say in how we, as the sole stewards of this format, keep it going.
But, I would offer up a few additional thoughts, in regards to your fairly stalwart sense of remaining with the status quo: We can cling to the banned list that was last published by WoTC, or an older version that was published prior to their last sending on this dead format. But I would ask if you firmly believe they put much thought into these bans, I do not know if that was the case prior to the last set, but I would argue that their last ban publication was slip-shod at best. For instance, it feels like they took a list of, at the time, the restricted cards in vintage and just blanket banned them. Specifically with trinisphere and memory jar. On my first and second look through the banned list I didn't even notice trinisphere because I'm so used to the card being powerful, but it's effect in a singleton deck is pretty much parallel between both players, if I random into a initial 7 or 8 on the draw with this and workshop then it's possible I could close a game quickly, but I would have to play pretty much exclusively artifact threats, if I was playing colored spells then I would slow myself down just as much as my opponent. This card might as well be titled card name: Rock, CMC 3, Flavor Text: None, Rules Text: You and opponent both skip three turns. The same is true for Memory Jar, it's not a good card in this format, it would fight to be an okay one in my estimation and experience of the cards it takes to make it good. These appear to have been banned solely by the laziness of the individual(s) responsible for the last review of this format; and being fair they probably knew it was on the chopping block and just wrote it off as an irrelevant task.
But the arguments for these cards are in the negative, I think we can include them because they're not even really good. In the affirmative, I think another part of our responsibility as the final stewards of this great, but dead, format is to understand the current and recent past design direction of WoTC, as the new cards they mint are the evolution of our playable card base. This being said those cards which were historically epic for degeneracy, abuse are reduced in their capability to be so by the changes over the last few years. Like you said, most on the banned list are "stone-old" and their power has waned, due to the exponential (excuse the hyperbole) power creep and design push of critters. I would offer up new Eldrazi and Siege Rhino as examples. In the initial printing of 93-94 MTG we go Juggernaut at 4 mana. This card doesn't even compare to Siege Rhino or Thoughtknot Seer, and it died to the most common removal spell (lightning bolt) in the format. On the other hand, in the initial printing we got one time effects (instants, interrupts [sic], and sorceries) like counterspell, wheel of fortune, and lightning bolt) that cost 2-3 more mana (in some cases 4 more, exp. ancestral recall to tidings (sorc) or jace's ingenuity or mystic confluence) for the same effect in the current printings. The push of more efficient, powerful recurring damage sources (critters mostly) has rendered these "Old Stones" in my assessment once more fair to enable a level playing field. So my point at the end of this lengthy tirade, is that I don't feel we can sit static because the cards and the game have changed so much, that if we do, then we will close off several creative lines in building and choice; the meta is not unhealthy by any means, but I think were you get new players is offering greater latitude in choice, because in a lot of ways each game is an extension of ourselves, our choices, our preparations, and the more latitude you give to people to exercise creative design in an equitable and equally viable meta across all mechanics in the game (given this is a theory impossible to fill just due to printing of enough of some mechanics) then I think you'll find a larger player base.
The other part of accruing a player base I also believe is plain old solid marketing, more intelligent, engaging dialogue in the written format, video content (Travis R Chance's [SoManyTrolls, Book] content on MTGO academy got me hooked on this format like half a decade ago), and an inclusive community that offers games, build advice, and play advice to new players. Just some additional thoughts, and thanks everyone for the thoughtful debate.
Take it easy.
--Kyle
PS: Ancestral Recall was a bad example, that card is not something I even remotely think is fair, it was used to present a comparative analysis of design change. I still do stand by my second look at unbannings with the inclusion now of Trinisphere (although I don't think it will see much play). I also think natural order and birthing pod should stay in the format as they are exciting and fun to cast for new and old players and can be balanced with inclusion of some of the control tools that are a part of my assessment on our current ban list
PSS: Did this deck tech recording if anyone's interested, apologize for sound quality probably need to invest in a headset, first time doing it so I think for newer players it may be more difficult to follow, because I don't start pulling the cards out from their piles until about .75% of the way through. Plus I prolly should have had the preview window up. For folks that know the card base pretty well though it should be okay. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmKlciitRn8&feature=youtu.be
Let's talk natural order for a minute. Natural order does not come without risk. It's a 4cc sorcery that requires you sacrifice another creature for (presumably) a big pay off in the form of a fattie and/or answer to something. People say you sac "just" a mana dork but that is/can be a fairly significant loss in a green deck. The real threat is the Natural order getting counter spelled and if it does the green player may be unable to recover. You are risking 2 cards for 1. Now if that 1 card comes to fruition then yes look out. I won't deny the potential powerfulness of Natural Order but Overpowered to the point of needing banned? Hardly.
Blue has an equivalent (not exactly) and arguably even better card (at times) in bribery. The reason no one is clamouring for its banning is blue is just overall levels above green in power so bribery, while very good, blends right in with all of blues other overpowered toys. Not so in green where the power baseline is much lower so a card like natural order stands out that much more.
And birthing pod, while good doesn't instawin you the game (typically), it wears the opponent down gradually over a few turns through card advantage. It's easily answered with artifact removal and is relatively costly to get going. Powerful, absolutely but game breaking to the point of needing the ban hammer? I say again absolutely not.
I err more on the side of banning cards that are completely broken, not just overpowered. I agree that some of the cards on the ban list might be worth making legal for a trial run. And I don't even think those are the best green cards. I'd argue sylvan library and primeval Titan are both superior to natural order and birthing pod in sheer power but that's another conversation.
Overall from what I see the meta looks healthy to me. Almost any deck type can be competitive and viable if tuned and played well. It can be expensive to build 100cs decks so a lot of people stick with one deck over a long period of time (I know I do) therefore the meta may stay relatively the same unless new players are introduced. I don't think that's cause for banning regularly used powerful cards. Anyway, that's my 2cents.
Thanks for jumping in man
1. Green-based decks are the best in 100CS; or at least the most flexible from a build standpoint. They offer the base (fixing) for most 3 color midrange strategies in the format or the good stuff, value decks, and have a vast array of card selection options available; and let's face it 100s is primarily a critter based format, and G's critters are great, or at least that's how we win (even RDW, although rarities and odd builds occur, tends to run 30-34% critters for recurring damage, and they may not end the game but they generally start it).
2. However, I also have no appetite to see Natural Order or Birthing Pod go (and yes Primeval Titan is better, Sylvan Library is debatable, much more situational and build around, land is still just land in every deck and it's actively great in some builds [outside of dredge maybe]). I think the point that the U players are trying to get after (and of course they're whiny, they play U; they're all tricksters that want to break the rules of the game and say they didn't) is that the ban list has systematically nerfed U card selection, ie mystical tutor, intuition (does a bit more than selection, fully acknowledged), merchant scroll, and the delve draw/selection spells to a lesser extent. Whereas, comparatively, green has fairly unfettered access to critter selection, for instance: worldly tutor (mystical), birthing pod, natural order, chord of calling, green sun's zenith, eldrich evolution, fauna shaman, traverse the ulvenwald, eldamari's calling, congregation at dawn, duskwatch recruiter, bellowing bearmanpig with antlers (can't remember this goofy looking card's name, but the art cracks me up; it's the one that get's a free 3 drop [normally fierce empath{surprise, another tutor}]), etc.
I tend to agree that it would be fair to the U portion of the color pie to offer up these cards to the available pool. I think they're right, but I think chiefly they're attacking the issue in the negative as opposed to the affirmative; ie, why not leave the G players to their fun (Nat Ord and BPod stay in) and just add better capability to find solutions with at least mystical, intuition, and merch scroll (and I think we should toss back in trinisphere and memory jar, because if someone wants to try and make those cards great (they're not in this format), then I think we let them show us wrong because if that deck exists then I'd really like to see it :)).
I change up decks regularly (across the spectrum of archetypes), mostly for play value, tuning, and fun, and acknowledge that most players don't. I've dabbled in every section of the color pie in the last few months at the CSM; I only mention this because I like to think most of my decks are fairly well built and thoughtful, but I've empirically, results based, found G to be the strongest base color in the format (personally think it's most powerful paired with B/W or B/W/r). But I also may have just put together some clunkers in the other colors. In play testing and tourney play, I've found the card selectivity of G to be extremely strong and deep (critters and lands), the G decks I've made tend to play out very similarly each time due to redundancy in card selection capability and while they may not always Prime Time on T3, they generally get the old lug on the battlefield on or around turn 6/7. For instance, in the RecSur build I ran last week, which has a multitude of ways to win, but wins fastest off of Prime Time, DD's combo, I got both cards into play in 6/7 games I played, only in 2 of these games did I natural order the card(s) into play and I never saw my pod :/. I took a further look at the 31 games I've played with the deck (including the 7 I played last weekend), to see how often I managed to get titan into play and it came to 27 games (and it could have been 28 if I had desired it in one game) out of 31 with a 100CS deck or about 90% of the time I could count on finding a way to generate 26 power in one swoop--that's consistency and it led to alot of results that felt pre-deterministic (and it happened thanks to vast amounts of card selection enabled by the array of tutors available to G/W/B).
So the biggest point I'm trying to make is that natural order and birthing pod are not the problem: It's far more difficult to exercise this kind of card selection in non-G decks, that's the problem, and maybe that's how we want the format to be (I don't; I like surprises, and I think you know I can take a nat order like a champ :)...ie Atarka FTW on WW is a beautiful thing [don't know if you recall making that play JRogue; I do, and I laughed pretty darn hard and then lost], because aggro needs to be hated upon too). This being my assessment, I think we open up card selection cards that are currently banned to an archetype that is a natural predator of midrange (control and combo-control) and level the playing field for them a bit and put some fear into the hearts of those linear R/G/W players because even the path of action should have a little room for doubt that the reactive can just get them ("Korfirewalker, Warmth, damn it Michelle, not again.").
Take it easy y'all
--KB
P.S. I really think the analogies between Natural Order and Bribery are fairly weak. Yes, Natural Order is an automatic 2 for 1. But if you intentionally put Natural Order in your deck and build around it, it will always have an effect (worst case: it's a reverse hymn to torach [possibly a reverse One with Nothing/Mindtwist {in terms of raw card delta}, if it happens to be Cryptic Commanded], but it'll take a counterspell out of someone's hand [and why would you ever cast this into a boat of open U mana?]) and generally it wins games (if the deck is built correctly to win with it; reference our assessment of primeval titan, this card wins games, natural order gets it out 2-3 turns early). Bribery will always have an effect too, but its worst result is frankly more cataclysmic than natural order at its worst; i.e. if it's the last spell you're casting against aggro, you're likely doing it to have the best set of Urza's Limited Edition Ray Ban Glasses ever made and develop your board plan (which probably doesn't vary that much) by looking at their deck and promptly conceding the game. A quick question that I think highlights this is how often have you SB'd out a Natural Order in your deck (maybe if they printed containment priest with a ravenous rats clause that applied to 100CS and someone came packing that deck)? Proactivity tends to be triumphant over reactivity; yeah sometimes you guess right, but when you have to hedge against 100 probabilities, all of them going for your throat, you'll lose that one (I feel pretty confident that Enter the Dragon ends differently if all those dudes gang beat Bruce Lee to death as opposed to coming in one by one)--this is why all formats converge at midrange (plus it's a heck of alot easier to play, control needs to be techy; the pilot/builder needs to understand where the meta is and where it's going very well).
Definitely, I enjoyed our matches as well, look forward to more :), and yeah I think most people over-evaluate, value cards that let you impact other player's decks (Jester's Cap why were you worth $40 when I was a kid), in rare circumstances they are the best thing ever to be doing, so often they're deader than dead.
Anyway, I love this format, wish it would make a comeback. Oh well, I'm thankful for people like ML_Berlin and Michelle for organizing these events and keeping the 100cs spirit alive!
Glad to see everyone talking in here, about this great format. Michelle, I know you said one and the other, or none, but I'd be remised if I failed to cause a U player a little bit of frustration by feigning some level of ignorance to that fact to further push my point (Quit being whiney you U mage) and share observations.
ML,
I've read a lot through your historical messages and definitely agree that RDW's is the best entry point for new players to the format. That said, I've linked a video deck tech of the RDW I played to a 3-1 finish (it's within 2-3 cards of that build at least) a few weeks back. I'm definitely not the best public (private?) speaker, but I think the assessments are decent and I actually remembered to pull up the preview window so folks watching can see the cards. Anyway, if you'd like it might be an acceptable candidate for page 1, so newer players can get an idea of how to build, play a fairly budget but effective deck. Thanks man and I truly hope it does help expand the player base. RDW Deck Tech Link
Take it easy folks.
--KB
Would you have kept this hand? (note that I am on the draw).
If you answered yes, then you would have lost.
I chose to keep this hand on Saturday, but I drew no lands for the rest of the game (I have 42 lands in the deck). On reflection I am still not sure if the correct decision is to keep that hand, since one of RDW's strengths is to punish stumbles, and I knew that keeping that hand was like playing with, well....... fire! I put myself willingly into a situation of "Draw a land quickly or die!".
Does anyone else have any amusing "I got Rekd" stories to share in this format?
The mana rocks I use give me some protection against color screw, and occasionally synergises with my own cards (Land Tax and Back to Basics and Thirst for Knowledge) or my opponent's cards (Winter Orb, Armageddon, Hokori, Ruination, Blood Moon, Price of Progress etc). The question is whether the cons outweigh the pros - it's difficult to say but it certainly has cost me a match now so that is one big blow to the talismans.
Undefeated : SuGar_Daddy -4
Lost once:
morpphling -2
Socanelas -2
Michelle_Wong -2
Door Prize: JokazWild -1
We will start 30min earlier on the 24th! 3pm EST!
Because of top8 modus, we will have more rounds altogether. Winning in Tribal finals won't give you a higher prize, so I think it's acceptable to forfeit it exceptionally, for Triple Prizes! in Chainsaw Massacre.
Keep in mind, if you registered a legal deck before event start, you ALWAYS have a 10 min buffer before you must commence your match or lose the match.
If necessary I will allow still playing Tribal players( in the 4th round) the well tried +10min extra buffer.
That would be the latest starting time for their matches at 3.20 pm , or 3h and 20 min after Tribal started= 4x50min.
Maybe Tribal will only have 3 rounds, or players lost already 2 times and the 4th round has no relevance for them, anyway.
However, a placement in Top8 of our Xmas special guarantees already 2 tix at least, and depending on number of players, 2 victories defintely, and some lucky ones with just 1 victory will reach that.
Hope all is well and looking forward to seeing you all this Saturday. In response to Michelle's call to arms for bad beats I've included a video here: JRouge vs lowman02, that displays a game I completely luck sacked out of and had no right to win. I also apologize to JRouge in advance, I fully intended on using the bad beat he put on me playing D&T, but MTGO screwed up the recording.
Also, to complement the RDW deck tech I made a few weeks ago, I've also made a video showing the gameplay of the deck to the finals of one of our 100CS tournaments from a few weeks back. The commentary I think is fine, but the hand cam got cut due to the display settings on my recorder...apologies, but the games are pretty decent and it's likely far more entertaining, if less informative, than the deck tech. The link is here: RDW games. If we think it's alright, then it may be something worth throwing up on page 1.
Wanted to link this video series that displays five different matches between Michelle Wong and myself in the 100 CS format: Duel Gauntlet
Enjoy,
KB
Great games today and hope everyone had a great time playing. I've linked a tournament report, video series from my play experience with Blue Moon. Hope you enjoy the matches: Blue Moon CSM Matches
Found I enjoy doing these videos, so I plan on going back through and uploading the rest of the tournaments I've played in on my YouTube account, peruse if you too enjoy watching them. But I'd like to highlight a recent upload that highlights a more wild build I'm working on: Storm; in 100CS it's been the most difficult build I've tried my hand at building or playing, but it's terrific fun. If anyone's tried this and been highly successful with it, then I'd be happy to collaborate on the build (I've tried G for rude awakening, heartbeat, and gyard recursion, ie witness and regrowth, it's just not as fast; and I've tried 4 color which beats itself too often). If you watch it, I hope it make's the "Timmy" portion of your heart a little lighter; not to mention it's got the Best/Worst musical accompaniment with most certainly the Worst sound quality (could have fixed it, but you'll understand why I didn't if you watch--somethings just can't be fixed). Enjoy
Congratulations Michelle on the victory and well played
--KB
Note: RECSUR and Death and Taxes tournament matches are now up on my youtube page; enjoy