Linked here: MeliraPod, is a video, tourney report from yesterday's Chainsaw Massacre and gameplay from my experience. Also I've added a few cube videos to the tail end if you enjoy that format.
I use power of veto on Crucible of Worlds and Life from the Loam. Those two cards are bad news for our format, and I request others use their power of veto also so that we reach the threshold required for veto (75%?).
Because I'm sure we all love an opponent's Wasteland recurring from the graveyard every turn (not).
Also, the meta is shifting somewhat towards planeswalker control or planeswalker ramp decks. We now have 2 of them, which makes up 20% of the field (2 out of 10 players). This is bad news for control decks whose builds are focused on critter control, as it's a nightmare matchup for those decks. We must adapt to these new threats.
(Also, for those interested in languages, I think it highly ironic that the word Crucible has an alternate figurative meaning in English, being "a situation of severe trial, or in which different elements interact, leading to the creation of something new").
The question is, is this "something new" something we actually want?
Why ban Acid Rain, but leave Flashfires and Tsunami legal? Why is it fine to hate on white and blue colors, but it's fine to leave green free to thrive?
Is it OK when green players blow up everyone else's lands, but not the reverse?
Yesterday, several players wantedy a 3/4 majority to unban cards,instead of a Veto-system, which means a 3-1 or 6-2 vote would be needed. Presuming by the number of players, who voted or commented so far I guess, that would mean, if 2 players vote against the unbanning of a card, it won't happen( because I can not imagine 6 others voting FOR it, at the moment).
So, should we use this rule?
It was explicitly about UN-banning, should we use the same rule for banning a card, too ?
I definitely agree that the build is viable and very strong (including the manabase), I hope I didn't come off as flippant when I said that the deck has a higher tendency to beat itself, but I think comparatively it does to say a three color deck. I think the percentage on a well built manabase (haven't reviewed yours but it seems to work very well empirically ) in prismatic colors is still fairly low to not give you the ability to fix or cast the spells you need to; but I also don't think you're favored per se to hit all 5 colors on turn 5 every game (i.e. bring to light turn) (I could be dead wrong on this; but that's a whole different argument and one that would require a lot of empirical testing, or exhaustive (Ad Nauseam even ) series of geometric permutations of the 100! or so different permutations of the decks available draws (ntm doing this at 8[draw], 7, 6, and 5 card hand size variations). So I certainly hope I didn't come off as saying that I think the deck is weak, that's not at all what I meant, I think it's a great deck, I just prefer a less all in manabase, that can fall prey to certain cards without a lot of hope of getting out from under them (although sometime the opposition lands out, but I would say Sea's draw was more an example of bad variance, 5-6 lands is a rough set of pulls).
The good stuff will always be Good--the deck is sweet, but I tend to build with synergy over power in mind, and while I think high synergy is probabilistically favored over raw power, that's not at all definitive of assured victory.
If you were to ban acid rain, would boil, tsunami, conversion (never seen it played, prolly because T4 is too late to stop RDW), boiling seas, and flashfires also take a hit from the ban hammer too?
Actually both uses of the words are denotatively correct at this point in time, assuming you're referencing the first definition crucibulum [sic] which is essentially a "beast-mode" version of the mortar component to a mortar and pestle set that uses extreme heat as opposed to mechanical energy to reduce or amalgamate material. The second definition, great trial, is an adaptation based upon the likely confusion of the word's prefix cruc which sounded likely to middle archaic English speakers like crux; in a predominantly Judeo-Christian culture you can understand the connotations associated with the implement by which the religious base believes their savior to have been martyred upon(although I would say that has passed outside of espoused value for the most part, i.e. most are secular practitioners at this point and have separated from the dogma to a larger extent). I think this confusion was likely the means by which this word came to have two very disparate meanings (although I suppose you could argue the metal in the crucible equation undergoes significant change, but it's a thing beyond effort in a human sense, or the emotional duress of great change)...But, being fair the first version of the MW dictionary was strongly assisted in being written by a madman, literally, in an asylum, whose governing principle was common use, which is a bit sticky as far as purity of a systematic etymology, but it makes the most pragmatic sense, thus why we have words like "tweet" that "account" for the modern context associated with it as opposed to an onomatopoetic for the birds.
Your double entendre is not lost on me though: well played
There remains the problem of the number of voters, the quorum must be fixed to validate the vote. If we are only 5 to vote while there are about 20 players playing the format I do not think the vote is legitimate. I think that in order for the vote to be valid, there must be at least 10 voters.
Regarding ML's proposal on the "highlander", I will vote no because I was sensitive to sea's arguments that this would give a decisive advantage to the RDW and WWD.
There remains the problem of the number of voters, the quorum must be fixed to validate the vote. If we are only 5 to vote while there are about 20 players playing the format I do not think the vote is legitimate. I think that in order for the vote to be valid, there must be at least 10 voters.
I disagree respectfully. There are players that play rarely, and if those same players choose not to read the forum (and also choose not to read ML_Berlin's announcements during the tournament repeatedly over successive weeks), then I don't see why those players should affect the rest of us.
@Totalhate: Kindly noted. I thought that you were hating on all colors except green
I have a friend in my country who agrees with you that all the cards like Flashfires and Acid Rain etc should be banned in s100. I don't agree with him, but I can understand why some people don't like those cards, even those players who don't play mono color.
Does anyone second totalhate's proposal (so that the Sensei can update his ballot sheet)?
At the moment we are 9 voters, so if i understand right we stay on a simple majority for unban or ban ?
So for any change happen we need 5 vote.
So for now there is no validated change.
Back to basics Sugar & Deon
Birthing Pod Sensei & Sugar
Blood Moon Sugar & Deon
Brainstorm ML & Sugar
Magus of the Moon Sugar & Deon
Natural Order Michelle & Deon
Ponder ML & Sugar
Un-bannings
Crucible of worlds sea & tsung
Dig Through Time lowman & Michelle
Entomb lowman & Sugar
Intuition lowman & tsung
life from the loam Sea & lowman
Lion's Eye Diamond lowman & S+R
Memory Jar lowman & S+R
Merchant Scroll Sensei & lowman
Mystical Tutor lowman & Michelle
Sensei’s Divining Top Sensei & lowman
Treasure Cruise lowman & tsung
Trinisphere lowman & S+R
Missed Ballot
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn ML
Eladamri’s Call Sensei
Hermit Druid ML
Painter's Servant ML
Acid Rain (totalhate)
Boil (totalhate)
Boiling Seas (totalhate)
Flashfires (totalhate)
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker (ML Berlin)
Flash Sugar
Gifts Ungiven lowman
life from the loam S+R
Mind's Desire tsung
Treasure Cruise lowman
DO NOT vote on this ballot until ML_Berlin says to start voting
Just came home and this ballot is a bit premature/fast.
After several players argued for a 3/4 majority, I wrote in the main chat on Saturday, that all should comment here about the majority needed or if we should allow vetos. Only Sugardaddy and Michelle did that. If I recall it right, Deonmag and another player voted for a 3/4 majority needed.
Also, another player said, that he would prefer a 3/4 majority over a veto-system.
Please, everbody who was there and remember, who these players were, let me know! So I won't count them double.
I thought myself 3/4 is a bit steep, and 2/3 is enough, but after considering and calculating, I must admit 2/3 is just no real difference with low numbers of votes! A vote of 2-1 is not only simple majority, it is also already a 2/3 majority!!
So, we must definitely decide before the voting, which majority we will use.
Another option, would be Sugardaddy's quorum idea. We need 5 votes overall on a card for any change.
However, even the experts, like lowman02 or stsung, who wants a bunch of cards unbanned, warn us of the 'side-effects'!
Don't unban Entomb and Flash at once. If any, unban just one of them. I've been torturing people with those two cards for years. Believe me you don't want that in this format. stsung
PS keep in mind I'm kind of throwing monkey crap at the wall to see what sticks at this point (and certainly don't hope that all of my suggestions stick, because I think together allot of these cards synergize into some degenerate shenanigans)
lowman02
So, please explain me, why do you want to risk the balance? This is no rhetoric question, I really don't understand.
Especially lowman's approach seems a bit suicidal or at least self-destructive.
What if we have more degenerated shenanigans after the voting and a few players decide to quit the event, do you really think that they will come back and vote 6 months later!? Why should we risk to lose only a single player, for unbanning a card that has been banned for years, like Crucible of Worlds? And how much do you think would a beginner in this format enjoy the format and event when all his lands get 'wastelanded' on his first appearance? How likely will he come back? How likely will he have that combo himself? Would he feel the urge to spent 60 tix for it?
That approach( suggesting a lot, even things that are considered dangerous by himself) may make sense with 20+ active players and many veterans and experts for a broad discussion, but with just a handful experts!?
And isn't it just random, that we have 3 or 4 'blue supporters' and less green-ramp ones, due the low number overall?
I mean, if they few of us would vote for a 'World religion', Hindu and Muslim would have no chance, either.
There are 2.5 Billion of them, but I would be rather surprised, if there is one amongst us few here.
My point is, if we are not representative ( and I doubt it, with just a few players), we should increase the hurdles for unbanning cards.
So, first we vote until Sunday about the procedure:
Simple Majority: Michelle
3/4 : Deonmag, ML,( + 'X')
Quorum( or 3/4): Sugardaddy
I would also like to extend the 'proposal and support time' until Sunday!
Totalhate is a good old S100-afficionado, for example, which missed the discussion in this forum until he played last Saturday again. I hope for some more 'returners' at the big Xmas special.
And another example how difficult the balancing can be , if we just vote for cards themselves without a general direction or idea:
Look at the ballot, it is possible that Entomb will be unbanned while Natural Order will be banned at the same time!
That makes no sense for me! So I suggest, first we decide about the unbannings alone! After the results are clear, we vote for the bannings. So, If Entomb will be unbanned, I could abstain from voting to ban Natural Order furthermore.
Just came home and this ballot is a bit premature/fast.
After several players argued for a 3/4 majority, I wrote in the main chat on Saturday, that all should comment here about the majority needed or if we should allow vetos. Only Sugardaddy and Michelle did that. If I recall it right, Deonmag and another player voted for a 3/4 majority needed.
Also, another player said, that he would prefer a 3/4 majority over a veto-system.
So, first we vote until Sunday about the procedure:
Simple Majority: Michelle
3/4 : Deonmag, ML,( + 'X')
Quorum( or 3/4): Sugardaddy
I would also like to extend the 'proposal and support time' until Sunday!
Totalhate is a good old S100-afficionado, for example, which missed the discussion in this forum until he played last Saturday again. I hope for some more 'returners' at the big Xmas special.
So if there are 9 or fewer votes then nothing happens at all and we stay with the current list? I'm fine with that.
I'll vote for the quorum plus supermajority (10+ votes AND 75% for a change)
@sensei also lowman said that that he would second life from the loam. so that should be added the unbanning list.
I personally like the idea of 2/3s better than 3/4s which seems too steep. but I do like the idea of a minimum number of voters as well. I would like 9 minimum voters or we keep the current ban list, but only require a 2/3s vote to ban or unban a card.
I see the debate is raging for the banned and unbanned list; linked here: 100CS EXPO Matches ; is a video series that includes three separate deck's matches, BW Eldrazi Prison, Abzan Aggro, and Alluren Elf Ball. Hope you enjoy them and they cool your heels in the heated race to out pace the ban hammer
Sorry didn't notice your query before--So, as a matter of course, I enjoy playing highly complicated and challenging games, games where, if I make one misstep I am rewarded with irrevocable results and a loss. I enjoy combo play, sometimes it just gets you and there is not a better line that could have taken into account the other permutations of the game state that would have allowed you to avoid it, or better use an opposing combo players momentum against them to win the game--So essentially I enjoy high risk, high reward games that involve powerful cards and effects and exhaust (and expand) my skill in the game as a player and builder. This is certainly dangerous, but fortune favors the bold (and what not).
I do not think the cards I've recommended are dangerous to me (suicidal); as we've talked about before folks will often flippantly say, "oh well, just play around it" or "build around it" and I think my knowledge of the game is deep enough that typically I can do this; however, where it grows dangerous is for inclusion of newer players. In the same vein, but along a different line, these cards are pretty much like gladiator camp for Magic, they force players to actively seek deeper understanding of the game and develop counter actions to these effects and look many turns down the road (game) to find often non-apparent means to victory--in effect they make the players themselves better at the game. So while I think there is associated risk, the course's rewards, in a lot of ways, make up for a few match losses--they equate to more evolved thinking in the players of the games and in appreciation of the game's intricacies.
Sorry if my use of hyperbole (monkey-crap) sounded overly cavalier, but this rather longer diatribe is how I was thinking about the game and its players.
take it easy all, KB
PS: another possible tactic for new player inclusion is to get rid of the door prize and offer up the same prize to the least expensive deck, understanding that this would likely go to RDWs (unless they play R Port or something silly like that) as a nod to the expense of some of the cards in the format. But I don't think the cards on the list of possible unbans are the most expensive in the format (actually because most have been banned or restricted in many formats, they're fairly cheap), I think that winner goes to the manabases of 3-4 color decks...which, as a new player to modo about 5-6 years ago, was a hearty beating to the wallet, and a somewhat unsatisfying one, because lands aren't all that cool, but they are the economy of the game (unless you're on dredge--live the dream ). And frankly, if I ever win my prizes can go to a newer player tinkering on a deck (don't know if this is possible or if the CardMarket gets an auto reply/email on results, but I'm sure it's doable), because I play this format for fun, not for prizes, and also agree that I'd hate to see a quality player with quality ideas that is limited due to card resources or otherwise.
I don't know why there should be 9 votes for the quorum? I mean why not 8 or 11? Where does this number 9 come from? However, I've been asking since November about the procedure and majority needed.
As I wrote a few days ago, I would assume that 2 players are enough to block an unbanning, if we choose 3/4 majority, because that would mean 6 players must vote in favour of it.
With a 2/3 majority a vote of 4 to 2 would enact the unbanning, 2-1, also. Simple majority is clear.
Those are basically the choices.
The problem of 2/3 majority with a simple 2 to 1 vote ( which is also a 2/3 majority) could be healed with a minimum number of votes per card before a change. If we say we need 3, that's just 1 more than needed for being on the ballot, I suggest 4.
That would prevent a 1-0 or 2-1 with simple majority, also.
It could look like this: Minimum Number 3/4 YES/NO
Majority: Simple,2/3 or 3/4
I think this is more practical than a quorum, but what do you think, does that make sense for you?
I mean if 8 players voted, I could just abstain and then all votes are gone because we didn't reach the 'mythical 9'?! Instead of voting against unbannings it would be much more effective to just abstain from voting for everybody who wants to keep the ban list ... That can't be our aim! We want as many votes as possible.
Random side note about the "treasure chest" card releases on MTGO:
I think RDW got a strong pull in the Grenzo, Havoc Raiser; this card is a fine beater at RR for a 2/2; the ability to force a midrange opponent to attack can be crucial as it will tend to force their T3-4 plays which are typically defensive in nature while they build up to a thragtusk or batterskull on turn 5. Additionally, this little fellow gives RDW something that it generally has in short supply: a form of card advantage. At the two spot there are very few RDW cards that can replicate this effect a few being Young Pyromancer ; Fire//Ice ; and Abbot of Keral Keep; the fact that the card also fixes (you may use colorless mana to cast spells off the top of the opponent's deck, is also a large boon. In the mirror I assume this card will be a breaker or will have to be dealt with very rapidly (which is also a breaker because the opponent is down on tempo and card resources that would have ideally gone to face). I think this guy definitely has a home in 100CS RDW's build of all types and what he brings to the table is likely stronger than a cards like Kargan Dragonlord (this one is more close), Slith Firewalker , or Stigma Lasher .
Also, I think if you're a fan of the White Weenie or Death and Taxes Archetype another more unsuspecting card that I think deserves a strong SB consideration is Sanctum Prelate . If you've had the chance to watch my deck tech and match play of my D&T build, you'll find that I highly value "wrath-proof" or disruptive cards in this sort of horizontal or curve based rush strategy (often times one turn is all you need to close out on either midrange or control). This card is essentially a chalice of the void for 3 mana that blanks out the most relevant wraths (outside of toxic deluge), in the format (it takes care of Wrath of God , Supreme Verdict, Damnation, Mutilate, Massacre, Moat , and Humility , get's a bunch of really relevant PW's as well). The fact that it comes with a 2/2 body is great as well, but really what you're looking to use this card for, I think, is as a 3 mana timewalk, that allows you to hit for the fences with the clown brigade to pull the curtains on the opposition when all you need is one more turn. I think this is a strong SB card against the control archetype as these builds tend to run their largest card advantage cards FoF, *** effects, and PW's at 4, if they are unable to get a *** off on T4, they're likely going to lose. I think this unsuspecting little card is a powerhouse in this matchup; he's not so hot against midrange as the body is small and while you might mise a natural order or a birthing pod, chances are they came out a turn earlier than this fellow can hit the board.
Obviously the singular power of Leovold has already been displayed as the card is now in a vintage "fish" deck and Recruiter of the Guard has obvious implications for kiki-jiki combo decks that would be served well by an additional "imperial recruiter" to find the needed pieces of the combo.
Thought I'd share my assessments of some of the less obvious good cards and hope it was worth while, hope to see some of these new gems in the format.
@lowman: I agree about Grenzo. Red aggressive players now have the unholy trinity of Grenzo, Havoc Raiser, Abbot of Keral Keep and Sin Prodder. Each of these creatures apply pressure to the opponent whilst seeking to gain card advantage, which shores up one of RDW's main weaknesses (running out of gas). However, I am happy that the Karakas has become more powerful as a result of Grenzo.
I like your assessment of Sanctum Prelate. However, this card will also fail miserably sometimes, in my opinion more often than it will succeed. I predict that there will be many times when my opponent casts this card and I will think to myself "Thank the heavens that my opponent didn't cast a more impactful threat, for example Brimaz, King of Oreskos or Aven Mindcensor or Oblivion Ring or Ajani, Caller of the Pride". I will mostly breathe a sigh of relief when I see my opponent cast this card.
Linked here: MeliraPod, is a video, tourney report from yesterday's Chainsaw Massacre and gameplay from my experience. Also I've added a few cube videos to the tail end if you enjoy that format.
Enjoy!
--KB
Because I'm sure we all love an opponent's Wasteland recurring from the graveyard every turn (not).
Also, the meta is shifting somewhat towards planeswalker control or planeswalker ramp decks. We now have 2 of them, which makes up 20% of the field (2 out of 10 players). This is bad news for control decks whose builds are focused on critter control, as it's a nightmare matchup for those decks. We must adapt to these new threats.
The question is, is this "something new" something we actually want?
Why ban Acid Rain, but leave Flashfires and Tsunami legal? Why is it fine to hate on white and blue colors, but it's fine to leave green free to thrive?
Is it OK when green players blow up everyone else's lands, but not the reverse?
So, should we use this rule?
It was explicitly about UN-banning, should we use the same rule for banning a card, too ?
This way the majority of people are happy with the changes.
The good stuff will always be Good--the deck is sweet, but I tend to build with synergy over power in mind, and while I think high synergy is probabilistically favored over raw power, that's not at all definitive of assured victory.
If you were to ban acid rain, would boil, tsunami, conversion (never seen it played, prolly because T4 is too late to stop RDW), boiling seas, and flashfires also take a hit from the ban hammer too?
Actually both uses of the words are denotatively correct at this point in time, assuming you're referencing the first definition crucibulum [sic] which is essentially a "beast-mode" version of the mortar component to a mortar and pestle set that uses extreme heat as opposed to mechanical energy to reduce or amalgamate material. The second definition, great trial, is an adaptation based upon the likely confusion of the word's prefix cruc which sounded likely to middle archaic English speakers like crux; in a predominantly Judeo-Christian culture you can understand the connotations associated with the implement by which the religious base believes their savior to have been martyred upon(although I would say that has passed outside of espoused value for the most part, i.e. most are secular practitioners at this point and have separated from the dogma to a larger extent). I think this confusion was likely the means by which this word came to have two very disparate meanings (although I suppose you could argue the metal in the crucible equation undergoes significant change, but it's a thing beyond effort in a human sense, or the emotional duress of great change)...But, being fair the first version of the MW dictionary was strongly assisted in being written by a madman, literally, in an asylum, whose governing principle was common use, which is a bit sticky as far as purity of a systematic etymology, but it makes the most pragmatic sense, thus why we have words like "tweet" that "account" for the modern context associated with it as opposed to an onomatopoetic for the birds.
Your double entendre is not lost on me though: well played
There remains the problem of the number of voters, the quorum must be fixed to validate the vote. If we are only 5 to vote while there are about 20 players playing the format I do not think the vote is legitimate. I think that in order for the vote to be valid, there must be at least 10 voters.
Regarding ML's proposal on the "highlander", I will vote no because I was sensitive to sea's arguments that this would give a decisive advantage to the RDW and WWD.
I disagree respectfully. There are players that play rarely, and if those same players choose not to read the forum (and also choose not to read ML_Berlin's announcements during the tournament repeatedly over successive weeks), then I don't see why those players should affect the rest of us.
I have a friend in my country who agrees with you that all the cards like Flashfires and Acid Rain etc should be banned in s100. I don't agree with him, but I can understand why some people don't like those cards, even those players who don't play mono color.
Does anyone second totalhate's proposal (so that the Sensei can update his ballot sheet)?
So for any change happen we need 5 vote.
So for now there is no validated change.
DO NOT vote on this ballot until ML_Berlin says to start voting
After several players argued for a 3/4 majority, I wrote in the main chat on Saturday, that all should comment here about the majority needed or if we should allow vetos. Only Sugardaddy and Michelle did that. If I recall it right, Deonmag and another player voted for a 3/4 majority needed.
Also, another player said, that he would prefer a 3/4 majority over a veto-system.
Please, everbody who was there and remember, who these players were, let me know! So I won't count them double.
I thought myself 3/4 is a bit steep, and 2/3 is enough, but after considering and calculating, I must admit 2/3 is just no real difference with low numbers of votes! A vote of 2-1 is not only simple majority, it is also already a 2/3 majority!!
So, we must definitely decide before the voting, which majority we will use.
Another option, would be Sugardaddy's quorum idea. We need 5 votes overall on a card for any change.
However, even the experts, like lowman02 or stsung, who wants a bunch of cards unbanned, warn us of the 'side-effects'!
Don't unban Entomb and Flash at once. If any, unban just one of them. I've been torturing people with those two cards for years. Believe me you don't want that in this format.
stsung
PS keep in mind I'm kind of throwing monkey crap at the wall to see what sticks at this point (and certainly don't hope that all of my suggestions stick, because I think together allot of these cards synergize into some degenerate shenanigans)
lowman02
So, please explain me, why do you want to risk the balance? This is no rhetoric question, I really don't understand.
Especially lowman's approach seems a bit suicidal or at least self-destructive.
What if we have more degenerated shenanigans after the voting and a few players decide to quit the event, do you really think that they will come back and vote 6 months later!? Why should we risk to lose only a single player, for unbanning a card that has been banned for years, like Crucible of Worlds? And how much do you think would a beginner in this format enjoy the format and event when all his lands get 'wastelanded' on his first appearance? How likely will he come back? How likely will he have that combo himself? Would he feel the urge to spent 60 tix for it?
That approach( suggesting a lot, even things that are considered dangerous by himself) may make sense with 20+ active players and many veterans and experts for a broad discussion, but with just a handful experts!?
And isn't it just random, that we have 3 or 4 'blue supporters' and less green-ramp ones, due the low number overall?
I mean, if they few of us would vote for a 'World religion', Hindu and Muslim would have no chance, either.
There are 2.5 Billion of them, but I would be rather surprised, if there is one amongst us few here.
My point is, if we are not representative ( and I doubt it, with just a few players), we should increase the hurdles for unbanning cards.
So, first we vote until Sunday about the procedure:
Simple Majority: Michelle
3/4 : Deonmag, ML,( + 'X')
Quorum( or 3/4): Sugardaddy
I would also like to extend the 'proposal and support time' until Sunday!
Totalhate is a good old S100-afficionado, for example, which missed the discussion in this forum until he played last Saturday again. I hope for some more 'returners' at the big Xmas special.
Look at the ballot, it is possible that Entomb will be unbanned while Natural Order will be banned at the same time!
That makes no sense for me! So I suggest, first we decide about the unbannings alone! After the results are clear, we vote for the bannings. So, If Entomb will be unbanned, I could abstain from voting to ban Natural Order furthermore.
So if there are 9 or fewer votes then nothing happens at all and we stay with the current list? I'm fine with that.
I'll vote for the quorum plus supermajority (10+ votes AND 75% for a change)
@Sensei, could I recommend you add the following cards to the "missed ballot" (because we only have 1 proposer for these cards):
Also, Treasure Cruise needs to be moved from the "Missed" category to the "Unbanning" category because there are two backers (stsung and lowman).
I personally like the idea of 2/3s better than 3/4s which seems too steep. but I do like the idea of a minimum number of voters as well. I would like 9 minimum voters or we keep the current ban list, but only require a 2/3s vote to ban or unban a card.
I see the debate is raging for the banned and unbanned list; linked here: 100CS EXPO Matches ; is a video series that includes three separate deck's matches, BW Eldrazi Prison, Abzan Aggro, and Alluren Elf Ball. Hope you enjoy them and they cool your heels in the heated race to out pace the ban hammer
Take it easy.
--KB
Sorry didn't notice your query before--So, as a matter of course, I enjoy playing highly complicated and challenging games, games where, if I make one misstep I am rewarded with irrevocable results and a loss. I enjoy combo play, sometimes it just gets you and there is not a better line that could have taken into account the other permutations of the game state that would have allowed you to avoid it, or better use an opposing combo players momentum against them to win the game--So essentially I enjoy high risk, high reward games that involve powerful cards and effects and exhaust (and expand) my skill in the game as a player and builder. This is certainly dangerous, but fortune favors the bold (and what not).
I do not think the cards I've recommended are dangerous to me (suicidal); as we've talked about before folks will often flippantly say, "oh well, just play around it" or "build around it" and I think my knowledge of the game is deep enough that typically I can do this; however, where it grows dangerous is for inclusion of newer players. In the same vein, but along a different line, these cards are pretty much like gladiator camp for Magic, they force players to actively seek deeper understanding of the game and develop counter actions to these effects and look many turns down the road (game) to find often non-apparent means to victory--in effect they make the players themselves better at the game. So while I think there is associated risk, the course's rewards, in a lot of ways, make up for a few match losses--they equate to more evolved thinking in the players of the games and in appreciation of the game's intricacies.
Sorry if my use of hyperbole (monkey-crap) sounded overly cavalier, but this rather longer diatribe is how I was thinking about the game and its players.
take it easy all, KB
PS: another possible tactic for new player inclusion is to get rid of the door prize and offer up the same prize to the least expensive deck, understanding that this would likely go to RDWs (unless they play R Port or something silly like that) as a nod to the expense of some of the cards in the format. But I don't think the cards on the list of possible unbans are the most expensive in the format (actually because most have been banned or restricted in many formats, they're fairly cheap), I think that winner goes to the manabases of 3-4 color decks...which, as a new player to modo about 5-6 years ago, was a hearty beating to the wallet, and a somewhat unsatisfying one, because lands aren't all that cool, but they are the economy of the game (unless you're on dredge--live the dream ). And frankly, if I ever win my prizes can go to a newer player tinkering on a deck (don't know if this is possible or if the CardMarket gets an auto reply/email on results, but I'm sure it's doable), because I play this format for fun, not for prizes, and also agree that I'd hate to see a quality player with quality ideas that is limited due to card resources or otherwise.
As I wrote a few days ago, I would assume that 2 players are enough to block an unbanning, if we choose 3/4 majority, because that would mean 6 players must vote in favour of it.
With a 2/3 majority a vote of 4 to 2 would enact the unbanning, 2-1, also.
Simple majority is clear.
Those are basically the choices.
The problem of 2/3 majority with a simple 2 to 1 vote ( which is also a 2/3 majority) could be healed with a minimum number of votes per card before a change. If we say we need 3, that's just 1 more than needed for being on the ballot, I suggest 4.
That would prevent a 1-0 or 2-1 with simple majority, also.
It could look like this: Minimum Number 3/4 YES/NO
Majority: Simple,2/3 or 3/4
I think this is more practical than a quorum, but what do you think, does that make sense for you?
I mean if 8 players voted, I could just abstain and then all votes are gone because we didn't reach the 'mythical 9'?! Instead of voting against unbannings it would be much more effective to just abstain from voting for everybody who wants to keep the ban list ... That can't be our aim! We want as many votes as possible.
Sylvester event will start at noon! 12 am EST !
Random side note about the "treasure chest" card releases on MTGO:
I think RDW got a strong pull in the Grenzo, Havoc Raiser; this card is a fine beater at RR for a 2/2; the ability to force a midrange opponent to attack can be crucial as it will tend to force their T3-4 plays which are typically defensive in nature while they build up to a thragtusk or batterskull on turn 5. Additionally, this little fellow gives RDW something that it generally has in short supply: a form of card advantage. At the two spot there are very few RDW cards that can replicate this effect a few being Young Pyromancer ; Fire//Ice ; and Abbot of Keral Keep; the fact that the card also fixes (you may use colorless mana to cast spells off the top of the opponent's deck, is also a large boon. In the mirror I assume this card will be a breaker or will have to be dealt with very rapidly (which is also a breaker because the opponent is down on tempo and card resources that would have ideally gone to face). I think this guy definitely has a home in 100CS RDW's build of all types and what he brings to the table is likely stronger than a cards like Kargan Dragonlord (this one is more close), Slith Firewalker , or Stigma Lasher .
Also, I think if you're a fan of the White Weenie or Death and Taxes Archetype another more unsuspecting card that I think deserves a strong SB consideration is Sanctum Prelate . If you've had the chance to watch my deck tech and match play of my D&T build, you'll find that I highly value "wrath-proof" or disruptive cards in this sort of horizontal or curve based rush strategy (often times one turn is all you need to close out on either midrange or control). This card is essentially a chalice of the void for 3 mana that blanks out the most relevant wraths (outside of toxic deluge), in the format (it takes care of Wrath of God , Supreme Verdict, Damnation, Mutilate, Massacre, Moat , and Humility , get's a bunch of really relevant PW's as well). The fact that it comes with a 2/2 body is great as well, but really what you're looking to use this card for, I think, is as a 3 mana timewalk, that allows you to hit for the fences with the clown brigade to pull the curtains on the opposition when all you need is one more turn. I think this is a strong SB card against the control archetype as these builds tend to run their largest card advantage cards FoF, *** effects, and PW's at 4, if they are unable to get a *** off on T4, they're likely going to lose. I think this unsuspecting little card is a powerhouse in this matchup; he's not so hot against midrange as the body is small and while you might mise a natural order or a birthing pod, chances are they came out a turn earlier than this fellow can hit the board.
Obviously the singular power of Leovold has already been displayed as the card is now in a vintage "fish" deck and Recruiter of the Guard has obvious implications for kiki-jiki combo decks that would be served well by an additional "imperial recruiter" to find the needed pieces of the combo.
Thought I'd share my assessments of some of the less obvious good cards and hope it was worth while, hope to see some of these new gems in the format.
Take care
--KB
I like your assessment of Sanctum Prelate. However, this card will also fail miserably sometimes, in my opinion more often than it will succeed. I predict that there will be many times when my opponent casts this card and I will think to myself "Thank the heavens that my opponent didn't cast a more impactful threat, for example Brimaz, King of Oreskos or Aven Mindcensor or Oblivion Ring or Ajani, Caller of the Pride". I will mostly breathe a sigh of relief when I see my opponent cast this card.