Welcome to 5CB #64. I was happy to see a lot of variation in the decks this round, and hope to see it continue in the second week of Nemesis format.
Note a small change to the rules, though: Lands whose only non-mana ability is "Cardname comes into play tapped" can't be named. Also, note that the rules for POTM have changed.
2 dasheiff – Chain of Vapor / Mishra's Factory / Mutavault / Swords to Plowshares / Tundra I'm sure most people think of some version of this deck when they first consider the format; two threats, two answers – you have something no matter what they name. But in 5CB, you can only afford to be redundant if you have an effect so powerful that it'll usually win you the game when it resolves. None of the cards in your deck do this. This is a mid-to-late-game deck and should focus on having the powerful answers needed to swing the game when it gets there.
3 bateleur – Aura of Silence / Chalice of the Void / Fountain of Cho / Purity / Windborn Muse You sort of did what I told Dasheiff to, but why is there so much proactive disruption in a deck that can't use it in any timely fashion? This decks suffers a lot because it completely ignores the issue of tempo, which is never a reasonable strategy.
4 WhammWhamme – Chimeric Idol / Juggernaut / Karakas / Mishra's Workshop / Steel Golem After seeing this deck, I almost wonder whether I could be convinced that a one-land deck might someday be valid. I'm not sure whether this deck defies convention by playing aggro, or whether it is simply the form that combo should take in this format. Regardless, it's the most interesting deck this round. If it didn't run the incredibly-narrow Karakas, this deck might have won.
6 ced395 – Arcane Denial / Dread / Dreadship Reef / Nezumi Shortfang / Underground Sea I would have expected this deck to do a bit better. The main problem is that if they name Shortfang, you have no action for the first five turns, after which neither Shortfang nor Dread can completely swing the game.
7 MyNameIsFourteen – Ferropede / Junk Diver / Mishra's Workshop / Plains / Sanctum Gargoyle Narrowness seems to be a recurring trap for you; an easy one to fall into if you think you have a good understanding of the format. Beyond that, the deck is just weak. bateleur's deck, which presumably represents your ideal archetype matchup 3-3's you. You have one card, Ferropede, which constitutes any sort of action, and the rest is filler.
8 Chimpanzee – Chalice of the Void / Leveler / Mishra's Workshop / Mishra's Workshop / Smokestack I was tempted to try a Smokestack build, but without the early permanents to provide a permanent advantage, I didn't think it could succeed. The deck I had in mind was this, replacing Chalice with Lich's Mirror to potentially recur permanents. Chalice is probably better.
Five Card Blind (5CB) is a weekly Magic tournament, run entirely within this forum. Players "blindly" submit five-card decks to compete against each other. Scoring assumes optimal play; given perfect information and no random effects, a match will always have the same outcome. 5CB is a pure challenge of deckbuilding and metagaming.
Rules
1. Players' decks contain exactly five cards, which begin the game in hand. Players do not mulligan or sideboard.
2. Players' libraries begin the game empty, but still exist. Players do not lose the game as a result of being unable to draw a card.
3. A random effect produces the result that least benefits the owner of the source of the effect.
4. During players' first and second turns, no player may make a play which would win the game, create an extra turn, or force a card in an opponent's hand to change zones.
5. Decks may include any number of any card legal in Vintage, with the exception of the following cards:
1. Each participant submits a deck to the 5CB moderator (Mogg). If a participant submits multiple decks, only the most recent submission is counted.
2. Each participant plays against each other participant. Matches consist of two games, with each player going first once. Results assume perfect information and play.
3. Points determine tournament standings; the player with the most points wins the round. For each match, players earn: 3 points for two wins or a win and a draw, 1 point for two draws or a win and a loss, and 0 points for two losses or a draw and a loss. Tiebreakers are determined by number of games won, followed by number of games drawn.
4. The points from all rounds ending in a given month are summed to determine that month's Player of the Month. At the end of each month, the player with the most points becomes the Player of the Month.
Format: Nemesis
At the beginning of the game, each player names a card. The named cards can't be played during either player's first four turns. Players can't name lands whose only abilities are mana abilites, lands whose only non-mana ability is "Cardname comes into play tapped", or lands that can generate storage counters.
Deck Submission Deadline:
Friday, January 23rd, 2:00 pm PST.
Please use this thread to discuss any aspect of 5CB.
I'm kinda confused about the results... you've listed Halinn and I as being on the same points, but for some reason only one of us counts towards PoTM?
Anyway, I think the 'doesn't count for PoTM' rule is just generally not functioning as intended (unless 'as intended' is 'make sure Mogg doesn't have to worry about a single bad round costing him PoTM'); I don't see how raw scores was leading to 'the wrong people' winning.
Even if I get counted this round, someone 3 points behind first place WON'T... and that seems really quite wrong to me.
Halinn beats you on tiebreakers. As for the POTM system, I'm inclined to agree with you, and wouldn't mind switching back to the old system. I'll update the results spoiler in a few minutes.
I apologize for the sudden change. It goes against my general policy of not making sudden changes, but WhammWhamme isn't the first player to give me negative feedback. And I'm not willing to run two more rounds under a system I'm not happy with. Below are some of my thoughts about POTM:
Ideally, the new system solves the problem of conflicting goals, the question of consistency versus power that can limit innovation. Rounds reward ingenuity and POTM rewards consistency.
Ingenuity involves daring. A new deck might win, but it might also totally fail when the deck is in the works, not quite there yet. The established deck, in contrast, can count on decent finishes, checked mainly by being a known quantity.
It was my impression that the classic POTM system discouraged ingenuity, favoring many middle finishes over a few big ones. The effect I've described not only discourages a few competetive players from innovating, it also generates less new decks for everyone to metagame against.
Unfortunately, I don't think the new system is practical with the small round sizes we've had lately. The point spread just isn't big enough for it to be relevant in any positive way. Also, because small rounds are inherently more random, consistency is difficult enough to achieve with any deck that it should be held in greater value.
I want to try the system when we have a greater player base, but it doesn't make sense now, and I'm going to drop it.
[I]You sort of did what I told Dasheiff to, but why is there so much proactive disruption in a deck that can't use it in any timely fashion?
Complete metagame misread, combined with not spotting the awesomeness that is WhammWhamme's deck!
I think my main mistake was that I started with a gauntlet of regular 5CB decks and then added and removed stuff. Black Lotus decks looked good because they would frequently just win on turn five on the play by naming whatever Lotus hate the opponent was packing. But in fact [i]nobody's[/i] gone for this!
So the thinking behind my deck was that it would beat the Lotus decks trying to ignore the hate (or playing a single answer card to push for 6-0) and would have inevitability against super-slow strategies (which again I was finding to be quite dominant).
Stuff like 5-land was looking unplayable to me (!).
And that completes my essay on why I suck.
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>
Yeah I never really payed attenion to potm. Basicly, all I'd ever care about was wins. And, this is really important only if there were some team event or something of the sort. *ahem* But yeah, I'm pretty sure I agree with you Mogg.
I think my main mistake was that I started with a gauntlet of regular 5CB decks and then added and removed stuff.
You use a gauntlet!? I'm intrigued. This comment made me realize that my strategy for 5CB deckbuilding is pretty awful. I just sorta sit there with gatherer and last weeks results and putter about till I find something that looks neat and might do okay. The results have been...well..scattershot at best.
How do you guys attack the format week in and week out?
Scattershot. I just eyeball the special weeks or latest rules changes and go 'hrm, what abuses that?'. Sometimes I forget stuff, and once or twice I've spent extra time on it, but I got into a habit of coming up with a deck as fast as possible when I was running 5CB. (Because the longer I took thinking, the later I managed to get the previous week's results up)
You use a gauntlet!? I'm intrigued. This comment made me realize that my strategy for 5CB deckbuilding is pretty awful. I just sorta sit there with gatherer and last weeks results and putter about till I find something that looks neat and might do okay. The results have been...well..scattershot at best.
How do you guys attack the format week in and week out?
When a format is new, I find a gauntlet impossible to use, because a decent gauntlet requires a lot of data. So, for special rounds, I have no gauntlet.
For regular rounds, a gauntlet is invaluable. I made my first a few months ago, and it had immediate results, leading me to the Mage-Karakas deck that won the next two rounds.
I pick twenty to thirty seemingly good decks and run them against each other. I get enough data to see how subtle changes affect a deck (like Sphere of Resistance vs. Chalice of the Void in Stax) and how decks can be unexpectedly similar (I learned, for example, that Kodama-Digger and Rakdos are both 3-3 decks, but Rakdos is almost strictly superior).
When I don't have a gauntlet, I've tried various methods. Sometimes I break archetypes down by mana-base (two or three sources, permanent or single-use), sometimes I try to exploit a format change, sometimes I find a cool card and see if I can make it work.
Mana base is probably the best starting point, because it dictates what is possible in the format. From there, I make a deck that wins as consistently as possible on the play. This "most powerful" deck provides context for subsequent, more balanced decks. I then scale back until I find a deck that is acceptable on the draw.
Last week, I started with mana bases; I focused on double-workshop, tomb + color land, and double color land. By considering the mana, I got a sense for the speed of the format. These decks can play a lot of powerful spells starting turn two, so my strategy was to be relevent a turn earlier.
Ultimately, whether or not you use a gauntlet, the best way to improve your game is to play through matches. You want to provide some context for your deck. Actual gameplay points out unexpected interactions and provides a frame of reference for card comparison.
There are a lot of matches where you can't easily see the result. Take Cenn's Tactician / Karakas / Leyline of Singularity / Meddling Mage / Mox Sapphire vs. Chalice of the Void / City of Traitors / Mishra's Factory / Powder Keg / Soldevi Digger. Each deck has so many lines of play that you can't even begin to understand the match without playing through it.
In summary, my strategy involves looking for patterns, focusing on mana base, and using a consistent deck as a starting point.
Note a small change to the rules, though: Lands whose only non-mana ability is "Cardname comes into play tapped" can't be named. Also, note that the rules for POTM have changed.
This week was Nemesis format.
Results
1 Mogg – Ancient Tomb / Black Lotus / Blood Moon / Mox Ruby / Voidstone Gargoyle
I've been playing All-In Red a bit on MWS, and I couldn't resist the chance to port it.
2 dasheiff – Chain of Vapor / Mishra's Factory / Mutavault / Swords to Plowshares / Tundra
I'm sure most people think of some version of this deck when they first consider the format; two threats, two answers – you have something no matter what they name. But in 5CB, you can only afford to be redundant if you have an effect so powerful that it'll usually win you the game when it resolves. None of the cards in your deck do this. This is a mid-to-late-game deck and should focus on having the powerful answers needed to swing the game when it gets there.
3 bateleur – Aura of Silence / Chalice of the Void / Fountain of Cho / Purity / Windborn Muse
You sort of did what I told Dasheiff to, but why is there so much proactive disruption in a deck that can't use it in any timely fashion? This decks suffers a lot because it completely ignores the issue of tempo, which is never a reasonable strategy.
4 WhammWhamme – Chimeric Idol / Juggernaut / Karakas / Mishra's Workshop / Steel Golem
After seeing this deck, I almost wonder whether I could be convinced that a one-land deck might someday be valid. I'm not sure whether this deck defies convention by playing aggro, or whether it is simply the form that combo should take in this format. Regardless, it's the most interesting deck this round. If it didn't run the incredibly-narrow Karakas, this deck might have won.
5 Halinn – Dust Bowl / Gruul Turf / Mishra's Factory / The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale / Treetop Village
Considering all the disruption people ran to stop named spells from resolving, this was the perfect round to try five-land.
6 ced395 – Arcane Denial / Dread / Dreadship Reef / Nezumi Shortfang / Underground Sea
I would have expected this deck to do a bit better. The main problem is that if they name Shortfang, you have no action for the first five turns, after which neither Shortfang nor Dread can completely swing the game.
7 MyNameIsFourteen – Ferropede / Junk Diver / Mishra's Workshop / Plains / Sanctum Gargoyle
Narrowness seems to be a recurring trap for you; an easy one to fall into if you think you have a good understanding of the format. Beyond that, the deck is just weak. bateleur's deck, which presumably represents your ideal archetype matchup 3-3's you. You have one card, Ferropede, which constitutes any sort of action, and the rest is filler.
8 Chimpanzee – Chalice of the Void / Leveler / Mishra's Workshop / Mishra's Workshop / Smokestack
I was tempted to try a Smokestack build, but without the early permanents to provide a permanent advantage, I didn't think it could succeed. The deck I had in mind was this, replacing Chalice with Lich's Mirror to potentially recur permanents. Chalice is probably better.
Matches
X| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1| X 6 4 1 4 6 6 4 | 18
2| 0 X 0 0 0 6 3 0 | 4
3| 1 6 X 0 0 0 3 0 | 4
4| 4 6 6 X 3 6 6 1 | 16
5| 1 6 6 3 X 6 6 6 | 16
6| 0 0 6 0 0 X 6 0 | 6
7| 0 3 3 0 0 0 X 0 | 2
8| 1 6 6 4 0 6 6 X | 15
Tournament Standings
1 Mogg: 18
2 Halinn: 16
3 WhammWhamme: 16
4 Chimpanzee: 15
5 ced395: 6
6 bateleur: 4
7 dasheiff: 4
8 MyNameIsFourteen: 2
Mogg wins 5CB #64.
POTM Standings
1 Mogg: 38
2 halinn: 28
3 ced395: 23
3 WhammWhamme: 23
5 bateleur: 20
5 Chimpanzee: 20
7 dasheiff: 16
8 Knowledge: 9
9 MyNameIsFourteen: 5
Overview
Five Card Blind (5CB) is a weekly Magic tournament, run entirely within this forum. Players "blindly" submit five-card decks to compete against each other. Scoring assumes optimal play; given perfect information and no random effects, a match will always have the same outcome. 5CB is a pure challenge of deckbuilding and metagaming.
Rules
1. Players' decks contain exactly five cards, which begin the game in hand. Players do not mulligan or sideboard.
2. Players' libraries begin the game empty, but still exist. Players do not lose the game as a result of being unable to draw a card.
3. A random effect produces the result that least benefits the owner of the source of the effect.
4. During players' first and second turns, no player may make a play which would win the game, create an extra turn, or force a card in an opponent's hand to change zones.
5. Decks may include any number of any card legal in Vintage, with the exception of the following cards:
Strip Mine
Wasteland
Ghost Quarter
Force of Will
Trinisphere
Magus of the Moon
Tournament Structure
1. Each participant submits a deck to the 5CB moderator (Mogg). If a participant submits multiple decks, only the most recent submission is counted.
2. Each participant plays against each other participant. Matches consist of two games, with each player going first once. Results assume perfect information and play.
3. Points determine tournament standings; the player with the most points wins the round. For each match, players earn: 3 points for two wins or a win and a draw, 1 point for two draws or a win and a loss, and 0 points for two losses or a draw and a loss. Tiebreakers are determined by number of games won, followed by number of games drawn.
4. The points from all rounds ending in a given month are summed to determine that month's Player of the Month. At the end of each month, the player with the most points becomes the Player of the Month.
September 2007
Round 1 (Introduction)
Round 2 andelijah
POTM: None
October 2007
Round 3 Mogg
Round 4 Chimpanzee (Lorwyn)
Round 5 Meat Popsicle (Repeat Letters)
Round 6 Mogg (10 Life)
POTM: Mogg
November 2007
Round 7 Death_By_Beebles
Round 8 jcsuperstar (Mindslaver)
Round 9 Mogg (Thanksgiving Special)
Round 10 Mogg (Thanksgiving Special, Part Two)
POTM: Mogg
December 2007
Round 11 carrion pigeons
Round 12 Mogg (Later Alphabet)
Round 13 Mogg (Backbuild)
Round 14 Xyre (Backbuild)
POTM: Mogg
January 2008
Round 15 armlx
Round 16 Chimpanzee (Auras)
Round 17 Mogg (Doubling Season)
Round 18 carrion pigeons, Chimpanzee (Doubling Season)
Round 19 WhammWhamme (31 Bans)
POTM: Mogg
February 2008
Round 20 Chimpanzee
Round 21 Mogg (Combat)
Round 22 Mogg (Combat)
Round 23 Knowledge
POTM: Mogg
March 2008
Round 24 Mogg (Consecutive Names)
Round 25 Chimpanzee (Consecutive Names)
Round 26 The Mad Tapper
Round 27 The Mad Tapper
POTM: The Mad Tapper
April 2008
Round 28 The Mad Tapper (DC5)
Round 29 jcsuperstar (DC5)
Round 30 jcsuperstar (< 20)
Round 31 bateleur
POTM: bateleur
May 2008
Round 32 WhammWhamme (Leyline)
Round 33 Silver Seraph (Mana Market)
Round 34 bateleur (Helm of Awakening and Mirari)
Round 35 Alfred (Pre-entered Decks)
POTM: bateleur
June 2008
Round 36 bateleur
Round 37 WhammWhamme (Favorite Colors)
Round 38 YuanTi (Lotus)
Round 39 Mogg (Mogg Week)
POTM: WhammWhamme
July 2008
Round 40 bateleur (Mulligans)
Round 41 Mogg
Round 42 Chimpanzee
Round 43 ced395 (Even)
POTM: Mogg
August 2008
Round 44 WhammWhamme (Odd)
Round 45 Farik (No Bans)
Round 46 Mogg
POTM: Error1
September 2008
Round 47 ghweiss (Low-Scoring)
Round 48 theeguy (Backbuild, Part Two)
Round 49 Mogg
Round 50 Mogg (50 Life)
Round 51 Error1 (Landline)
POTM: Mogg
October 2008
Round 52 Shogun17 (Exploration)
Round 53 MT_Gunn (Multicolor Discount)
Round 54 Silkenfist (2-2)
Round 55 bateleur, WhammWhamme
POTM: None
November 2008
Round 56 Error1 (Colorless Creatures)
Round 57 Knowledge, Silkenfist (Legendary Creatures)
POTM: None
December 2008
Round 58 (Introduction)
Round 59 Halinn
Round 60 Halinn
Round 61 ced395 (Christmas Special)
Round 62 MyNameIsFourteen (New Year's Special)
POTM: None
January 2009
Round 63 Mogg
Round 64 Mogg
At the beginning of the game, each player names a card. The named cards can't be played during either player's first four turns. Players can't name lands whose only abilities are mana abilites, lands whose only non-mana ability is "Cardname comes into play tapped", or lands that can generate storage counters.
Deck Submission Deadline:
Friday, January 23rd, 2:00 pm PST.
Please use this thread to discuss any aspect of 5CB.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Anyway, I think the 'doesn't count for PoTM' rule is just generally not functioning as intended (unless 'as intended' is 'make sure Mogg doesn't have to worry about a single bad round costing him PoTM'); I don't see how raw scores was leading to 'the wrong people' winning.
Even if I get counted this round, someone 3 points behind first place WON'T... and that seems really quite wrong to me.
I apologize for the sudden change. It goes against my general policy of not making sudden changes, but WhammWhamme isn't the first player to give me negative feedback. And I'm not willing to run two more rounds under a system I'm not happy with. Below are some of my thoughts about POTM:
Ideally, the new system solves the problem of conflicting goals, the question of consistency versus power that can limit innovation. Rounds reward ingenuity and POTM rewards consistency.
Ingenuity involves daring. A new deck might win, but it might also totally fail when the deck is in the works, not quite there yet. The established deck, in contrast, can count on decent finishes, checked mainly by being a known quantity.
It was my impression that the classic POTM system discouraged ingenuity, favoring many middle finishes over a few big ones. The effect I've described not only discourages a few competetive players from innovating, it also generates less new decks for everyone to metagame against.
Unfortunately, I don't think the new system is practical with the small round sizes we've had lately. The point spread just isn't big enough for it to be relevant in any positive way. Also, because small rounds are inherently more random, consistency is difficult enough to achieve with any deck that it should be held in greater value.
I want to try the system when we have a greater player base, but it doesn't make sense now, and I'm going to drop it.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Complete metagame misread, combined with not spotting the awesomeness that is WhammWhamme's deck!
I think my main mistake was that I started with a gauntlet of regular 5CB decks and then added and removed stuff. Black Lotus decks looked good because they would frequently just win on turn five on the play by naming whatever Lotus hate the opponent was packing. But in fact [i]nobody's[/i] gone for this!
So the thinking behind my deck was that it would beat the Lotus decks trying to ignore the hate (or playing a single answer card to push for 6-0) and would have inevitability against super-slow strategies (which again I was finding to be quite dominant).
Stuff like 5-land was looking unplayable to me (!).
And that completes my essay on why I suck.
(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 use a gauntlet!? I'm intrigued. This comment made me realize that my strategy for 5CB deckbuilding is pretty awful. I just sorta sit there with gatherer and last weeks results and putter about till I find something that looks neat and might do okay. The results have been...well..scattershot at best.
How do you guys attack the format week in and week out?
When a format is new, I find a gauntlet impossible to use, because a decent gauntlet requires a lot of data. So, for special rounds, I have no gauntlet.
For regular rounds, a gauntlet is invaluable. I made my first a few months ago, and it had immediate results, leading me to the Mage-Karakas deck that won the next two rounds.
I pick twenty to thirty seemingly good decks and run them against each other. I get enough data to see how subtle changes affect a deck (like Sphere of Resistance vs. Chalice of the Void in Stax) and how decks can be unexpectedly similar (I learned, for example, that Kodama-Digger and Rakdos are both 3-3 decks, but Rakdos is almost strictly superior).
When I don't have a gauntlet, I've tried various methods. Sometimes I break archetypes down by mana-base (two or three sources, permanent or single-use), sometimes I try to exploit a format change, sometimes I find a cool card and see if I can make it work.
Mana base is probably the best starting point, because it dictates what is possible in the format. From there, I make a deck that wins as consistently as possible on the play. This "most powerful" deck provides context for subsequent, more balanced decks. I then scale back until I find a deck that is acceptable on the draw.
Last week, I started with mana bases; I focused on double-workshop, tomb + color land, and double color land. By considering the mana, I got a sense for the speed of the format. These decks can play a lot of powerful spells starting turn two, so my strategy was to be relevent a turn earlier.
Ultimately, whether or not you use a gauntlet, the best way to improve your game is to play through matches. You want to provide some context for your deck. Actual gameplay points out unexpected interactions and provides a frame of reference for card comparison.
There are a lot of matches where you can't easily see the result. Take Cenn's Tactician / Karakas / Leyline of Singularity / Meddling Mage / Mox Sapphire vs. Chalice of the Void / City of Traitors / Mishra's Factory / Powder Keg / Soldevi Digger. Each deck has so many lines of play that you can't even begin to understand the match without playing through it.
In summary, my strategy involves looking for patterns, focusing on mana base, and using a consistent deck as a starting point.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy