This week, there is a poll about potential unbannings.
Mycosinth Lattice: The argument is that the Lattice deck is fairly vulnerable on the draw. (The counterpoint is that, like Neo-Lattice this week, it is close to unassailable on the play). It's really a question of what you think 5CB should be about, in my mind anyway - are the Lattice Decks (Black Lotus, Channel, Mycosinth Lattice, March of the Machines + X, probably Shattering Spree) going to contribute to the format being better?
Anurid Scavenger: It's been banned for quite some time. It's definately the most efficient recursion card in the format. The pro-Scavenger argument is that it's basically a two card combo that you can then add tech cards of choice to (Scavenger + Black Lotus)... the anti-Scavenger argument would be much the same.
They've both been banned for some time; I should note that the meta has not massively shifted since then, except to include Magus of the Moon... in light of that of that, I'm adding an extra poll option.
Magus is rather devastating to a fairly broad spectrum of decks. It's also a rather 3-3 prone card, since it's much stronger on the play. Anyway.
Feel free to discuss before voting. Hopefully better summaries will come up than what I've written.
1) WhammWhamme - Probably Terrible
Artifact Blast, Black Lotus, Gemstone Caverns, Magus of the Moon,
Orim's Chant
2) Error1 - Neo Lattice: or how I learned to stop worring about Foil
and play the bombs
Black Lotus, Channel, Enchanted Evening, Opalescence, Skyshroud Elf
3) Halinn - 5CB Decklist
Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Leonin Squire, Null Chamber, Erayo, Soratami
Ascendant
4) BigBarn - Nug.dec
Anvil of Bogardan, City of Traitors, Words of War, Black Lotus, Nether
Spirit
5) help im a bug - I predict 12 points.
Faerie Macabre, Innocent Blood, Swamp, Reanimate, Thoughtseize
6) ced395 - Why do they call them "permanents"? They don't stay around
long... (Yes, this is my more inventive EVE deck. I think.)
Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Chalice of the Void, Dominus of Fealty,
Greater Gargadon
7) Mogg - 5CB Submission
Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Coercion, Rakdos the Defiler
8) AJFirst - Fourth deck of the week
Lightning Bolt, Oxidize, Reclaim, Taiga, Helix Pinnacle
9) Fark - Nothing Beats Rock
Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Yawgmoth's Will, Hunting Pack
Well, this week is very close run, so I'll leave posting standings for now.
I'll just note that OW that was a bad deck for me to enter.
Next week is a special week 'Low Scoring Round':
Any result other than a 6-0 to one player is a 0-0 to both players. 4-1, 3-3 and 2-2 are ALL 0-0. Good luck gentlemen, good luck.
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.
Thank you for putting up this poll. Your summaries get to the point and are fair. I'd only like to add that part of the argument for unbanning Mycosynth Lattice is that there are a number of powerful opening plays available, such as in my deck and Error1's, and Mycosynth Lattice is no better than these.
2) Error1 - Neo Lattice: or how I learned to stop worring about Foil
and play the bombs
Black Lotus, Channel, Enchanted Evening, Opalescence, Skyshroud Elf
----
9) Fark - Nothing Beats Rock
Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Yawgmoth's Will, Hunting Pack
I win this 6-0
Opalescence works different then march. March works with all non-creature artifacts. Opalescence effects all non-aura enchantment. Enchanted Evening + Opalescence makes all creatures power and toughness equal to there casting cost, this kills the beast tokens.
8) AJFirst - Fourth deck of the week
Lightning Bolt, Oxidize, Reclaim, Taiga, Helix Pinnacle
On the play, i thoughtseize his pinnacle then remove it from the game with faerie macabre. draw.
so 1-4 instead of 0-6
Or you could thoughtseize his Lightning Bolt and remove it. Then win on the play.
On the draw just thoughtseize the bolt. If he plays his Pinnacle it gives you the opportunity to get rid of the lighting bolt for good and if he tries to return it you can remove it in response.
Or you could thoughtseize his Lightning Bolt and remove it. Then win on the play.
On the draw just thoughtseize the bolt. If he plays his Pinnacle it gives you the opportunity to get rid of the lighting bolt for good and if he tries to return it you can remove it in response.
I agree with both of Error1's corrections, and I have the following corrections to add.
1 WhammWhamme - Artifact Blast, Black Lotus, Gemstone Caverns, Magus of the Moon, Orim's Chant
vs. 4 BigBarn - Anvil of Bogardan, City of Traitors, Words of War, Black Lotus, Nether Spirit
0-6 -> 3-3
Magus + Blast leaves BB unable to play anything relevant.
3 Halinn - Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Leonin Squire, Null Chamber, Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
vs. 8 AJFirst - Lightning Bolt, Oxidize, Reclaim, Taiga, Helix Pinnacle
6-0 -> 4-1
AJ leaves mana open for Bolt. If Halinn plays Squire before Chamber, Bolt kills Squire. If Halinn then does not play Chamber, AJ Reclaims Bolt to kill Erayo. If Halinn does then play Chamber, AJ names Erayo. If Halinn plays Chamber first, AJ names Squire. Erayo would have to be played on the same turn as Chamber. If Loti were also played that turn, Erayo would come into play as an enchantment. If Loti were played earlier, AJ would first have an opportunity to Oxidize one.
5 help im a bug - Faerie Macabre, Innocent Blood, Swamp, Reanimate, Thoughtseize
vs.
6 ced395 - Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Chalice of the Void, Dominus of Fealty,
Greater Gargadon
0-6 -> 1-4
Seize Gargadon. Dominus would meet Blood + Reanimate. ced395 plays Chalice instead (X=1).
5 help im a bug - Faerie Macabre, Innocent Blood, Swamp, Reanimate, Thoughtseize
vs. 9 Farik - Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Yawgmoth's Will, Hunting Pack
0-6 -> 1-4
Seize Lotus. If Farik plays Lotus-Will, help removes two Loti in response, Reanimates Macabre, and wins. Farik plays nothing and help is forced to hold Macabre.
I agree with both of Error1's corrections, and I have the following corrections to add.
1 WhammWhamme - Artifact Blast, Black Lotus, Gemstone Caverns, Magus of the Moon, Orim's Chant vs. 4 BigBarn - Anvil of Bogardan, City of Traitors, Words of War, Black Lotus, Nether Spirit
0-6 -> 3-3
Magus + Blast leaves BB unable to play anything relevant.
Noted.
3 Halinn - Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Leonin Squire, Null Chamber, Erayo, Soratami Ascendant vs. 8 AJFirst - Lightning Bolt, Oxidize, Reclaim, Taiga, Helix Pinnacle
6-0 -> 4-1
AJ leaves mana open for Bolt. If Halinn plays Squire before Chamber, Bolt kills Squire. If Halinn then does not play Chamber, AJ Reclaims Bolt to kill Erayo. If Halinn does then play Chamber, AJ names Erayo. If Halinn plays Chamber first, AJ names Squire. Erayo would have to be played on the same turn as Chamber. If Loti were also played that turn, Erayo would come into play as an enchantment. If Loti were played earlier, AJ would first have an opportunity to Oxidize one.
Halinn goes:
Black Lotus
Black Lotus
Erayo
Leonin Squire.
Erayo will flip with Squire on the stack. Lightning Bolt-ing Erayo doesn't help, because Halinn can then play Null Chamber, locking out Lightning Bolt. OTOH, if Erayo flips, he can never Lightning Bolt the Squire without it getting countered.
5 help im a bug - Faerie Macabre, Innocent Blood, Swamp, Reanimate, Thoughtseize vs. 6 ced395 - Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Chalice of the Void, Dominus of Fealty, Greater Gargadon
0-6 -> 1-4
Seize Gargadon. Dominus would meet Blood + Reanimate. ced395 plays Chalice instead (X=1).
Noted.
5 help im a bug - Faerie Macabre, Innocent Blood, Swamp, Reanimate, Thoughtseize vs. 9 Farik - Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Yawgmoth's Will, Hunting Pack
0-6 -> 1-4
Seize Lotus. If Farik plays Lotus-Will, help removes two Loti in response, Reanimates Macabre, and wins. Farik plays nothing and help is forced to hold Macabre.
I'd only like to add that part of the argument for unbanning Mycosynth Lattice is that there are a number of powerful opening plays available, such as in my deck and Error1's, and Mycosynth Lattice is no better than these.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something it looks as though both of those decks scoop to Tabernacle?
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>
Unless I'm misunderstanding something it looks as though both of those decks scoop to Tabernacle?
No Lattice + March very much kills anything with a converted mana cost of 0. In fact the only thing Lattice will scoop from is lotus hate discard or counters. It can kill any permanent like ensnaring bridges or powder kegs once it gets it's combo in play.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something it looks as though both of those decks scoop to Tabernacle?
Opalescence-Evening and March-Lattice kill Tabernacle, as Error1 pointed out. Rakdos Coercions Tabernacle on the play. Conveniently, though, most decks play at least one form of the disruption that Error1 listed.
I don't get why people want to unban Lattice and ban Magus.
They both hose most land-based decks, except the Lattice deck is much better at it.
Would you care to elaborate on how Lattice "is much better at it"? Lattice devotes four cards to getting March and Lattice ino play. Whatever fifth card it plays relies on the mana generated by Lotus and Channel. The success of the deck rides entirely on the ability to resolve a single, unprotected, lotus. (Note that I am referring to Mycosynth Lattice in a specific deck, but that deck seems to be the one some people are worried about.)
Compare this to Magus. Magus requires a single mana source, and it is both win condition and disruption.
People can still silver bullet all land decks with a Blood Moon it just can't win the game by itself. It's a card that every deck has to build around. Just look at how bad WhammWhamme's did this week. The only two decks that played non-basic lands this week played a Lightning Bolt and a Words of War just to fight the Magus.
It's not on the ban list yet, it's going to be interesting to see how it does next week when lotus hate is worse.
People can still silver bullet all land decks with a Blood Moon it just can't win the game by itself. It's a card that every deck has to build around. Just look at how bad WhammWhamme's did this week. The only two decks that played non-basic lands this week played a Lightning Bolt and a Words of War just to fight the Magus.
It's not on the ban list yet, it's going to be interesting to see how it does next week when lotus hate is worse.
That kind of metagame distortion is arguably WHY people would want Magus banned.
Actually, here's a reason why Lattice should stay banned: Error's Enchanted Evening/Opalescence deck is almost identical in most ways (with the exception of killing tokens and not having Song as an option) and yet worse, as it takes 5 cards up. Yet it won all of its first games except against one of the T0 Lotus hate cards.
Sure, Lattice technically only takes up four cards, but can you give me a fifth card that would help in any noticable number of games?
So, you want to ban a card because of its similarity to a deck that finished fifth out of nine decks? Note that winning almost all first games is not the same as winning all first games, as a third of these decks actually managed.
What's the point of having a deck choice available which uses different cards to win, yet plays the same way as another existing choice?
Wouldn't it be great if we did all our bans this way? Card A works a lot like Card B, so let's ban it. The banned list is always a bit of an arbitrary thing; it is determined by a small group of people who decide that certain cards are unhealthy for the current format. There's no purely mathematical formula behind it, but using frequency, points achieved, and number of decks that a card negatively impacts as criteria, it becomes possible to achieve some consistency. Now you want to ban cards just because they're similar cards, cards that haven't proven themselves above a middle finish?
To answer your question directly: the point of having more cards available is the options they generate. While it would be possible (though cumbersome) to ban every card that bears a close resemblance to another card, it would remove a lot of subtlelty from the format, and with what gain? Can you explain to me how the format improves as a result of having Mycosynth Lattice banned? What decks that are competetive now would be significantly better or worse if Lattice were unbanned?
Wouldn't it be great if we did all our bans this way? Card A works a lot like Card B, so let's ban it. The banned list is always a bit of an arbitrary thing; it is determined by a small group of people who decide that certain cards are unhealthy for the current format. There's no purely mathematical formula behind it, but using frequency, points achieved, and number of decks that a card negatively impacts as criteria, it becomes possible to achieve some consistency. Now you want to ban cards just because they're similar cards, cards that haven't proven themselves above a middle finish?
To answer your question directly: the point of having more cards available is the options they generate. While it would be possible (though cumbersome) to ban every card that bears a close resemblance to another card, it would remove a lot of subtlelty from the format, and with what gain? Can you explain to me how the format improves as a result of having Mycosynth Lattice banned? What decks that are competetive now would be significantly better or worse if Lattice were unbanned?
You still haven't explained how the format is improved as a result of having Mycosynth Lattice. Furthermore, if Lattice is bad for the format, why aren't you trying to get Enchanted Evening banned, which you've already acknowledged does essentially the same thing?
It's not possible to ban cards in such a way that no decks exist which can win on the play with some consistency. Now, call me crazy, but if the intent behind keeping Mycosynth Lattice banned is to reduce the number of decks that win on the play, why don't you try to get some cards banned that actually do win all their games on the play, like Rakdos?
See, based on reactions to existing decks that can consistently 3-3 or better, I have this hunch that if Mycosynth Lattice were currently unbanned, not a single person would be trying to get it banned. But, unbanning it is impossible because it would cause a change. And this, to me, is the great irony: If Mycosynth Lattice were legal, no one would care because it wouldn't really be better than some of the other legal cards, but it's too risky to unban Lattice because it would be as good as some other decent decks.
The Evening deck, as I did point out, is worse than Lattice (mainly because it doesn't have the option of a 5th card such as Shattering Spree/Sphere of Resistance). It's still a pretty powerful deck, however, but I don't think trying to get it banned on its first appearence is a great idea.
Shattering Spree is fine. The fifth card can really be a card of any color with converted mana cost ten or less. The reason I don't deem this significantly better than Evening is because that fifth card does nothing to cover for the basic weakness of the deck, that the deck needs to get a single, unprotected lotus to resolve. It's on about the same power-level as Lotus, Channel, Mindslaver, Mirror Universe, Scalding Tongs.
When two decks behave similarly, it's a good idea to look at what elements they share, Lotus and Channel in this case. Channel is a very 3-3 card and banning it would do more to reduce the consistency of 3-3 decks than Lattice. Whether Channel should be legal or not if Magus is banned is debatable. However, as previously noted, many consistent decks will continue to win on the play.
The reason Lattice got banned before is, I believe, due to the creation of a rock-paper-scissors meta around it, Foil decks, and (mostly) land-based decks which beat Foil. Since the printing of Magus, the land-based decks which previously beat Foil now lose to it, making Foil one of the format's strongest cards, as you showed in that grid in 5CB#42. Assuming Magus gets banned, as it looks like it may do, it's likely that this rock-paper-scissors meta will appear again, with 3-3 decks (the main ones probably being Lattice and Rakdos), decks that 6-0 the 3-3 decks (Foil, Artifact Blast, etc), and decks that beat the Foil decks (say, 1MC). it's worth noting that Foil doesn't actually beat Rakdos. There are a good few ways to beat a Rakdos deck which plays first (or rather, not lose), but, in most cases, they're pretty bad against Lattice. That adds an extra element to the rock-paper-scissors meta: which deck does the "Foil" deck try to 6-0? If, as you say, Lattice isn't too good, then the anti-3-3 decks will go for Rakdos, which, in turn, causes such decks to lose to Lattice. And if such decks do try going for Foil, they'll most likely lose to Rakdos.
I'm not quite sure what would happen if Magus and Lattice switch places (ignoring Scavenger for now), but that's what I think would happen, this unbalanced rock-paper-scissors meta. That's basically why I think Lattice should stay banned.
I am glad to get the more detailed explanation, because it helps me to understand what you are really arguing against. I belive, however, that there a few flaws in your argument.
First, as Halinn points out, there many decks in each category. If the standard we use to measure the health of a format is diversity, than the format is certainly diverse.
The basic problem with decks like Lattice and Rakdos-Coercion is that while they spend 5 cards to almost ensure a win on the play, any other deck can win on the play against it just by adding Chalice, or something similar, leaving four cards to deal with other things.
If these decks were truly 3-3 decks, it wouldn't be a problem. 3-3 is a middle finish. It may be good if you have a significant POTM lead and don't want to minimize the potential to lose a lot of points in the last week or two. Other than that, a purely 3-3 deck isn't good for much. However, none of these decks is purely 3-3. Among other things, Lattice loses to Foil on the play. The only reason to play these decks is if you have the belief that there will be minimal disruption against them, although such disruption is common and comes in many forms. The only logical way for this to happen is if decks of this archetype make up a consistently small portion of the metagame. In which case, I don't see the problem.
The second flaw in your argument comes from your understanding of the rock-paper-scissors metagame. Mainly, it appears that your ideal metagame is not some form of rock-paper-scissors. But that's not how Magic works. Most complex games can be simplified to something relatively mundane. Magic can be simplified to rock-paper-scissors. What makes Magic interesting and worth playing is the increased complexity over rock-paper-scissors, which is a result of having many cards and interactions available.
The final flaw I see in your argument is how a deck "go[es] for" another deck. If a deck tries to 6-0 Rakdos-Coercion, it is setting itself up to lose a lot of other matches. One of the fundamental principles of 5CB is that you don't do things just to beat one deck, like adding uncastable Lightning Bolts just to ward off Magus. In a healthy 5CB metagame, a given deck makes up a small percent of decks each round, and is not worth metagaming specifically against. 3-3 against Rakdos and Mycosynth Lattice is an acceptable, and easily achievable, score. If you settle for 3-3 against these decks, then the steps necessary to beat Lattice and Rakdos and other such decks become remarkably similar. It's when you start looking at similar decks as vastly different and try to deal with those minute differences that you set yourself up with an inconsistent deck. None of the decks that have been labeled 3-3 decks really worries me because it is so easy to win at least one game against them, hence '3-3'.
I think the fundamental problem here is that you're looking at some very similar decks and perceiving some huge difference between them that really doesn't exist. Their similarity means that it is easy to deal with all of them in the same way. The difference between Mycosynth Lattice or Enchanted Evening as a win condition does nothing to change how you beat them.
We can't point to Enchanted Evening as an example of a perfectly fair deck, because this is the first time it's been played. It didn't do particularly well this week, but this week did raise a lot of concerns. Decks that don't let you have lands OR loti when they play first can only be disrupted on the play by Force of Will effects - and I do not like that Sam-I-am.
For another, I'm wondering about Coercion now. The fact that it can hit lands, to be precise. That makes it a LOT harder to play around, and makes this week's Rakdos deck a lot stronger against potential answers.
The meta has shifted a long way away from land-based decks being good; it might be an idea to try and reverse that drift.
Nothing is going to get unbanned with a minority favouring it, and I'm not going to poll again and again until we get the 'right' result.
9-7 is not a decisive difference. It's 56% vs 44% (off the top of my head).
That's pretty close to even.
13-3 is a lot more decisive. 76% is over 3/4ths. Magus is going DOWN.
In light of that, the next poll is going to be:
'Should Enchanted Evening or Coercion be banned', since people seem to be in a banning mood.
Edit:
If a deck was abusively powerful/unstoppable, it would be a nigh-unanimous vote to kill it. Instead, we vote to try and make the format the way we want it to be... and the verdict seems to be, 'we like lands!'.
When we where talking about unbanning lattice I realized that you could already do a similar combo but had to wait a few weeks to try it out.
Another advantage Evening has over lattice is that if channel is banned you could still play your combo with 3xlotus.
The way I see it now, the good decks are foil, decks that beat foil and tie with some of the first turn win decks, and pseudo first turn win decks.
With Magus banned it just forces the foil decks and pseudo first turn win decks to deal with more Tabernacles.
It's going to be interesting to see what the replacement for Magus will be.
I don't know if there is a way to prove this, can mods see who voted?
I did not really put much thought into my vote but after reading the arguments in the thread it convinced me I should have taken more time to think about it. If you want to ignore my change of vote that is fine, I don't think it sways things too much as there seems to be an overwhelming support for banning Magus any way.
It's just a misfeature of the forum software that "make votes public" isn't ticked by default when you create a poll.
Can't be edited later either, AFAIK.
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>
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This week, there is a poll about potential unbannings.
Mycosinth Lattice: The argument is that the Lattice deck is fairly vulnerable on the draw. (The counterpoint is that, like Neo-Lattice this week, it is close to unassailable on the play). It's really a question of what you think 5CB should be about, in my mind anyway - are the Lattice Decks (Black Lotus, Channel, Mycosinth Lattice, March of the Machines + X, probably Shattering Spree) going to contribute to the format being better?
Anurid Scavenger: It's been banned for quite some time. It's definately the most efficient recursion card in the format. The pro-Scavenger argument is that it's basically a two card combo that you can then add tech cards of choice to (Scavenger + Black Lotus)... the anti-Scavenger argument would be much the same.
They've both been banned for some time; I should note that the meta has not massively shifted since then, except to include Magus of the Moon... in light of that of that, I'm adding an extra poll option.
Magus is rather devastating to a fairly broad spectrum of decks. It's also a rather 3-3 prone card, since it's much stronger on the play. Anyway.
Feel free to discuss before voting. Hopefully better summaries will come up than what I've written.
1) WhammWhamme - Probably Terrible
Artifact Blast, Black Lotus, Gemstone Caverns, Magus of the Moon,
Orim's Chant
2) Error1 - Neo Lattice: or how I learned to stop worring about Foil
and play the bombs
Black Lotus, Channel, Enchanted Evening, Opalescence, Skyshroud Elf
3) Halinn - 5CB Decklist
Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Leonin Squire, Null Chamber, Erayo, Soratami
Ascendant
4) BigBarn - Nug.dec
Anvil of Bogardan, City of Traitors, Words of War, Black Lotus, Nether
Spirit
5) help im a bug - I predict 12 points.
Faerie Macabre, Innocent Blood, Swamp, Reanimate, Thoughtseize
6) ced395 - Why do they call them "permanents"? They don't stay around
long... (Yes, this is my more inventive EVE deck. I think.)
Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Chalice of the Void, Dominus of Fealty,
Greater Gargadon
7) Mogg - 5CB Submission
Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Coercion, Rakdos the Defiler
8) AJFirst - Fourth deck of the week
Lightning Bolt, Oxidize, Reclaim, Taiga, Helix Pinnacle
9) Fark - Nothing Beats Rock
Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Yawgmoth's Will, Hunting Pack
/-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
1 X-6-0-3-0-3-0-0-0 = 12
2 0-X-3-3-3-3-3-6-6 = 27
3 6-3-X-3-4-3-3-6-3 = 31
4 3-3-3-X-3-0-0-6-0 = 18
5 6-3-1-3-X-1-1-4-1 = 20
6 3-3-3-6-4-X-3-6-3 = 31
7 6-3-3-6-4-3-X-6-3 = 34
8 6-0-0-0-1-0-0-X-0 = 7
9 6-0-3-6-4-3-3-6-X = 31
Well, this week is very close run, so I'll leave posting standings for now.
I'll just note that OW that was a bad deck for me to enter.
Next week is a special week 'Low Scoring Round':
Any result other than a 6-0 to one player is a 0-0 to both players. 4-1, 3-3 and 2-2 are ALL 0-0. Good luck gentlemen, good luck.
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.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
and play the bombs
Black Lotus, Channel, Enchanted Evening, Opalescence, Skyshroud Elf
----
9) Fark - Nothing Beats Rock
Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Yawgmoth's Will, Hunting Pack
I win this 6-0
Opalescence works different then march. March works with all non-creature artifacts. Opalescence effects all non-aura enchantment. Enchanted Evening + Opalescence makes all creatures power and toughness equal to there casting cost, this kills the beast tokens.
ok a correction: vs
8) AJFirst - Fourth deck of the week
Lightning Bolt, Oxidize, Reclaim, Taiga, Helix Pinnacle
On the play, i thoughtseize his pinnacle then remove it from the game with faerie macabre. draw.
so 1-4 instead of 0-6
Or you could thoughtseize his Lightning Bolt and remove it. Then win on the play.
On the draw just thoughtseize the bolt. If he plays his Pinnacle it gives you the opportunity to get rid of the lighting bolt for good and if he tries to return it you can remove it in response.
It should be 4-1
Oops?
1 WhammWhamme - Artifact Blast, Black Lotus, Gemstone Caverns, Magus of the Moon, Orim's Chant
vs.
4 BigBarn - Anvil of Bogardan, City of Traitors, Words of War, Black Lotus, Nether Spirit
0-6 -> 3-3
Magus + Blast leaves BB unable to play anything relevant.
3 Halinn - Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Leonin Squire, Null Chamber, Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
vs.
8 AJFirst - Lightning Bolt, Oxidize, Reclaim, Taiga, Helix Pinnacle
6-0 -> 4-1
AJ leaves mana open for Bolt. If Halinn plays Squire before Chamber, Bolt kills Squire. If Halinn then does not play Chamber, AJ Reclaims Bolt to kill Erayo. If Halinn does then play Chamber, AJ names Erayo. If Halinn plays Chamber first, AJ names Squire. Erayo would have to be played on the same turn as Chamber. If Loti were also played that turn, Erayo would come into play as an enchantment. If Loti were played earlier, AJ would first have an opportunity to Oxidize one.
5 help im a bug - Faerie Macabre, Innocent Blood, Swamp, Reanimate, Thoughtseize
vs.
6 ced395 - Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Chalice of the Void, Dominus of Fealty,
Greater Gargadon
0-6 -> 1-4
Seize Gargadon. Dominus would meet Blood + Reanimate. ced395 plays Chalice instead (X=1).
5 help im a bug - Faerie Macabre, Innocent Blood, Swamp, Reanimate, Thoughtseize
vs.
9 Farik - Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Black Lotus, Yawgmoth's Will, Hunting Pack
0-6 -> 1-4
Seize Lotus. If Farik plays Lotus-Will, help removes two Loti in response, Reanimates Macabre, and wins. Farik plays nothing and help is forced to hold Macabre.
/-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
1 X-6-0-3-0-3-0-0-0 = 12
2 0-X-3-3-3-3-3-6-6 = 27
3 6-3-X-3-4-3-3-4-3 = 29
4 3-3-3-X-3-0-0-6-0 = 18
5 6-3-1-3-X-1-1-4-1 = 20
6 3-3-3-6-4-X-3-6-3 = 31
7 6-3-3-6-4-3-X-6-3 = 34
8 6-0-1-0-1-0-0-X-0 = 8
9 6-0-3-6-4-3-3-6-X = 31
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Noted.
Halinn goes:
Black Lotus
Black Lotus
Erayo
Leonin Squire.
Erayo will flip with Squire on the stack. Lightning Bolt-ing Erayo doesn't help, because Halinn can then play Null Chamber, locking out Lightning Bolt. OTOH, if Erayo flips, he can never Lightning Bolt the Squire without it getting countered.
Noted.
Classy. Noted.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something it looks as though both of those decks scoop to Tabernacle?
(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>
No Lattice + March very much kills anything with a converted mana cost of 0. In fact the only thing Lattice will scoop from is lotus hate discard or counters. It can kill any permanent like ensnaring bridges or powder kegs once it gets it's combo in play.
Opalescence-Evening and March-Lattice kill Tabernacle, as Error1 pointed out. Rakdos Coercions Tabernacle on the play. Conveniently, though, most decks play at least one form of the disruption that Error1 listed.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Would you care to elaborate on how Lattice "is much better at it"? Lattice devotes four cards to getting March and Lattice ino play. Whatever fifth card it plays relies on the mana generated by Lotus and Channel. The success of the deck rides entirely on the ability to resolve a single, unprotected, lotus. (Note that I am referring to Mycosynth Lattice in a specific deck, but that deck seems to be the one some people are worried about.)
Compare this to Magus. Magus requires a single mana source, and it is both win condition and disruption.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
It's not on the ban list yet, it's going to be interesting to see how it does next week when lotus hate is worse.
That kind of metagame distortion is arguably WHY people would want Magus banned.
Sure, Lattice technically only takes up four cards, but can you give me a fifth card that would help in any noticable number of games?
So, you want to ban a card because of its similarity to a deck that finished fifth out of nine decks? Note that winning almost all first games is not the same as winning all first games, as a third of these decks actually managed.
Wouldn't it be great if we did all our bans this way? Card A works a lot like Card B, so let's ban it. The banned list is always a bit of an arbitrary thing; it is determined by a small group of people who decide that certain cards are unhealthy for the current format. There's no purely mathematical formula behind it, but using frequency, points achieved, and number of decks that a card negatively impacts as criteria, it becomes possible to achieve some consistency. Now you want to ban cards just because they're similar cards, cards that haven't proven themselves above a middle finish?
To answer your question directly: the point of having more cards available is the options they generate. While it would be possible (though cumbersome) to ban every card that bears a close resemblance to another card, it would remove a lot of subtlelty from the format, and with what gain? Can you explain to me how the format improves as a result of having Mycosynth Lattice banned? What decks that are competetive now would be significantly better or worse if Lattice were unbanned?
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
You still haven't explained how the format is improved as a result of having Mycosynth Lattice. Furthermore, if Lattice is bad for the format, why aren't you trying to get Enchanted Evening banned, which you've already acknowledged does essentially the same thing?
It's not possible to ban cards in such a way that no decks exist which can win on the play with some consistency. Now, call me crazy, but if the intent behind keeping Mycosynth Lattice banned is to reduce the number of decks that win on the play, why don't you try to get some cards banned that actually do win all their games on the play, like Rakdos?
See, based on reactions to existing decks that can consistently 3-3 or better, I have this hunch that if Mycosynth Lattice were currently unbanned, not a single person would be trying to get it banned. But, unbanning it is impossible because it would cause a change. And this, to me, is the great irony: If Mycosynth Lattice were legal, no one would care because it wouldn't really be better than some of the other legal cards, but it's too risky to unban Lattice because it would be as good as some other decent decks.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Shattering Spree is fine. The fifth card can really be a card of any color with converted mana cost ten or less. The reason I don't deem this significantly better than Evening is because that fifth card does nothing to cover for the basic weakness of the deck, that the deck needs to get a single, unprotected lotus to resolve. It's on about the same power-level as Lotus, Channel, Mindslaver, Mirror Universe, Scalding Tongs.
When two decks behave similarly, it's a good idea to look at what elements they share, Lotus and Channel in this case. Channel is a very 3-3 card and banning it would do more to reduce the consistency of 3-3 decks than Lattice. Whether Channel should be legal or not if Magus is banned is debatable. However, as previously noted, many consistent decks will continue to win on the play.
I am glad to get the more detailed explanation, because it helps me to understand what you are really arguing against. I belive, however, that there a few flaws in your argument.
First, as Halinn points out, there many decks in each category. If the standard we use to measure the health of a format is diversity, than the format is certainly diverse.
The basic problem with decks like Lattice and Rakdos-Coercion is that while they spend 5 cards to almost ensure a win on the play, any other deck can win on the play against it just by adding Chalice, or something similar, leaving four cards to deal with other things.
If these decks were truly 3-3 decks, it wouldn't be a problem. 3-3 is a middle finish. It may be good if you have a significant POTM lead and don't want to minimize the potential to lose a lot of points in the last week or two. Other than that, a purely 3-3 deck isn't good for much. However, none of these decks is purely 3-3. Among other things, Lattice loses to Foil on the play. The only reason to play these decks is if you have the belief that there will be minimal disruption against them, although such disruption is common and comes in many forms. The only logical way for this to happen is if decks of this archetype make up a consistently small portion of the metagame. In which case, I don't see the problem.
The second flaw in your argument comes from your understanding of the rock-paper-scissors metagame. Mainly, it appears that your ideal metagame is not some form of rock-paper-scissors. But that's not how Magic works. Most complex games can be simplified to something relatively mundane. Magic can be simplified to rock-paper-scissors. What makes Magic interesting and worth playing is the increased complexity over rock-paper-scissors, which is a result of having many cards and interactions available.
The final flaw I see in your argument is how a deck "go[es] for" another deck. If a deck tries to 6-0 Rakdos-Coercion, it is setting itself up to lose a lot of other matches. One of the fundamental principles of 5CB is that you don't do things just to beat one deck, like adding uncastable Lightning Bolts just to ward off Magus. In a healthy 5CB metagame, a given deck makes up a small percent of decks each round, and is not worth metagaming specifically against. 3-3 against Rakdos and Mycosynth Lattice is an acceptable, and easily achievable, score. If you settle for 3-3 against these decks, then the steps necessary to beat Lattice and Rakdos and other such decks become remarkably similar. It's when you start looking at similar decks as vastly different and try to deal with those minute differences that you set yourself up with an inconsistent deck. None of the decks that have been labeled 3-3 decks really worries me because it is so easy to win at least one game against them, hence '3-3'.
I think the fundamental problem here is that you're looking at some very similar decks and perceiving some huge difference between them that really doesn't exist. Their similarity means that it is easy to deal with all of them in the same way. The difference between Mycosynth Lattice or Enchanted Evening as a win condition does nothing to change how you beat them.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
For another, I'm wondering about Coercion now. The fact that it can hit lands, to be precise. That makes it a LOT harder to play around, and makes this week's Rakdos deck a lot stronger against potential answers.
The meta has shifted a long way away from land-based decks being good; it might be an idea to try and reverse that drift.
Nothing is going to get unbanned with a minority favouring it, and I'm not going to poll again and again until we get the 'right' result.
9-7 is not a decisive difference. It's 56% vs 44% (off the top of my head).
That's pretty close to even.
13-3 is a lot more decisive. 76% is over 3/4ths. Magus is going DOWN.
In light of that, the next poll is going to be:
'Should Enchanted Evening or Coercion be banned', since people seem to be in a banning mood.
Edit:
If a deck was abusively powerful/unstoppable, it would be a nigh-unanimous vote to kill it. Instead, we vote to try and make the format the way we want it to be... and the verdict seems to be, 'we like lands!'.
Another advantage Evening has over lattice is that if channel is banned you could still play your combo with 3xlotus.
The way I see it now, the good decks are foil, decks that beat foil and tie with some of the first turn win decks, and pseudo first turn win decks.
With Magus banned it just forces the foil decks and pseudo first turn win decks to deal with more Tabernacles.
It's going to be interesting to see what the replacement for Magus will be.
There's no good way to say this:
Do we have to take your word on this?
I did not really put much thought into my vote but after reading the arguments in the thread it convinced me I should have taken more time to think about it. If you want to ignore my change of vote that is fine, I don't think it sways things too much as there seems to be an overwhelming support for banning Magus any way.
Can't be edited later either, AFAIK.
(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>