Sorry to not have this up. The grid is okay, but I caught two people (halinn and ghweiss) submitting illegal decks. (The normal banned list was in effect, and if your deck can make an opponent discard a card on turn 1 AND two cards on turn two, it is illegal...)
With respect to how badly mauled one of the decks IS by being corrected (I've never seen to many 0's in a row...), well, they have 24 hours.
Edit:
Updated! Scroll down, since I hit 'quote' rather than edit!
I think ghweiss is right, though: the rule needs a clearer wording.
It's not necessarily that the rule needs to change, but if players are getting confused then something probably is wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
You may not submit a deck that can force an opponent to lose more than 1 card from their hand per turn
I find the "per turn" part slightly ambiguous, since it is legal to force an opponent to discard more than one card in a given turn. I favor something similar to how many here have been explaining the rule; "You may not submit a deck that can force an opponent to lose more cards from their hand than the number of turns you have taken."
I'm in favor of just simplifying it into banning any card that can make you discard more than 1 card in a single turn. It's not that there's that many people playing persecute/hymn to tourach/ritual+double thoughtseize/etc. and it would clear up the raven's crime/cabal therapy issue.
I also thought of playing dark ritual + thoughtseize + that 2cc artifact that makes people discard on upkeep, and it took me a bit to figure out that that's probably illegal.
1) WhammWhamme - Infinite Discard
Restore Balance, Scrubland, The Rack, The Rack, Thoughtseize
2) halinn - OMC Returns. Still loses.
City of Brass, Oxidize, Swords to Plowshares, Thallid, Thoughtseize
3) Knowledge - Jinxed Choker with Help from Goblinboy.
Jinxed Choker, Mishra's Workshop, Glacial Chasm, Lightning Bolt, Jinxed Choker
4) Error1 - return to the moon
Badlands, City of Traitors, Thoughtseize, Magus of the Moon, Simian Spirit Guide
5) AJFirst - Mono-Green Control???
Forest, Helix Pinnacle, Reclaim, Oxidize, Drop of Honey
6) BigBarn - 1cc.dec
City of Brass, Thoughtseize, Raze, Thallid, Swords to Plowshares
7) YuanTi"I decided against the Third Wasteland, because it was banned anyway."
Maze of Ith, Mishra's Factory, Mishra's Factory, Mishra's Factory, The Tabernacle at Pendrall Vale
8) ghweiss - Crime Stopper
Dwell on the Past, Eladamri's Vineyard, Forgotten Lore, Misguided Rage, Taiga
9) Chimpanzee - Meta or Bust
City of Traitors, Magus of the Moon, Shattering Spree, Simian Spirit Guide, The Rack
Congratulations to Error1, smack on the back of the head to myself.
Next Week is a special week:
Unfun Week
This week, there IS NO BANNED LIST (normal banned list included so you can work out what you were missing out on). Cabal Therapy is probably still going to make your deck illegal, since first turn wins and so on are still disallowed.
Basic Rules
- Your deck is composed of exactly 5 cards, all of which start in your hand.
- Your deck has no sideboard.
- You don't lose as a result of not being able to draw a card.
- You can see your opponent's hand, so you can always make the best possible play.
- Random effects always go in their owner's opponent's favor.
- All other rules of magic remain unchanged, unless otherwise stated.
Tournament Rules
- All matches are played out by the moderator (participants only submit the decks).
- Tournaments are run in round-robin fashion.
- Each matchup consists of 2 games, with each deck going first once.
- Participants earn 3 points if their deck wins a match, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss.
- The moderator may confer any number of Deck Awards. Each Deck Award is worth 10 POTM points unless otherwise specified.
Deck-Building Rules
- You may not submit a deck that can win before the opponent's first main phase.
- You may not submit a deck that can potentially force an opponent to lose a number of cards from their hand greater than the number of turns you have had.
- You may not submit a deck that can generate infinite (or an arbitrarily large amount of) mana on the first turn.
- You may not include a card that is illegal in T1 (Classic). However you may include any number of restricted cards.
- You may not include a card that appears on the 5CB Banned List.
The Banned List
Ghost Quarter
Strip Mine
Wasteland
Force of Will
Trinisphere
Mycosynth Lattice
Anurid Scavenger
Form of the Dragon
Barren Glory
Unmask
Cabal Therapy
Due to timezones, the deadline is approximately lunchtime Sunday in the States. This is because by then I have already begun my Monday morning, and I try to have these up by lunchtime when possible.
1) WhammWhamme - Infinite Discard
Restore Balance, Scrubland, The Rack, The Rack, Thoughtseize
Listed as 3-3
Should be 4-1
When he's on the play he seizes my SSG first to remove Magus and spree. I do nothing on my first turn. He plays rack. I wait. He plays his other rack. I play City and rack making the score 19-18 with me at 19. From this point we will each take 2 each upkeep, killing him first. If he then suspends Balance I will kill him before it resolves since I will deal 3 a turn for 6 turns. So his best play is to not play the racks and let the game draw rather than lose.
4) Error1 - return to the moon
Badlands, City of Traitors, Thoughtseize, Magus of the Moon, Simian
Spirit Guide
---
5) AJFirst - Mono-Green Control???
Forest, Helix Pinnacle, Reclaim, Oxidize, Drop of Honey
I should win this 6-0
on the draw
he plays helix Thoughtseize his drop
he reclaims his drop
I play Spirit Guide
he plays drop
attack
drop dies and kills ape, puts counter on helix
I play Magus and attack 9 times
1) WhammWhamme - Infinite Discard
Restore Balance, Scrubland, The Rack, The Rack, Thoughtseize
Didn't you have Restore Balance during Evens week too? If the converted mana cost of Restore Balance is 0, then, according to Ashling's Perogative's reminder text (and math) isn't it even?
Didn't you have Restore Balance during Evens week too? If the converted mana cost of Restore Balance is 0, then, according to Ashling's Perogative's reminder text (and math) isn't it even?
My wording of those bannings rules does not use the word 'converted'. It simply says mana cost. I did not make a specific exception for lands, I simply noted they were legal (in parentheses).
I apologise for any confusion.
WRT to match Questionings:
WhammWhamme vs Chimpanzee
-Suspend Restore balance _first_, leaving two cards in hand, then when it will unsuspend in two turns (after getting racked down to 14), play a rack (racking you down to 17) and then another (dropping to 12, racking you down to 15, then dropping to 9, then you to 9, then to 6, then you to 3, then killing you). I think that works.
My wording of those bannings rules does not use the word 'converted'. It simply says mana cost. I did not make a specific exception for lands, I simply noted they were legal (in parentheses).
I apologise for any confusion.
Gotcha, no biggie
It's late and I tried to play all the games out, somehow I have way less than I started with :-(
1 - 2
2 - 2
3 - 6 - I win on the play or the draw (I can raze his workshop so he can't play the chasm or the 2nd choker and the choker math favors me - thallid doesn't have to do anything)
4 - 3 - I win on the play (can't beat thallid making guys), on the draw, I lose to turn 1 magus
5 - 2
6 - X
7 - 0
8 - 0 (no idea how I had a draw here considering he can regrow his land and just wreck me)
9 - 3
10 - 4
11 - 1 (on the play I have to thoughtseize his vial, then raze his land so he can't play it after bauble-ing; on the draw I just lose to kodama)
12 - 1 - on the play it's a draw, but I can't race a vineyard once it hits play
It's late and I tried to play all the games out, somehow I have way less than I started with :-(
1 - 2
2 - 2
3 - 6 - I win on the play or the draw (I can raze his workshop so he can't play the chasm or the 2nd choker and the choker math favors me - thallid doesn't have to do anything)
4 - 3 - I win on the play (can't beat thallid making guys), on the draw, I lose to turn 1 magus
5 - 2
6 - X
7 - 0
8 - 0 (no idea how I had a draw here considering he can regrow his land and just wreck me)
9 - 3
10 - 4
11 - 1 (on the play I have to thoughtseize his vial, then raze his land so he can't play it after bauble-ing; on the draw I just lose to kodama)
12 - 1 - on the play it's a draw, but I can't race a vineyard once it hits play
2-2-2-0-2-X-0-1-3-4-6-4
will be corrected to
2-2-6-3-2-X-0-1-3-4-1-1
WRT #8: On the play, you Thoughtseize the Vinyard. If/when he plays his land, Raze it.
On the play I can drop Vineyard on turn one. He then gets to Thoughtseize me, but he has already lost, because he has no sink for Green mana and cannot deprive me of both of mine. He therefore dies to mana burn faster than Spirit can kill me.
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
On the play I can drop Vineyard on turn one. He then gets to Thoughtseize me, but he has already lost, because he has no sink for Green mana and cannot deprive me of both of mine. He therefore dies to mana burn faster than Spirit can kill me.
Corrected. Oops.
In my defense, I was rushing by the time I got to 11 and 12.
(grid goes 1v1, then 1v2 + 2v1, then 1v3+etc)
As for the 5 land deck... the most ironic thing is that his final submission scores WORSE than the one with two Wastelands that got replaced with basic lands was going to!
Any confusion? Are you kidding? This is totally unethical. You are taking advantage of your headmaster position in order to play a pet card.
I don't think you've given this sufficient thought.
If WhammWhamme really wanted to abuse his position he could simply look at everyone's submissions before designing his deck each week. He has no conceivable motivation for hiding the implications of the special week rules from the other players.
How the special week rule might have been better worded is a perfectly valid topic for debate, but I don't see that it's necessary to insult the moderator.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
It did seem that converted mana cost was implied by the question, as you can not determine the evenness of a non artifact spell without it. Why was Chalice of the Void allowed last week? Its mana cost is XX witch is neather even or odd even though it's converted mana cost is 0.
that said, take it easy ghweiss it's just a game. no need to take it as a personal insult
if you do go with converted mana cost
203.3a The converted mana cost of an object with no mana cost is 0.
edit Chalice of the Void is a bad example as X+X will always be even
A better example would be Spectral Procession by any count it's mana cost is three but it's converted mana cost is 6.
Halinn: 0 is even, so Lotus is out, but there is no mana cost on restore balance or lands, and null is different from 0. An absence of numerical value is neither odd nor even.
Halinn: 0 is even, so Lotus is out, but there is no mana cost on restore balance or lands, and null is different from 0. An absence of numerical value is neither odd nor even.
There are thousands of magic cards that do not having numerical values for their cost (Lightning Bolt, Mana Drain, Pox, Avatar of Discord, etc).
This is why I was angry: I had to change MY deck on account of a "perfectly fair card" (Raven's Crime), while the moderator can simply say "sorry for the confusion, a spell with cmc 0 is legal during Odds week as long as it doesn't have a regular mana cost." I found the logic to be ridiculous to the point of being disingenuous. In hindsight, it's merely ridiculous.
It's alright to be frustrated when a rule is ambiguous or when you believe a mistake exists, but that is no reason to insult another player. Furthermore, your card, Raven's Crime, was not "perfectly fair". Regardless of how you might have first understood the discard rule, discussion in the other thread should have made its function clear. However, if you do submit a legal deck and have it rejected, then you should make your case here.
WhammWhamme says Restore Balance is legal according to the following rule:
"203.1b Some cards have no mana symbols where their mana cost would appear. This represents an unpayable cost."
I disagree with WhammWhamme that Restore Balance is legal, because, as Error1 pointed out, it is only possible to determine evenness or oddness with converted mana cost. Therefore, even if "converted mana cost" was not written, it should be used, and an object with no mana cost has a converted mana cost of 0.
Acknowledge that, in a game with some complexity, people make mistakes. Through considerate discussion, it's possible to clarify things for everyone and come to agreement.
I have, in the past, submitted decks that were later revealed to be illegal; in those instances, I basic-land-substituted them. (As I recall, based on the double discard rule... I miss little details sometimes )
I've also outright disqualified myself one round just because my deck was in fact perfectly tailored to break the format.
I have no issue with penalizing myself.
Quote from Mogg »
I disagree with WhammWhamme that Restore Balance is legal, because, as Error1 pointed out, it is only possible to determine evenness or oddness with converted mana cost. Therefore, even if "converted mana cost" was not written, it should be used, and an object with no mana cost has a converted mana cost of 0.
If we use the phrase "converted mana cost", then lands are illegal. Parentheses do not indicate rules, they indicate clarification.
A mana cost is only even or odd based on looking at it's converted mana cost, yes.
But while a land or Restore Balance has a _converted_ mana cost of 0, it has no _actual_ mana cost.
Essentially, in my mind, the rule is a two-step test:
1) Does it have a mana cost. If no, it is legal. If yes, see question 2.
2) Does it have an Odd Converted Mana Cost. If yes, it is legal.
My intent was for the rule to work as described above. Well, when I say intent, I wrote the rule down, posted it, and then tried to work out what it actually meant, and arrived at that conclusion.
I'm not sure what applicable precedent we have for the mod and the player base disagreeing on the meaning of a special week's rule. With my luck, I'm the first one to screw up in this fashion...
Furthur discussion is welcomed, I am not making a ruling at present.
Odd Week:
Players may not submit decks with cards with an Even mana cost. (Lands are fine)
Essentially, in my mind, the rule is a two-step test:
1) Does it have a mana cost. If no, it is legal. If yes, see question 2.
2) Does it have an Odd Converted Mana Cost. If yes, it is legal.
The rule could also be read to make Disrupting Shoal legal. UUX is a non-even mana cost.
Or it could mean that all the cards mana cost added together has to be even.
from the wiki
even (comparative more even, superlative most even)
1. Flat and level.
2. Without great variation.
3. Equal in proportion, quantity, size etc.
4. (arithmetic) (no comparative or superlative) Leaving no remainder when divided by 2.
you could also use def 2 or 3 to say that
Black Lotus, Channel, Mindslaver, Mirror Universe, Scalding Tongs
is legal because it's mana costs have a large variation.
It's obvious what you intended but when you have 10,000 magic cards it's not always obvious how it works. It's why there are over 80,000 words in the rule book.
Restore Balance does have the exact same mana cost as lands. I don't think it's worth changing the results over.
I think it's enough to resolve that it's confusing as worded and any similar special rules have too look at cmc.
I have, in the past, submitted decks that were later revealed to be illegal; in those instances, I basic-land-substituted them. (As I recall, based on the double discard rule... I miss little details sometimes )
I've also outright disqualified myself one round just because my deck was in fact perfectly tailored to break the format.
I have no issue with penalizing myself.
I know. You've always had my respect, I just think that you're wrong.
If we use the phrase "converted mana cost", then lands are illegal. Parentheses do not indicate rules, they indicate clarification.
I agree that parantheses should only indicate clarification, but the fact that this parenthetical contradicts a rule makes it read as an explanation of an exception. Following your example of using steps, here is the step I use to determine a card's legality:
1: Does the card have an Odd Converted Mana Cost? If yes, it is legal.
Your first step should not be included because 203.3a reads, "The converted mana cost of an object with no mana cost is 0."
A mana cost is only even or odd based on looking at it's converted mana cost, yes.
But while a land or Restore Balance has a _converted_ mana cost of 0, it has no _actual_ mana cost.
The evenness or oddness of a card is determined solely by its converted mana cost. Since objects with no mana cost have a converted mana cost of 0, they are even. Converted mana cost treats Black Lotus and Restore Balance equally. A parenthetical should only provide explanation, but this time it contradicts a rule. It therefore reads as making an exception for lands, but it does not except any other cards.
I'm not sure what applicable precedent we have for the mod and the player base disagreeing on the meaning of a special week's rule. With my luck, I'm the first one to screw up in this fashion...
Furthur discussion is welcomed, I am not making a ruling at present.
I think the last time it was an issue was during carrion_pigeon's DC5 week, where TMT argued that Ghost-lit Warder should be unable to counter anything, because a player has five mana available to pay the four mana Warder asks for. I believe they established that TMT's interpretation was correcct under DC5 rules, but they made an exception for the round due to ambiguity and the number of people who had used Warder. That resolution disappointed me, because TMT had actually metagamed well according to the rules of DC5. TMT just conceded because, due to the number of people who had used Warder, it was hard to find another solution. Usually, though, we just discuss until everyone agrees. So, I'm glad you're open to more discussion.
I am sorry about my earlier posts. Considering the game is a couple years old and I've only been here for 3 weeks, I really had no right to walk in and bully for my own ideas about the rules - and especially not in an insulting manner. I guess I'm used to SCG forums.
Anyway, sorry again, especially to WhammWhamme.
You had a right be annoyed. Your phrase lacked a bit of tact, but that happens.
WRT Mogg:
We disagree on this point:
Whether a mana cost (as opposed to converted mana cost) can be odd or even.
What we actually need to decide on:
What should be done when there are multiple interpretations and, due to the fact that the rule is 5CB specific, there is no precise precedent.
I for one am going to call this week a win for ghweiss regardless of the final decision; his deck was extremely clever, and very resilient, and of less questionable legality ;).
I believe they established that TMT's interpretation was correct under DC5 rules, but they made an exception for the round due to ambiguity and the number of people who had used Warder.
That would have been unreasonable, but in fact it wasn't that straightforward.
The problem was that discussion in a previous DC5 thread about whether Ghost-Lit Warder worked had concluded that it didn't (by which I mean that the opponent had five mana with which to pay). This became a known precedent in the context of DC5. But unfortunately the DC5 rules as written meant that it should indeed be able to counter things.
As often happens with such things the concise wording of the special round rule turned out to be ambiguous. This happens a lot, but usually doesn't cause trouble because the mod is able to spot deck submission that have misunderstood and issue clarifications.
I for one am going to call this week a win for ghweiss regardless of the final decision; his deck was extremely clever, and very resilient, and of less questionable legality ;).
I've been trying to avoid saying this in case it sounded like grumbling, but I think I do prefer the approach Greebo adopted to moderator submission where the mod is considered ineligible to win either weekly rounds or PotM awards. The mod's scores still appear in all the tables and stuff, they just can't claim the wins.
It's one of these things which doesn't make a difference in the vast majority of cases - and in an ideal world never would - but it's pretty much always better that way for the few cases that matter. (And since Greebo and WhammWhamme were/are both good enough players to win moderately often, such cases do arise.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
That would have been unreasonable, but in fact it wasn't that straightforward.
The problem was that discussion in a previous DC5 thread about whether Ghost-Lit Warder worked had concluded that it didn't (by which I mean that the opponent had five mana with which to pay). This became a known precedent in the context of DC5. But unfortunately the DC5 rules as written meant that it should indeed be able to counter things.
As often happens with such things the concise wording of the special round rule turned out to be ambiguous. This happens a lot, but usually doesn't cause trouble because the mod is able to spot deck submission that have misunderstood and issue clarifications.
I've been trying to avoid saying this in case it sounded like grumbling, but I think I do prefer the approach Greebo adopted to moderator submission where the mod is considered ineligible to win either weekly rounds or PotM awards. The mod's scores still appear in all the tables and stuff, they just can't claim the wins.
It's one of these things which doesn't make a difference in the vast majority of cases - and in an ideal world never would - but it's pretty much always better that way for the few cases that matter. (And since Greebo and WhammWhamme were/are both good enough players to win moderately often, such cases do arise.)
I don't mind adopting that policy, but I think I'd be annoyed by it as a player. I mean, if the mod isn't cheating, someone DID do better than you, and it feels mildly insulting to get a pat on the head and a 'you won'.
What should be done when there are multiple interpretations and, due to the fact that the rule is 5CB specific, there is no precise precedent.
The moderator wins. No point in being moderator if you can't have final say, right?
I've said all I have to say about Restore Balance. If you still disagree, then I have no problem letting your interpretation stand. As stated before, the rule was a bit confusing, and in the future, it might be better to explain things more clearly. I usually ask clarifying questions when I find anything ambiguous to try to prevent anything down the line. I just didn't think of it this time.
I've been trying to avoid saying this in case it sounded like grumbling, but I think I do prefer the approach Greebo adopted to moderator submission where the mod is considered ineligible to win either weekly rounds or PotM awards. The mod's scores still appear in all the tables and stuff, they just can't claim the wins.
I don't see why this is necessary or even preferable. The moderator is a player like everyone else; he just does more work. And I agree with WhammWhamme's comment; I wouldn't want to nominally get an award when another player clearly played better.
Sure, there are times when the moderator and a player disagree on a how a rule should be interpreted, but it is the players' responsibility, as much as the moderator's to anticipate potential ambiguity and clarify. It's no reason to make the moderator ineligible.
Sorry to not have this up. The grid is okay, but I caught two people (halinn and ghweiss) submitting illegal decks. (The normal banned list was in effect, and if your deck can make an opponent discard a card on turn 1 AND two cards on turn two, it is illegal...)
With respect to how badly mauled one of the decks IS by being corrected (I've never seen to many 0's in a row...), well, they have 24 hours.
Edit:
Updated! Scroll down, since I hit 'quote' rather than edit!
It's not necessarily that the rule needs to change, but if players are getting confused then something probably is wrong.
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
I find the "per turn" part slightly ambiguous, since it is legal to force an opponent to discard more than one card in a given turn. I favor something similar to how many here have been explaining the rule; "You may not submit a deck that can force an opponent to lose more cards from their hand than the number of turns you have taken."
Also, on ghweiss's deck, I assume it was Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth. Urborg would make the deck legal.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
I also thought of playing dark ritual + thoughtseize + that 2cc artifact that makes people discard on upkeep, and it took me a bit to figure out that that's probably illegal.
Restore Balance, Scrubland, The Rack, The Rack, Thoughtseize
2) halinn - OMC Returns. Still loses.
City of Brass, Oxidize, Swords to Plowshares, Thallid, Thoughtseize
3) Knowledge - Jinxed Choker with Help from Goblinboy.
Jinxed Choker, Mishra's Workshop, Glacial Chasm, Lightning Bolt, Jinxed Choker
4) Error1 - return to the moon
Badlands, City of Traitors, Thoughtseize, Magus of the Moon, Simian Spirit Guide
5) AJFirst - Mono-Green Control???
Forest, Helix Pinnacle, Reclaim, Oxidize, Drop of Honey
6) BigBarn - 1cc.dec
City of Brass, Thoughtseize, Raze, Thallid, Swords to Plowshares
7) YuanTi"I decided against the Third Wasteland, because it was banned anyway."
Maze of Ith, Mishra's Factory, Mishra's Factory, Mishra's Factory, The Tabernacle at Pendrall Vale
8) ghweiss - Crime Stopper
Dwell on the Past, Eladamri's Vineyard, Forgotten Lore, Misguided Rage, Taiga
9) Chimpanzee - Meta or Bust
City of Traitors, Magus of the Moon, Shattering Spree, Simian Spirit Guide, The Rack
10) Thoomor - Boring Pox
Nether Spirit, Peat Bog, Pox, Swamp, Thoughtseize
11) Mogg - Deck
Aether Vial, Conjurer's Bauble, Kodama of the North Tree, Magus of the Moon, Sheltered Valley
12) bateleur - Teddybear's Picnic
Bayou, Eladamri's Vineyard, Helix Pinnacle, Thoughtseize, Words of Wilding
X| 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0-1-2
1| X-6-0-3-6-6-6-6-3-6-6-6 54
2| 0-X-6-3-0-2-2-0-3-1-6-0 23
3| 6-0-X-0-0-0-6-0-0-0-6-3 21
4| 3-3-6-X-6-3-6-6-3-3-0-3 42
5| 0-6-6-0-X-2-6-0-6-0-6-0 32
6| 0-2-6-3-2-X-2-1-3-4-1-3 27
7| 0-2-0-0-0-2-X-0-0-2-0-6 12
8| 0-6-6-0-6-4-6-X-3-6-0-0 37
9| 3-3-6-3-0-3-6-3-X-4-0-3 34
0| 0-4-6-3-6-1-2-0-1-X-0-3 26
1| 0-0-0-6-0-4-6-6-6-6-X-0 34
2| 0-6-3-3-6-3-0-6-3-3-6-X 39
1?) WhammWhamme (54)
2) Error1 (42)
3) bateleur (39)
4) ghweiss (37)
5) Chimpanzee (34)
5) Mogg (34)
7) AJFirst (32)
8) BigBarn (27)
9) Thoomor (26)
10) halinn (23)
11) YuanTi (12)
Congratulations to Error1, smack on the back of the head to myself.
Next Week is a special week:
Unfun Week
This week, there IS NO BANNED LIST (normal banned list included so you can work out what you were missing out on). Cabal Therapy is probably still going to make your deck illegal, since first turn wins and so on are still disallowed.
Basic Rules
- Your deck is composed of exactly 5 cards, all of which start in your hand.
- Your deck has no sideboard.
- You don't lose as a result of not being able to draw a card.
- You can see your opponent's hand, so you can always make the best possible play.
- Random effects always go in their owner's opponent's favor.
- All other rules of magic remain unchanged, unless otherwise stated.
Tournament Rules
- All matches are played out by the moderator (participants only submit the decks).
- Tournaments are run in round-robin fashion.
- Each matchup consists of 2 games, with each deck going first once.
- Participants earn 3 points if their deck wins a match, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss.
- The moderator may confer any number of Deck Awards. Each Deck Award is worth 10 POTM points unless otherwise specified.
Deck-Building Rules
- You may not submit a deck that can win before the opponent's first main phase.
- You may not submit a deck that can potentially force an opponent to lose a number of cards from their hand greater than the number of turns you have had.
- You may not submit a deck that can generate infinite (or an arbitrarily large amount of) mana on the first turn.
- You may not include a card that is illegal in T1 (Classic). However you may include any number of restricted cards.
- You may not include a card that appears on the 5CB Banned List.
The Banned List
Ghost Quarter
Strip Mine
Wasteland
Force of Will
Trinisphere
Mycosynth Lattice
Anurid Scavenger
Form of the Dragon
Barren Glory
Unmask
Cabal Therapy
Due to timezones, the deadline is approximately lunchtime Sunday in the States. This is because by then I have already begun my Monday morning, and I try to have these up by lunchtime when possible.
City of Traitors, Magus of the Moon, Shattering Spree, Simian Spirit
Guide, The Rack
vs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) WhammWhamme - Infinite Discard
Restore Balance, Scrubland, The Rack, The Rack, Thoughtseize
Listed as 3-3
Should be 4-1
When he's on the play he seizes my SSG first to remove Magus and spree. I do nothing on my first turn. He plays rack. I wait. He plays his other rack. I play City and rack making the score 19-18 with me at 19. From this point we will each take 2 each upkeep, killing him first. If he then suspends Balance I will kill him before it resolves since I will deal 3 a turn for 6 turns. So his best play is to not play the racks and let the game draw rather than lose.
3CB and 4CB5CB!4) Error1 - return to the moon
Badlands, City of Traitors, Thoughtseize, Magus of the Moon, Simian
Spirit Guide
---
5) AJFirst - Mono-Green Control???
Forest, Helix Pinnacle, Reclaim, Oxidize, Drop of Honey
I should win this 6-0
on the draw
he plays helix
Thoughtseize his drop
he reclaims his drop
I play Spirit Guide
he plays drop
attack
drop dies and kills ape, puts counter on helix
I play Magus and attack 9 times
Didn't you have Restore Balance during Evens week too? If the converted mana cost of Restore Balance is 0, then, according to Ashling's Perogative's reminder text (and math) isn't it even?
My wording of those bannings rules does not use the word 'converted'. It simply says mana cost. I did not make a specific exception for lands, I simply noted they were legal (in parentheses).
I apologise for any confusion.
WRT to match Questionings:
WhammWhamme vs Chimpanzee
-Suspend Restore balance _first_, leaving two cards in hand, then when it will unsuspend in two turns (after getting racked down to 14), play a rack (racking you down to 17) and then another (dropping to 12, racking you down to 15, then dropping to 9, then you to 9, then to 6, then you to 3, then killing you). I think that works.
Error1
-This is correct. Apologies.
Gotcha, no biggie
It's late and I tried to play all the games out, somehow I have way less than I started with :-(
1 - 2
2 - 2
3 - 6 - I win on the play or the draw (I can raze his workshop so he can't play the chasm or the 2nd choker and the choker math favors me - thallid doesn't have to do anything)
4 - 3 - I win on the play (can't beat thallid making guys), on the draw, I lose to turn 1 magus
5 - 2
6 - X
7 - 0
8 - 0 (no idea how I had a draw here considering he can regrow his land and just wreck me)
9 - 3
10 - 4
11 - 1 (on the play I have to thoughtseize his vial, then raze his land so he can't play it after bauble-ing; on the draw I just lose to kodama)
12 - 1 - on the play it's a draw, but I can't race a vineyard once it hits play
2-2-2-0-2-X-0-1-3-4-6-4
will be corrected to
2-2-6-3-2-X-0-1-3-4-1-1
WRT #8: On the play, you Thoughtseize the Vinyard. If/when he plays his land, Raze it.
Oops - wrong again!
One obvious correction, might be more later...
12) bateleur - Teddybear's Picnic
Bayou, Eladamri's Vineyard, Helix Pinnacle, Thoughtseize, Words of Wilding
vs
10) Thoomor - Boring Pox
Nether Spirit, Peat Bog, Pox, Swamp, Thoughtseize
Listed: 0-6
Should be: 3-3
On the play I can drop Vineyard on turn one. He then gets to Thoughtseize me, but he has already lost, because he has no sink for Green mana and cannot deprive me of both of mine. He therefore dies to mana burn faster than Spirit can kill me.
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
Corrected. Oops.
In my defense, I was rushing by the time I got to 11 and 12.
(grid goes 1v1, then 1v2 + 2v1, then 1v3+etc)
As for the 5 land deck... the most ironic thing is that his final submission scores WORSE than the one with two Wastelands that got replaced with basic lands was going to!
I don't think you've given this sufficient thought.
If WhammWhamme really wanted to abuse his position he could simply look at everyone's submissions before designing his deck each week. He has no conceivable motivation for hiding the implications of the special week rules from the other players.
How the special week rule might have been better worded is a perfectly valid topic for debate, but I don't see that it's necessary to insult the moderator.
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
that said, take it easy ghweiss it's just a game. no need to take it as a personal insult
if you do go with converted mana cost
edit
Chalice of the Void is a bad example as X+X will always be even
A better example would be Spectral Procession by any count it's mana cost is three but it's converted mana cost is 6.
3CB and 4CB5CB!There are thousands of magic cards that do not having numerical values for their cost (Lightning Bolt, Mana Drain, Pox, Avatar of Discord, etc).
It's alright to be frustrated when a rule is ambiguous or when you believe a mistake exists, but that is no reason to insult another player. Furthermore, your card, Raven's Crime, was not "perfectly fair". Regardless of how you might have first understood the discard rule, discussion in the other thread should have made its function clear. However, if you do submit a legal deck and have it rejected, then you should make your case here.
WhammWhamme says Restore Balance is legal according to the following rule:
"203.1b Some cards have no mana symbols where their mana cost would appear. This represents an unpayable cost."
I disagree with WhammWhamme that Restore Balance is legal, because, as Error1 pointed out, it is only possible to determine evenness or oddness with converted mana cost. Therefore, even if "converted mana cost" was not written, it should be used, and an object with no mana cost has a converted mana cost of 0.
Acknowledge that, in a game with some complexity, people make mistakes. Through considerate discussion, it's possible to clarify things for everyone and come to agreement.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
I've also outright disqualified myself one round just because my deck was in fact perfectly tailored to break the format.
I have no issue with penalizing myself.
If we use the phrase "converted mana cost", then lands are illegal. Parentheses do not indicate rules, they indicate clarification.
A mana cost is only even or odd based on looking at it's converted mana cost, yes.
But while a land or Restore Balance has a _converted_ mana cost of 0, it has no _actual_ mana cost.
Essentially, in my mind, the rule is a two-step test:
1) Does it have a mana cost. If no, it is legal. If yes, see question 2.
2) Does it have an Odd Converted Mana Cost. If yes, it is legal.
My intent was for the rule to work as described above. Well, when I say intent, I wrote the rule down, posted it, and then tried to work out what it actually meant, and arrived at that conclusion.
I'm not sure what applicable precedent we have for the mod and the player base disagreeing on the meaning of a special week's rule. With my luck, I'm the first one to screw up in this fashion...
Furthur discussion is welcomed, I am not making a ruling at present.
The rule could also be read to make Disrupting Shoal legal. UUX is a non-even mana cost.
Or it could mean that all the cards mana cost added together has to be even.
from the wiki
you could also use def 2 or 3 to say that
Black Lotus, Channel, Mindslaver, Mirror Universe, Scalding Tongs
is legal because it's mana costs have a large variation.
It's obvious what you intended but when you have 10,000 magic cards it's not always obvious how it works. It's why there are over 80,000 words in the rule book.
Restore Balance does have the exact same mana cost as lands. I don't think it's worth changing the results over.
I think it's enough to resolve that it's confusing as worded and any similar special rules have too look at cmc.
I know. You've always had my respect, I just think that you're wrong.
I agree that parantheses should only indicate clarification, but the fact that this parenthetical contradicts a rule makes it read as an explanation of an exception. Following your example of using steps, here is the step I use to determine a card's legality:
1: Does the card have an Odd Converted Mana Cost? If yes, it is legal.
Your first step should not be included because 203.3a reads, "The converted mana cost of an object with no mana cost is 0."
You say the following:
The evenness or oddness of a card is determined solely by its converted mana cost. Since objects with no mana cost have a converted mana cost of 0, they are even. Converted mana cost treats Black Lotus and Restore Balance equally. A parenthetical should only provide explanation, but this time it contradicts a rule. It therefore reads as making an exception for lands, but it does not except any other cards.
I think the last time it was an issue was during carrion_pigeon's DC5 week, where TMT argued that Ghost-lit Warder should be unable to counter anything, because a player has five mana available to pay the four mana Warder asks for. I believe they established that TMT's interpretation was correcct under DC5 rules, but they made an exception for the round due to ambiguity and the number of people who had used Warder. That resolution disappointed me, because TMT had actually metagamed well according to the rules of DC5. TMT just conceded because, due to the number of people who had used Warder, it was hard to find another solution. Usually, though, we just discuss until everyone agrees. So, I'm glad you're open to more discussion.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
You had a right be annoyed. Your phrase lacked a bit of tact, but that happens.
WRT Mogg:
We disagree on this point:
Whether a mana cost (as opposed to converted mana cost) can be odd or even.
What we actually need to decide on:
What should be done when there are multiple interpretations and, due to the fact that the rule is 5CB specific, there is no precise precedent.
I for one am going to call this week a win for ghweiss regardless of the final decision; his deck was extremely clever, and very resilient, and of less questionable legality ;).
(If necessary, he gets a deck award )
Anyway. More later if I think of it.
That would have been unreasonable, but in fact it wasn't that straightforward.
The problem was that discussion in a previous DC5 thread about whether Ghost-Lit Warder worked had concluded that it didn't (by which I mean that the opponent had five mana with which to pay). This became a known precedent in the context of DC5. But unfortunately the DC5 rules as written meant that it should indeed be able to counter things.
As often happens with such things the concise wording of the special round rule turned out to be ambiguous. This happens a lot, but usually doesn't cause trouble because the mod is able to spot deck submission that have misunderstood and issue clarifications.
I've been trying to avoid saying this in case it sounded like grumbling, but I think I do prefer the approach Greebo adopted to moderator submission where the mod is considered ineligible to win either weekly rounds or PotM awards. The mod's scores still appear in all the tables and stuff, they just can't claim the wins.
It's one of these things which doesn't make a difference in the vast majority of cases - and in an ideal world never would - but it's pretty much always better that way for the few cases that matter. (And since Greebo and WhammWhamme were/are both good enough players to win moderately often, such cases do arise.)
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
I don't mind adopting that policy, but I think I'd be annoyed by it as a player. I mean, if the mod isn't cheating, someone DID do better than you, and it feels mildly insulting to get a pat on the head and a 'you won'.
I'm glad to see I misremembered it. I tried to find the thread, but gave up after a while.
What should be done when there are multiple interpretations and, due to the fact that the rule is 5CB specific, there is no precise precedent.
The moderator wins. No point in being moderator if you can't have final say, right?
I've said all I have to say about Restore Balance. If you still disagree, then I have no problem letting your interpretation stand. As stated before, the rule was a bit confusing, and in the future, it might be better to explain things more clearly. I usually ask clarifying questions when I find anything ambiguous to try to prevent anything down the line. I just didn't think of it this time.
I don't see why this is necessary or even preferable. The moderator is a player like everyone else; he just does more work. And I agree with WhammWhamme's comment; I wouldn't want to nominally get an award when another player clearly played better.
Sure, there are times when the moderator and a player disagree on a how a rule should be interpreted, but it is the players' responsibility, as much as the moderator's to anticipate potential ambiguity and clarify. It's no reason to make the moderator ineligible.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy