Player of the Month January 2011
1. Catmurderer: 15
2. bateleur: 13
3. Mogg: 10
4. Feyd_Ruin: 7
5. Madmanquail: 6
=. MrCowFart: 6
7.WhammWhamme: 5
8. tomsloger: 4
=. FuriouslySleepingIdea: 4
9. bmh: 1
Resources
Rules
0. Overview
Five Card Blind (5CB) is a weekly Magic tournament, run entirely within this forum. To compete, players submit five-card decks which are played against each other. Scoring assumes optimal play, without randomness or concealed information.
1. Game Rules
1.1. Except for the changes described in these rules, games follow the rules of Magic.
1.2. Players' decks contain exactly five cards, which begin the game in hand. Players do not mulligan or sideboard.
1.3. Players' libraries begin the game empty. A player does not lose the game as a result of being unable to draw a card.
1.4. A random effect produces the result that least benefits the owner of the source of the effect.
1.5. Each player plays two games (one match) against each other player.
1.5a. Each player is the starting player once per match.
1.5b. If no player can win, the game is a draw.
1.5c. Games are played with perfect information.
1.5d. Games are played optimally; players attempt to win, draw, or extend the game – in that order.
2. Tournament Rules
2.1. Players submit their decks to the 5CB moderator.
2.1a. A player may submit multiple decks, but only the most recent deck is counted.
2.1b. An illegal deck is not counted. The removal of an illegal deck does not affect deck distribution (see Rule 2.4).
2.1c. The moderator determines the result of each match. Players may challenge results, but not after the results of the first round belonging to a new month have been posted (see Rule 2.5a).
2.2. Decks are subject to some restrictions.
2.2a. A player may not submit a deck that can – against any deck – win the game or force more than one card in an opponent's hand to change zones before an opponent's second turn.
2.2b. A player may not submit a deck that can't win both games of a match against at least one deck satisfying 2.2a and 2.2c.
2.2c. A deck may include any number of any card legal in Vintage (Type 1), with the exception of the following banned cards:
2.2d. A deck may include any number of any card that will become legal in Vintage upon release of a set that has been revealed fully and officially.
2.3. Points determine tournament standings.
2.3a. Players are ranked – first to last – in order of decreasing number of points.
2.3b. For each match, a player earns 3 points per game win and 1 point per drawn game. However, a player earns only 2 points for a split match (one win, one loss).
2.3c. A table of match results is posted each round. Its rows represent players and its columns represent opponents. Match results reflect the combined result of both games played in a match; 3 is a game win, 1 a drawn game, and 0 a game loss. 2 may be used instead of 3 to denote a split match. A player's points are listed at the end of his or her row.
2.4. In rounds of twenty or more players, players are divided randomly into equally-sized heats of n players, where n is the number of players divided by ten (rounded down).
For example, twenty-five players are divided into heats of twelve and thirteen.
2.4a. Except in the finals, a player only plays against players in his heat.
2.4b. The top four players of each heat advance to the finals, where they play again (with the same decks).
2.4c. Tiebreakers for advancement to the finals are as follows: number of matches in which a player wins both games, number of game wins, points scored against higher-scoring decks. If a tie is unresolved, the tied decks advance.
2.5. The player with the most POTM points over the course of a month is the Player of the Month.
2.5a. A month includes all rounds for which decks are due during that month.
2.5b. The top eight players – or more, if players are tied for the final spot – of rounds of less than twenty players, all players in rounds of eight or fewer players, and all players in the finals of rounds of twenty or more players earn POTM points according to their rank; The player with the highest score earns 8 POTM points, and each subsequent player earns one point less than the previous player, but can't earn less than 0 POTM points. Tied players earn equal points but are counted as separate players when calculating the points of other players.
Deck Submission Deadline:
Saturday, January 15th, 8:00 pm GMT+2.
Submit your deck to Alpha Werewolf.
Please use this thread to discuss any aspect of 5CB. Also, consider a subscription to 5CB. Subscribed players who have not already submitted a deck receive a reminder PM about two days before deadline. PM bateleur, ced395, Mogg or Alpha Werewolf to subscribe.
6 - Catmurderer
Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Progenitus / Snapback / Commandeer / Dominus of Fealty
Listed: 0-6 Suggested: 6-0
On my first turn I discard Progenitus to make an Astroturf and then tap it to cast Orim's Chant. If he lets this resolve I discard Boomerang to do my thing with Channel into Lich's Mirror, make Progenitus and that's game to me. If instead he Commandeers it he can render me unable to cast anything that turn, but at the cost of Exiling two of his Blue cards. On my next turn he cannot Commandeer again and cannot yet have resolved Progenitus, so I Channel into Mirror, make Progenitus and win. (Note that because he does not have Leyline of the Void I always have Orim's Chant ready after I resolve Mirror.)
5 - Mogg
Basking Rootwalla / Blood Moon / Foil / Leyline of the Void / Tropical Island
Listed: 1-4 Suggested: 4-1
On the play I discard Progenitus to make an Astroturf, then play Orim's Chant. Whether or not he Foils it I then discard Boomerang to Channel into Mirror, make Progenitus and it's all over.
On the draw he cannot make Blood Moon unless he uses two Astroturf or an Astroturf and Tropical Island. Doing either of those leaves him with insufficient cards in hand for Foil so I can resolve Mirror long before Rootwalla kills me. Progenitus never gets exiled by Leyline, so I can repeat this cycle indefinitely and will never lose the game.
--
(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>
Leyline of the Void / Leyline of Singularity / Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Smokestack / Kargan Dragonlord
vs
Chalice of the Void / Energy Field / Foil / Progenitus / Snow-Covered Island
Listed: 0-6
Should be: 3-3
On the play, discard Leylines to play Smokestack. If it gets Foiled, I think dropping Dragonlord here outraces Progenitus. If it doesn't, he can never cast Progenitus (as I Just upkeep the Smokestack for 1), which gives me the time to cast Dragonlord, get it countered, and shuffle it back in with Ulamog (and then ramp Smokestack to clear out a Chalice).
On the draw, I think he has me.
5) WhammWhamme vs. Mogg:
Leyline of the Void / Leyline of Singularity / Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Smokestack / Kargan Dragonlord
vs
Basking Rootwalla / Blood Moon / Foil / Leyline of the Void / Tropical Island
Listed: 0-6
Should be: 6-0
Starting with Leyline of the Void and Leyline of Singularity in play destroys both Leylines of the Void. At that point, it's Ulamog, Smokestack, and Kargan Dragonlord vs. Blood Moon, Foil, Tropical Island and Basking Rootwalla.
Resolved Kargan Dragonlord beats Basking Rootwalla, and I can force it through by casting it twice (reshuffling with Ulamog)
Ugh. So much Progenitus. I think I underestimated him.
Leyline of the Void / Leyline of Singularity / Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Smokestack / Kargan Dragonlord
vs
Chalice of the Void / Energy Field / Foil / Progenitus / Snow-Covered Island
Listed: 0-6
Should be: 3-3
On the play, discard Leylines to play Smokestack. If it gets Foiled, I think dropping Dragonlord here outraces Progenitus. If it doesn't, he can never cast Progenitus (as I Just upkeep the Smokestack for 1), which gives me the time to cast Dragonlord, get it countered, and shuffle it back in with Ulamog (and then ramp Smokestack to clear out a Chalice).
On the draw, I think he has me.
Madmanquail can foil your smokestack (discarding Progenitus, island). He can play Energy Field next turn using the Progenitus preventing you from outracing and because ulamog was the 4th card to hit the graveyard the shuffle effect will randomly occur in Madman's favor making smokestack your last draw. Progentius is able to land and wins.
The soonest you can force stack after the one foil is turn 5.
1 ulamog for land
2 ulamog for land Smokestack, foiled
3 draw ulamog, Discard it for land. Ulamog and stack go to library.
4 Draw Ulamog
5 Draw Stack, too late to deal with Progenitus
However, there is another way to victory
You can hardcast Ulamog sooner then he can cast progenitus (due to him having to foil your Smokestack, or lose, which cost cards advantage you are using for 2 mana mox-lands, and you holding your leylines)
Your ulamog deals with energy field and cripples him.
I am unsure if this strategy works on the draw (because he can put out Progenitus earlier and is not forced to counter stack or lose, and thus can delay Ulamog, and force a bad reshuffle for you giving Progenitus time to get the kill.
But lets say your opponent plays for the above. You can win by casting dragonlord, and using Ulamog's cast trigger (even if its countered) to deal with energy field. So he has to deal with that by means of Chalice of the void.
Therefore, optimal play is discarding energy field and Progenitus for Chalice @2....which then opens up Smokestack, because now he has no mana for foil.
Matchup should be 3-3 at least and maybe 6-0, imo. If I calculated something wrong (very possible, rusty) let me know
I might be missing something here, but that matchup looks way simpler to me.
WhammWhamme begins with Leyline of the Void in play, then on his first turn he discards Smokestack, Leyline of Singularity and Ulamog and casts Dragonlord. Madmanquail will have to cast either Foil or Energy Field to live, which puts him behind on mana. In only three more turns WhammWhamme has the mana to cast Ulamog. If this fails, he can cast Ulamog again the following turn (and every turn thereafter). Once Ulamog attacks once, he wins, because even if Progenitus was in play it can at that point never attack again (and Annihilator means it dies before blocking).
tl;dr - WhammWhamme has tempo advantage because he only needs to attack once. Looks like 6-0 to me?
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>
2 can start with channel- Lich's mirror with mana for orim's.
3 Responds on his turn by discarding his first 3 cards for astroturf's, then attempting to recall them back (which may or not be orim's).
By turn 2, player 3 will have Progenitus out and will draw into legacy weapon or use oblivion stone to deal with Lich's mirror before it can trigger.
Its even more of a landslide on the play because orim's cannot land before a rushed Progenitus will. And 2 cannot deal with a rushed progenitus with an ulamog trigger or oblivion stone for backup.
6 - Catmurderer
Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Progenitus / Snapback / Commandeer / Dominus of Fealty
Listed: 0-6 Suggested: 6-0
On my first turn I discard Progenitus to make an Astroturf and then tap it to cast Orim's Chant. If he lets this resolve I discard Boomerang to do my thing with Channel into Lich's Mirror, make Progenitus and that's game to me. If instead he Commandeers it he can render me unable to cast anything that turn, but at the cost of Exiling two of his Blue cards. On my next turn he cannot Commandeer again and cannot yet have resolved Progenitus, so I Channel into Mirror, make Progenitus and win. (Note that because he does not have Leyline of the Void I always have Orim's Chant ready after I resolve Mirror.)
I do not see this one. If you try and orim's turn 1, you can channel into Lich's mirror all you want which he can later answer with ulamog. And you cannot channel into Progenitus.
He can save commandeer for Progenitus which you have to stop in order to win. And he can over time save for Ulamog while still having commandeer ready.
bat can pitch Progenitus and Chant to cast Boomerang + Channel -> Lich's Mirror, getting an Oblivion Stone or active Legacy Weapon out of the way (or, if both are somehow in play, the five mana needed to activate either of them.
Then Channel + Mirror = infinite mana and replaying of hand, so infinite Boomerangs (taking out all enemy permanents other than Progenituses) and the ability to replay Progenitus and then chant in the upkeep thoroughly takes down Feyd.
the 2 vs 3 match should be 4-1. They tie when 3 is on the play because of a rushed Progenitus. Batelur MUST orim every upkeep to stop ulamog from destroying which prevents his win condition.
Destroying what? Bateleur can cycle through channels and leave mana floating in his pool to cast Progenitus and leave the rest of his deck in his hand. bat kills on turn 3 against a goldfish, too, since he can play first turn Progenitus (and infinite boomerangs...).
aye, I lose. It's the chant that gets me.
He can boomerang away everything but Proj, and legend-kill that. Then he drops his proj and chant's me during my upkeep. I could get rid of the Proj, but I can't play anything to do so, so I'll take 10 during his next turn. He then channel-lich to draw back up, dropping Proj again, and having the chant in hand for next turn.
Normal 5CB is stagnating. I also miss being required to name your decks. =(
...naming decks is fun.
I liked deck naming too (in fact I never stopped naming my decks, the names just don't get published anymore). On the other hand, it's one more thing for the moderator to keep track of.
If Normal format is stagnating some bans might be in order. However, as I'm sure you know from past experience there's a tendency for bans to simply promote other known decks rather than generate new decks.
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>
I liked deck naming too (in fact I never stopped naming my decks, the names just don't get published anymore). On the other hand, it's one more thing for the moderator to keep track of.
If Normal format is stagnating some bans might be in order. However, as I'm sure you know from past experience there's a tendency for bans to simply promote other known decks rather than generate new decks.
Then keep shooting until the only known decks left have huge holes in them. The 'quest to unban' doesn't make more decks or cards viable, it makes LESS viable. If you can play most of the cards that are excessively good in card blind formats, most cards that aren't excessively good in CB become worthless.
I agree with pruning. Normal weeks have simply become way too much of a Rock-Paper-Scissors, where we have to decide "which deck to run", rather than trying to create something new. I've seen a lot of genius decks that people come up with go by the way side simply because they don't beat deck X which is consistently ran. The 5CB deck format is begging to explode with new ideas, but it just can't. Even when something doesn't having a showing in a week, it was still considered and fought around.
For example:
Lich's Mirror is a format warping deck that has 2 open slots (!!) for anything the player wants to use to win. If those slots are filled right, it's just too massive. If you don't run disruption against it, you lose - and if you don't run foil or commandeer, you lose on the draw even with your disruption. It might not win the week (Rock Paper Scissors), but it always places high.
But it's not the mirror that breaks it - it's actually Channel. It is the enabler that makes the deck. It gives you the mana for turn 1, lets you set off the Mirror to protect everything when you want, etc.
Killing the mirror won't change the format, it will just have something else pop up. Killing channel will, though. Channel enables a great multitude of decks, including the ever-present Ulamog, Lattice, and others. 99% of the time, in this limited format, the lose of life is inconsequential. Your deck either beats theirs or it doesn't. I believe Channel to be the largest problem at the moment.
I believe if we kill the cards that show up in a multitude of winning decks, rather than just specifically targeting the top decks, the format as a whole will grow. If we just killed channel, for instance, other decks would fill that gap, and we'd be only a little better off. There is a hydra of 5CB stagnation, and we have to cut all of the heads off.
The format will always have the "I dunno if I should run this since it can't beat X". There is no way to remove all of X. However, if something has consistently shown up as X time and time again, I think it should be considered for removal.
If we continue the pruning process, I recommend the following:
Alone, these cards aren't superbly powerful. However, removing them would irrevocably change the format and greatly increase diversity. Each has had repeated top showing in more than one deck, and are format-changers. They are not broken combo pieces; they change what players are able to play. They are the heads of the deck - they are what you decide to play when you begin your deck, or they are the enablers.
I know some of these haven't shown recently, but they will be the come-back kings if pruning starts. Best to head them off at the pass.
Grand Arbiter Augustin IV is the ugly head of the Ajani deck. Although Ajani can be more powerful, the Arbiter is what enables the 4-1 record it so highly covets, and it is what locks out the opponent from being able to play a considerably large number of decks.
Vampire Hexmage is the head of the Dark Depths deck. Depths by itself is an interesting card, as it allows a good variety of land-heavy decks. Depths is, by itself, balanced. The ability to pump out a 20/20 turn 2, is not.
Meddling Mage is a fan-favorite that many people would miss, but it is simple too powerful in this format. It isn't "broken" - it simply limits the playing field too much. The ability to drop 2 mages first turn is even more powerful than the ability to make the opponent discard two cards, and the latter is banned by rules. It doesn't dominate, it stifles.
Thoughtseize is in the same line as Meddling Mage. We have Unmask banned, with good reason, and thoughtseize is just as powerful. Although it does cost mana, that mana sticks around, and you don't have to waste a 2nd card slot on it. Thoughtseize's combo-battling staying points are well covered by Duress. The ability to get the creature win-con is too much.
Commandeer is my favorite 5CB card and decktype, but it stifles too much. Foil is more then sufficient in stopping combo and requires exactly as many slots. It is the ability to run Commandeer and fill its 2 extra slots with pertinent options that takes it over the top.
Shelldock enables a 2nd turn unfoilable/unduressable Emrakul. It only loses to some of the other heads, and when gone, would dominate.
Painter's Servant might seem an odd choice, but only because it hasn't had a recent showing. The lack of showing is only because the other great decks are slightly better. Being able to outlast foil, counter or destroy every turn, all the while recurring through discard and what not... it would be the next dominator. Just heading it off.
Heck, you could always just ban some of the big things for a special format that lasts a couple of weeks, and see if people like it more/less.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
With all that said, I'd like to just express that this is all just my personal opinion. I'll be playing 5cb regardless, with my usual oddball decks, whether or not anything changes. I do think something should give for the health of the game, but I've always been in it for the fun of seeing how something will do, rather then just trying to win.
I'm just grateful you all have teamed up to host this for us.
The XCBs are my favorite thing on this whole site, and the main reason I come here.
The good thing about bans is they're easily reversed. I wouldn't be at all opposed to a significant expansion of the banned list, since we could always flip things back a week or two later if we didn't like the result.
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>
The good thing about bans is they're easily reversed. I wouldn't be at all opposed to a significant expansion of the banned list, since we could always flip things back a week or two later if we didn't like the result.
Yes, but with the caveat that if many cards are banned at once, then it becomes difficult to determine the effect of any one ban.
Yes, but with the caveat that if many cards are banned at once, then it becomes difficult to determine the effect of any one ban.
So? Does it matter if one card is unjustly banned, in a format where dozens are rendered unplayable by other cards being just better? There's no objective good to a small ban list, it's not like we have to buy cards to run them in XCB.
1) Longer ban lists create more scope for confusion with players missing listed cards and potential new players possibly being intimidated by the format.
2) Some resources, such as 5CB-playable mana sources, are in short supply. A ban list containing too many of such a resource could harm the game.
3) Longer ban lists are more likely to be arbitrary where the current list is at least loosely criteria-based.
Adding long ban lists as a tool available to us to improve the game is certainly a valid option, but I think the main motivation is more akin to a kind of medium-term special format than because there's anything wrong with short lists.
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>
1) Longer ban lists create more scope for confusion with players missing listed cards and potential new players possibly being intimidated by the format.
2) Some resources, such as 5CB-playable mana sources, are in short supply. A ban list containing too many of such a resource could harm the game.
3) Longer ban lists are more likely to be arbitrary where the current list is at least loosely criteria-based.
Adding long ban lists as a tool available to us to improve the game is certainly a valid option, but I think the main motivation is more akin to a kind of medium-term special format than because there's anything wrong with short lists.
1 and 2 aren't likely to care about a 1-2 card difference. 3 I disagree with; there would still be criteria unless the length has to grow far more than I'd expect.
Adding say six cards is not going to tip the scales on any of those, and done right would make a lot more things workable. A longer formal banned list makes for a shorter unofficial unplayable list.
There's no objective good to a small ban list, it's not like we have to buy cards to run them in XCB.
Unless "small" has been defined, it's a useless criterion, since the banned list generally has room to become larger or smaller, and clearly there is some size which is too large. It might be better to say that the size of the banned list should not be one of the criteria used to determine bans. This is true. As bateleur notes, longer banned lists are more intimidating, but this concern is minor.
The major concern of the banned list is to enable as many decks as possible to be competitive. This is a complicated goal, requiring a lot of data. The best way to obtain data about cards' impact is to let people play them.
Each ban changes the metagame, such that earlier data about a card's impact is no longer entirely valid. By banning many cards at once, data about intermediate metagames is lost; it is difficult to measure the impact of a card that can't be played.
The process of banning cards incrementally, instead of in larger groups, is a more precise tool - coming closer to the ideal metagame - at the cost of taking longer. Sometimes, that cost is too great, as when block constructed Ravager Affinity was entirely and justifiably dismantled.
The assumption I make is that if more precision can be achieved, then it should. 5CB has shown itself to be durable, and has shown that small changes to the banned list can cause significant change to the metagame. Thus, I think an incremental approach is justified, and the assumption that it is possible to ban six cards at once and "do it right" is not.
Unless "small" has been defined, it's a useless criterion, since the banned list generally has room to become larger or smaller, and clearly there is some size which is too large. It might be better to say that the size of the banned list should not be one of the criteria used to determine bans. This is true. As bateleur notes, longer banned lists are more intimidating, but this concern is minor.
The major concern of the banned list is to enable as many decks as possible to be competitive. This is a complicated goal, requiring a lot of data. The best way to obtain data about cards' impact is to let people play them.
Each ban changes the metagame, such that earlier data about a card's impact is no longer entirely valid. By banning many cards at once, data about intermediate metagames is lost; it is difficult to measure the impact of a card that can't be played.
The process of banning cards incrementally, instead of in larger groups, is a more precise tool - coming closer to the ideal metagame - at the cost of taking longer. Sometimes, that cost is too great, as when block constructed Ravager Affinity was entirely and justifiably dismantled.
The assumption I make is that if more precision can be achieved, then it should. 5CB has shown itself to be durable, and has shown that small changes to the banned list can cause significant change to the metagame. Thus, I think an incremental approach is justified, and the assumption that it is possible to ban six cards at once and "do it right" is not.
Allowing individual 'elite' cards that are extra-good does not enable more decks ; it narrows deck design, because there is less meaningful choice. e.g. for NeoCB, Path to Exile obsoleted most other removal spells. Thoughtseize obsoletes most other discard spells in 5CB. Channel/Mirror has obsoleted most other 'all-in' decks.
If the goal is more functionally different decks, it becomes almost an imperative to get rid of such 'obvious choices'. They stifle creativity heinously.
The most important detail, however?
Whatever 'theoretical' gains might arise from the 'intermediate data' it pales in comparison to the fact that 5CB is nearly dead every single week that there isn't a special format.
Ban things, and do it properly. Not 'let's do a rolling bans' nonsense which doesn't solve the basic problem of having a baseline format that is fundamentally uninteresting to most of the people who have submitted decks into 5CB.
You might love comparing the data, but catering to your love of data and known metagames has driven out other players.
You might love comparing the data, but catering to your love of data and known metagames has driven out other players.
Roughly how many players would you expect to see entering for a Normal week with an extensively expanded banlist?
(I ask because I'd expect it to be between Normal and Special week numbers, which is to say still very low.)
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.
Format: Astroturf
1 - WhammWhamme
Leyline of the Void / Leyline of Singularity / Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Smokestack / Kargan Dragonlord
2 - bateleur
Channel / Progenitus / Orim's Chant / Lich's Mirror / Boomerang
3 - Feyd_Ruin
Progenitus / Legacy Weapon / Darksteel Colossus / Ancestral Recall / Oblivion Stone
4 - Madmanquail
Chalice of the Void / Energy Field / Foil / Progenitus / Snow-Covered Island
5 - Mogg
Basking Rootwalla / Blood Moon / Foil / Leyline of the Void / Tropical Island
6 - Catmurderer
Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Progenitus / Snapback / Commandeer / Dominus of Fealty
X|1 2 3 4 5 6
1|X 0 0 6 6 0 | 12
2|6 X 6 4 4 6 | 26
3|6 0 X 6 6 2 | 20
4|0 1 0 X 6 0 | 7
5|0 1 0 0 X 0 | 1
6|6 0 2 6 6 X | 20
1. bateleur(2): 26
2. Feyd_Ruin(3): 20
=. Catmurderer(6): 20
4. WhammWhamme(1): 12
5. Madmanquail(4): 7
6. Mogg(5): 1
bateleur wins 5CB #166!
Player of the Month January 2011
1. Catmurderer: 15
2. bateleur: 13
3. Mogg: 10
4. Feyd_Ruin: 7
5. Madmanquail: 6
=. MrCowFart: 6
7.WhammWhamme: 5
8. tomsloger: 4
=. FuriouslySleepingIdea: 4
9. bmh: 1
Rules
0. Overview
Five Card Blind (5CB) is a weekly Magic tournament, run entirely within this forum. To compete, players submit five-card decks which are played against each other. Scoring assumes optimal play, without randomness or concealed information.
1. Game Rules
1.1. Except for the changes described in these rules, games follow the rules of Magic.
1.2. Players' decks contain exactly five cards, which begin the game in hand. Players do not mulligan or sideboard.
1.3. Players' libraries begin the game empty. A player does not lose the game as a result of being unable to draw a card.
1.4. A random effect produces the result that least benefits the owner of the source of the effect.
1.5. Each player plays two games (one match) against each other player.
2. Tournament Rules
2.1. Players submit their decks to the 5CB moderator.
2.2. Decks are subject to some restrictions.
2.3. Points determine tournament standings.
2.4. In rounds of twenty or more players, players are divided randomly into equally-sized heats of n players, where n is the number of players divided by ten (rounded down).
2.5. The player with the most POTM points over the course of a month is the Player of the Month.
Season 1
March 2005
Round 1 r_x, Greebo, zorbop
Round 2 Ankh-Morpokian
Round 3 Greebo
Round 4 Chimpanzee
POTM: Greebo
April 2005
Round 5 help im a bug, Draco9_1_1 (Only Creatures)
Round 6 Greebo (Only Creatures)
Round 7 spuzzem king
Round 8 bateleur
POTM: spuzzem king
May 2005
Round 9 Feyd_Ruin (Only Multicolor)
Round 10 jcsuperstar (Only Multicolor)
Round 11 Lone Warrior
Round 12 Wanderer359
POTM: WhammWhamme
June 2005
Round 13 Silver Seraph, Greebo (Titania's Song)
Round 14 WhammWhamme (Titania's Song)
Round 15 Tahn (Artist Tribute)
Round 16 Lone Warrior (Artist Tribute)
POTM: bateleur, Greebo
July 2005
Round 17 Shadowlord
Round 18 bateleur
Round 19 Shadowlord (Pay 19: Add 1)
Round 20 Greebo (Pay 19: Add 1)
POTM: Shadowlord
August 2005
Round 21 Greebo
Round 22 Greebo
Round 23 spuzzem king (One-Million Life)
Round 24 WhammWhamme (One-Million Life)
POTM: Greebo
September 2005
Round 25 Chimpanzee, Shadowlord
Round 26 dasheiff
Round 27 Chimpanzee (Orrery)
Round 28 Halinn (Orrery)
POTM: jcsuperstar
October 2005
Round 29 Beaker
Round 30 Feuerdrache, Wanderer359
Round 31 r_x (Dream Halls)
Round 32 Puzzle (Dream Halls)
POTM: Chimpanzee
November 2005
Round 33 bateleur
Round 34 Shadowlord
Round 35 jcsuperstar (Backbuild)
Round 36 jcsuperstar (Backbuild)
POTM: bateleur
December 2005
Round 37 bateleur
Round 38 Wanderer359
Round 39 WhammWhamme (Ban a Card)
Round 40 dasheiff, Lone Warrior (Ban a Card)
POTM: Beaker
January 2006
Round 41 Lone Warrior
Round 42 Silver Seraph
Round 43 Trojan (1984)
Round 44 Beaker (1984)
POTM: Lone Warrior
February 2006
Round 45 bateleur
Round 46 Halinn
Round 47 bateleur (7 Life)
Round 48 Chimpanzee (7 Life)
POTM: bateleur
March 2006
Round 49 armlx
Round 50 bateleur
Round 51 armlx (Leyline)
Round 52 Chimpanzee, Greebo (Leyline)
POTM: armlx
April 2006
Round 53 jcsuperstar
Round 54 armlx
Round 55 bateleur (Epic)
Round 56 Xyre (Epic)
POTM: jcsuperstar
May 2006
Round 57 jcsuperstar
Round 58 Pingele_Pats (Banathon)
Round 59 Amadi (Banathon)
Round 60 Solitaire (Banathon)
POTM: Pingele_Pats
June 2006
Round 61 Farik (One-Million Life)
Round 62 Wrath_of_Dog, zu_Faul (Leyline)
Round 63 Beaker (7 Life)
POTM: silicon
July 2006
Round 64 Pingele_Pats (Multi-Set)
Round 65 WhammWhamme, zu_Faul (Extended)
POTM: None
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, YuanTi
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: Error1
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 (Nemesis)
Round 65 MyNameIsFourteen (Nemesis)
Round 66 Mogg
POTM: Mogg
February 2009
Round 67 Chimpanzee
Round 68 MyNameIsFourteen (Lovely Letters)
Round 69 Naphtali (Lovely Letters, Part 2)
Round 70 bateleur
POTM: bateleur
March 2009
Round 71 ced395, Chimpanzee
Round 72 ced395 (Activated)
Round 73 WhammWhamme (Activated)
Round 74 bateleur
POTM: Chimpanzee
April 2009
Round 75 Xyre
Round 76 Mogg, ngollon (Landline-Orrery)
Round 77 Mogg (Landline-Orrery)
Round 78 Mogg
POTM: Mogg
May 2009
Round 79 bateleur
Round 80 ced395 (Upwelling)
Round 81 Mogg (Upwelling)
Round 82 Halinn
Round 83 r_x_
New Player Round math_geek
POTM: Mogg
June 2009
Round 84 Kekekekeke (Block Party)
Round 85 FuriouslySleepingIdea (Block Party)
Round 86 Mogg
Round 87 Farik
POTM: Mogg
July 2009
Round 88 bateleur, dethwing (Infinite Cards)
Round 89 Farik, lOput (Infinite Cards)
Round 90 Farik, Mogg, Personman
Round 91 Madmanquail
Round 92 bateleur (Backbuild, Part Three)
POTM: Madmanquail
August 2009
Round 93 DragonDart (Backbuild, Part Three)
Round 94 lOput
Round 95 domogrue
Round 96 Mogg (Dream Halls)
POTM: ced395
September 2009
Round 97 Mogg (Dream Halls)
Round 98 ced395
Round 99 FuriouslySleepingIdea
Round 100 bateleur, dethwing, FuriouslySleepingIdea, Krashbot, Shogun17, VikingMetal4L (100 Turns)
POTM: FuriouslySleepingIdea
October 2009
Round 101 Shogun17 (100 Turns Revised)
Round 102 Madmanquail
Round 103 bateleur, bman65, ced395
Round 104 (Results) VikingMetal4L
Round 105 SumPhatGuy (Strawman)
POTM: ced395
November 2009
Round 106 bman65 (Strawman)
Round 107 bateleur
Round 108 Madmanquail
Round 109 bman65 (Respray)
POTM: bman65
December 2009
Round 110 Xyre (Respray)
Round 111 ced395
Round 112 Personman
Round 113 Hinotama, WhammWhamme (Niches)
POTM: bman65
January 2010
Round 114 Mogg (Niches)
Round 115 Madmanquail
Round 116 bmh, Personman
Round 117 bateleur (Suspense)
Round 118 VikingMetal4L (Suspense)
POTM: bmh
February 2010
Round 119 VikingMetal4L
Round 120 Madmanquail
Round 121 Madmanquail (Fork)
Round 122 Mogg, ~Tilde~ (Fork)
POTM: Madmanquail
March 2010
Round 123 Hinotama
Round 124 Madmanquail, Personman
Round 125 lOput (Library)
Round 126 lOput (Library)
POTM: lOput
April 2010
Round 127 tomsloger
Round 128 ~Tilde~, ced395
Round 129 Naphtali (Wordy)
Round 130 Feyd_Ruin (Wordy)
POTM: ced395
May 2010
Round 131 bmh
Round 132 bmh
Round 133 ced395 (Bargain)
Round 134 ced395, Madmanquail (Bargain)
POTM: ced395
June 2010
Round 135 jcsuperstar, WhammWhamme
Round 136 ced395
Round 137 Mogg (Timmy)
Round 138 Feyd_Ruin (Timmy)
POTM: bateleur
July 2010
Round 139 jcsuperstar
Round 140 Mogg, ~Tilde~
Round 141 Personman (Mana Market)
Round 142 Mogg (Mana Market)
Round 143 bmh
POTM: Mogg
August 2010
Round 144 ced395, Mogg
Round 145 Error1 (Duplicity)
Round 146 WhammWhamme (Duplicity)
Round 147 bateleur, Mogg
POTM: Mogg
September 2010
Round 148 Draco9_1_1 (Mostly Unbanned)
Round 149 Mogg (WUBRG)
Round 150 Powerrox93 (WUBRG)
Round 151 Mogg
POTM: Mogg
October 2010
Round 152 Promatim
Round 153 Anaklusmos, bateleur
Round 154 bateleur, BronYAur (Indigenous)
Round 155 bmh (Indigenous)
Round 156 bateleur
POTM: bateleur
November 2010
Round 157 ced395 (Banathon)
Round 158 FuriouslySleepingIdea, MrCowFart (Banathon)
Round 159 bateleur, Mogg (Banathon)
Round 160 MrCowFart (Banathon)
POTM: Mogg
December 2010
Round 161 Mogg
Round 162 bateleur
Round 163 Fjuri (Lich)
Round 164 Feyd_Ruin(Lich)
POTM: bateleur
January 2011
Round 165 Catmurderer
Rounds
Mogg: 37
bateleur: 29
ced395: 14
Chimpanzee: 13
WhammWhamme: 13
jcsuperstar: 10
Greebo: 8
Madmanquail: 8
bmh: 5
Farik: 5
Halinn: 5
Personman: 5
armlx: 4
FuriouslySleepingIdea: 4
Lone Warrior: 4
lOput: 4
Shadowlord: 4
VikingMetal4L: 4
Xyre: 4
Feyd_Ruin: 4
~Tilde~: 3
Beaker: 3
bman65: 3
Error1: 3
MyNameIsFourteen: 3
r_x: 3
Shogun17: 3
Silver Seraph: 3
The Mad Tapper: 3
Wanderer359: 3
carrion pigeons: 2
dasheiff: 2
dethwing: 2
Draco9_1_1: 2
Hinotama: 2
Knowledge: 2
MrCowFart: 2
Naphtali: 2
Pingele_Pats: 2
Silkenfist: 2
spuzzem king: 2
YuanTi: 2
zu_Faul: 2
Fjuri: 1
Alfred: 1
Amadi: 1
andelijah: 1
Ankh-Morpokian: 1
BronYAur: 1
Death_By_Beebles: 1
domogrue: 1
DragonDart: 1
Feuerdrache: 1
ghweiss: 1
help im a bug: 1
Kekekekeke: 1
Krashbot: 1
math_geek: 1
Meat Popsicle: 1
MT_Gunn: 1
ngollon: 1
Powerrox93: 1
Promatim: 1
Puzzle: 1
Solitaire: 1
SumPhatGuy: 1
Tahn: 1
theeguy: 1
tomsloger: 1
Trojan: 1
Wrath_of_Dog: 1
zorbop: 1
Catmurderer: 1
POTM
Mogg: 15
bateleur: 9
ced395: 5
Greebo: 3
bman65: 2
Chimpanzee: 2
Error1: 2
jcsuperstar: 2
Madmanquail: 2
WhammWhamme: 2
armlx: 1
Anaklusmos: 1
Beaker: 1
bmh: 1
FuriouslySleepingIdea: 1
Lone Warrior: 1
lOput: 1
Pingele_Pats: 1
Shadowlord: 1
silicon: 1
spuzzem king: 1
The Mad Tapper: 1
Dom Camus
Five Card Blind
Nick Chandler-Klein
Three Card Blind: A Whole Different Format (Part 1)
Three Card Blind: A Whole Different Format (Part 2)
Three Card Blind: A Whole Different Format (Part 3)
Alex Hoffman
Going Blind: A First Look at Lands
Going Blind: A Non-Basic Approach
Going Blind: Metagaming – Being Overly Analytical
Going Blind: Metagaming #2 – All Decked Out
Going Blind: XCB Metagaming – A Prolonged Conclusion
Forum Articles
Madmanquail
5CB Strategy
Mogg
5CB Strategy
Format: Normal
Deck Submission Deadline:
Saturday, January 15th, 8:00 pm GMT+2.
Submit your deck to Alpha Werewolf.
Please use this thread to discuss any aspect of 5CB. Also, consider a subscription to 5CB. Subscribed players who have not already submitted a deck receive a reminder PM about two days before deadline. PM bateleur, ced395, Mogg or Alpha Werewolf to subscribe.
My blog.
2 - bateleur
Channel / Progenitus / Orim's Chant / Lich's Mirror / Boomerang
vs
6 - Catmurderer
Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Progenitus / Snapback / Commandeer / Dominus of Fealty
Listed: 0-6
Suggested: 6-0
On my first turn I discard Progenitus to make an Astroturf and then tap it to cast Orim's Chant. If he lets this resolve I discard Boomerang to do my thing with Channel into Lich's Mirror, make Progenitus and that's game to me. If instead he Commandeers it he can render me unable to cast anything that turn, but at the cost of Exiling two of his Blue cards. On my next turn he cannot Commandeer again and cannot yet have resolved Progenitus, so I Channel into Mirror, make Progenitus and win. (Note that because he does not have Leyline of the Void I always have Orim's Chant ready after I resolve Mirror.)
2 - bateleur
Channel / Progenitus / Orim's Chant / Lich's Mirror / Boomerang
vs
5 - Mogg
Basking Rootwalla / Blood Moon / Foil / Leyline of the Void / Tropical Island
Listed: 1-4
Suggested: 4-1
On the play I discard Progenitus to make an Astroturf, then play Orim's Chant. Whether or not he Foils it I then discard Boomerang to Channel into Mirror, make Progenitus and it's all over.
On the draw he cannot make Blood Moon unless he uses two Astroturf or an Astroturf and Tropical Island. Doing either of those leaves him with insufficient cards in hand for Foil so I can resolve Mirror long before Rootwalla kills me. Progenitus never gets exiled by Leyline, so I can repeat this cycle indefinitely and will never lose the game.
(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>
Leyline of the Void / Leyline of Singularity / Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Smokestack / Kargan Dragonlord
vs
Chalice of the Void / Energy Field / Foil / Progenitus / Snow-Covered Island
Listed: 0-6
Should be: 3-3
On the play, discard Leylines to play Smokestack. If it gets Foiled, I think dropping Dragonlord here outraces Progenitus. If it doesn't, he can never cast Progenitus (as I Just upkeep the Smokestack for 1), which gives me the time to cast Dragonlord, get it countered, and shuffle it back in with Ulamog (and then ramp Smokestack to clear out a Chalice).
On the draw, I think he has me.
5) WhammWhamme vs. Mogg:
Leyline of the Void / Leyline of Singularity / Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Smokestack / Kargan Dragonlord
vs
Basking Rootwalla / Blood Moon / Foil / Leyline of the Void / Tropical Island
Listed: 0-6
Should be: 6-0
Starting with Leyline of the Void and Leyline of Singularity in play destroys both Leylines of the Void. At that point, it's Ulamog, Smokestack, and Kargan Dragonlord vs. Blood Moon, Foil, Tropical Island and Basking Rootwalla.
Resolved Kargan Dragonlord beats Basking Rootwalla, and I can force it through by casting it twice (reshuffling with Ulamog)
Ugh. So much Progenitus. I think I underestimated him.
Madmanquail can foil your smokestack (discarding Progenitus, island). He can play Energy Field next turn using the Progenitus preventing you from outracing and because ulamog was the 4th card to hit the graveyard the shuffle effect will randomly occur in Madman's favor making smokestack your last draw. Progentius is able to land and wins.
The soonest you can force stack after the one foil is turn 5.
1 ulamog for land
2 ulamog for land Smokestack, foiled
3 draw ulamog, Discard it for land. Ulamog and stack go to library.
4 Draw Ulamog
5 Draw Stack, too late to deal with Progenitus
However, there is another way to victory
You can hardcast Ulamog sooner then he can cast progenitus (due to him having to foil your Smokestack, or lose, which cost cards advantage you are using for 2 mana mox-lands, and you holding your leylines)
Your ulamog deals with energy field and cripples him.
I am unsure if this strategy works on the draw (because he can put out Progenitus earlier and is not forced to counter stack or lose, and thus can delay Ulamog, and force a bad reshuffle for you giving Progenitus time to get the kill.
But lets say your opponent plays for the above. You can win by casting dragonlord, and using Ulamog's cast trigger (even if its countered) to deal with energy field. So he has to deal with that by means of Chalice of the void.
Therefore, optimal play is discarding energy field and Progenitus for Chalice @2....which then opens up Smokestack, because now he has no mana for foil.
Matchup should be 3-3 at least and maybe 6-0, imo. If I calculated something wrong (very possible, rusty) let me know
WhammWhamme begins with Leyline of the Void in play, then on his first turn he discards Smokestack, Leyline of Singularity and Ulamog and casts Dragonlord. Madmanquail will have to cast either Foil or Energy Field to live, which puts him behind on mana. In only three more turns WhammWhamme has the mana to cast Ulamog. If this fails, he can cast Ulamog again the following turn (and every turn thereafter). Once Ulamog attacks once, he wins, because even if Progenitus was in play it can at that point never attack again (and Annihilator means it dies before blocking).
tl;dr - WhammWhamme has tempo advantage because he only needs to attack once. Looks like 6-0 to 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>
Channel / Progenitus / Orim's Chant / Lich's Mirror / Boomerang
vs
3 - Feyd_Ruin
Progenitus / Legacy Weapon / Darksteel Colossus / Ancestral Recall / Oblivion Stone
Listed as 2 over 3 (6-0)
Should be (0-6)
2 can start with channel- Lich's mirror with mana for orim's.
3 Responds on his turn by discarding his first 3 cards for astroturf's, then attempting to recall them back (which may or not be orim's).
By turn 2, player 3 will have Progenitus out and will draw into legacy weapon or use oblivion stone to deal with Lich's mirror before it can trigger.
Its even more of a landslide on the play because orim's cannot land before a rushed Progenitus will. And 2 cannot deal with a rushed progenitus with an ulamog trigger or oblivion stone for backup.
I do not see this one. If you try and orim's turn 1, you can channel into Lich's mirror all you want which he can later answer with ulamog. And you cannot channel into Progenitus.
He can save commandeer for Progenitus which you have to stop in order to win. And he can over time save for Ulamog while still having commandeer ready.
2v6 stays 0-6.
Then Channel + Mirror = infinite mana and replaying of hand, so infinite Boomerangs (taking out all enemy permanents other than Progenituses) and the ability to replay Progenitus and then chant in the upkeep thoroughly takes down Feyd.
Summary: Lich's Mirror + Channel is BROKEN. =)
the 2 vs 3 match should be 4-1. They tie when 3 is on the play because of a rushed Progenitus. Batelur MUST orim every upkeep to stop ulamog from destroying which prevents his win condition.
This really is brainmelting.
He can boomerang away everything but Proj, and legend-kill that. Then he drops his proj and chant's me during my upkeep. I could get rid of the Proj, but I can't play anything to do so, so I'll take 10 during his next turn. He then channel-lich to draw back up, dropping Proj again, and having the chant in hand for next turn.
The chant cost me the match and a tie for first
No longer staff here.
My blog.
...naming decks is fun.
I liked deck naming too (in fact I never stopped naming my decks, the names just don't get published anymore). On the other hand, it's one more thing for the moderator to keep track of.
If Normal format is stagnating some bans might be in order. However, as I'm sure you know from past experience there's a tendency for bans to simply promote other known decks rather than generate new decks.
(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>
Then keep shooting until the only known decks left have huge holes in them. The 'quest to unban' doesn't make more decks or cards viable, it makes LESS viable. If you can play most of the cards that are excessively good in card blind formats, most cards that aren't excessively good in CB become worthless.
Format inbreeds, becomes stagnant, dies.
Or you can prune vigorously.
I agree with pruning. Normal weeks have simply become way too much of a Rock-Paper-Scissors, where we have to decide "which deck to run", rather than trying to create something new. I've seen a lot of genius decks that people come up with go by the way side simply because they don't beat deck X which is consistently ran. The 5CB deck format is begging to explode with new ideas, but it just can't. Even when something doesn't having a showing in a week, it was still considered and fought around.
For example:
Lich's Mirror is a format warping deck that has 2 open slots (!!) for anything the player wants to use to win. If those slots are filled right, it's just too massive. If you don't run disruption against it, you lose - and if you don't run foil or commandeer, you lose on the draw even with your disruption. It might not win the week (Rock Paper Scissors), but it always places high.
But it's not the mirror that breaks it - it's actually Channel. It is the enabler that makes the deck. It gives you the mana for turn 1, lets you set off the Mirror to protect everything when you want, etc.
Killing the mirror won't change the format, it will just have something else pop up. Killing channel will, though. Channel enables a great multitude of decks, including the ever-present Ulamog, Lattice, and others. 99% of the time, in this limited format, the lose of life is inconsequential. Your deck either beats theirs or it doesn't. I believe Channel to be the largest problem at the moment.
I believe if we kill the cards that show up in a multitude of winning decks, rather than just specifically targeting the top decks, the format as a whole will grow. If we just killed channel, for instance, other decks would fill that gap, and we'd be only a little better off. There is a hydra of 5CB stagnation, and we have to cut all of the heads off.
The format will always have the "I dunno if I should run this since it can't beat X". There is no way to remove all of X. However, if something has consistently shown up as X time and time again, I think it should be considered for removal.
If we continue the pruning process, I recommend the following:
I know some of these haven't shown recently, but they will be the come-back kings if pruning starts. Best to head them off at the pass.
Grand Arbiter Augustin IV is the ugly head of the Ajani deck. Although Ajani can be more powerful, the Arbiter is what enables the 4-1 record it so highly covets, and it is what locks out the opponent from being able to play a considerably large number of decks.
Vampire Hexmage is the head of the Dark Depths deck. Depths by itself is an interesting card, as it allows a good variety of land-heavy decks. Depths is, by itself, balanced. The ability to pump out a 20/20 turn 2, is not.
Meddling Mage is a fan-favorite that many people would miss, but it is simple too powerful in this format. It isn't "broken" - it simply limits the playing field too much. The ability to drop 2 mages first turn is even more powerful than the ability to make the opponent discard two cards, and the latter is banned by rules. It doesn't dominate, it stifles.
Thoughtseize is in the same line as Meddling Mage. We have Unmask banned, with good reason, and thoughtseize is just as powerful. Although it does cost mana, that mana sticks around, and you don't have to waste a 2nd card slot on it. Thoughtseize's combo-battling staying points are well covered by Duress. The ability to get the creature win-con is too much.
Commandeer is my favorite 5CB card and decktype, but it stifles too much. Foil is more then sufficient in stopping combo and requires exactly as many slots. It is the ability to run Commandeer and fill its 2 extra slots with pertinent options that takes it over the top.
Shelldock enables a 2nd turn unfoilable/unduressable Emrakul. It only loses to some of the other heads, and when gone, would dominate.
Painter's Servant might seem an odd choice, but only because it hasn't had a recent showing. The lack of showing is only because the other great decks are slightly better. Being able to outlast foil, counter or destroy every turn, all the while recurring through discard and what not... it would be the next dominator. Just heading it off.
Heck, you could always just ban some of the big things for a special format that lasts a couple of weeks, and see if people like it more/less.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
With all that said, I'd like to just express that this is all just my personal opinion. I'll be playing 5cb regardless, with my usual oddball decks, whether or not anything changes. I do think something should give for the health of the game, but I've always been in it for the fun of seeing how something will do, rather then just trying to win.
I'm just grateful you all have teamed up to host this for us.
The XCBs are my favorite thing on this whole site, and the main reason I come here.
No longer staff here.
(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>
Yes, but with the caveat that if many cards are banned at once, then it becomes difficult to determine the effect of any one ban.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
So? Does it matter if one card is unjustly banned, in a format where dozens are rendered unplayable by other cards being just better? There's no objective good to a small ban list, it's not like we have to buy cards to run them in XCB.
There sort of is in a few respects:
1) Longer ban lists create more scope for confusion with players missing listed cards and potential new players possibly being intimidated by the format.
2) Some resources, such as 5CB-playable mana sources, are in short supply. A ban list containing too many of such a resource could harm the game.
3) Longer ban lists are more likely to be arbitrary where the current list is at least loosely criteria-based.
Adding long ban lists as a tool available to us to improve the game is certainly a valid option, but I think the main motivation is more akin to a kind of medium-term special format than because there's anything wrong with short lists.
(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>
1 and 2 aren't likely to care about a 1-2 card difference. 3 I disagree with; there would still be criteria unless the length has to grow far more than I'd expect.
Adding say six cards is not going to tip the scales on any of those, and done right would make a lot more things workable. A longer formal banned list makes for a shorter unofficial unplayable list.
It does.
Unless "small" has been defined, it's a useless criterion, since the banned list generally has room to become larger or smaller, and clearly there is some size which is too large. It might be better to say that the size of the banned list should not be one of the criteria used to determine bans. This is true. As bateleur notes, longer banned lists are more intimidating, but this concern is minor.
The major concern of the banned list is to enable as many decks as possible to be competitive. This is a complicated goal, requiring a lot of data. The best way to obtain data about cards' impact is to let people play them.
Each ban changes the metagame, such that earlier data about a card's impact is no longer entirely valid. By banning many cards at once, data about intermediate metagames is lost; it is difficult to measure the impact of a card that can't be played.
The process of banning cards incrementally, instead of in larger groups, is a more precise tool - coming closer to the ideal metagame - at the cost of taking longer. Sometimes, that cost is too great, as when block constructed Ravager Affinity was entirely and justifiably dismantled.
The assumption I make is that if more precision can be achieved, then it should. 5CB has shown itself to be durable, and has shown that small changes to the banned list can cause significant change to the metagame. Thus, I think an incremental approach is justified, and the assumption that it is possible to ban six cards at once and "do it right" is not.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Allowing individual 'elite' cards that are extra-good does not enable more decks ; it narrows deck design, because there is less meaningful choice. e.g. for NeoCB, Path to Exile obsoleted most other removal spells. Thoughtseize obsoletes most other discard spells in 5CB. Channel/Mirror has obsoleted most other 'all-in' decks.
If the goal is more functionally different decks, it becomes almost an imperative to get rid of such 'obvious choices'. They stifle creativity heinously.
The most important detail, however?
Whatever 'theoretical' gains might arise from the 'intermediate data' it pales in comparison to the fact that 5CB is nearly dead every single week that there isn't a special format.
Ban things, and do it properly. Not 'let's do a rolling bans' nonsense which doesn't solve the basic problem of having a baseline format that is fundamentally uninteresting to most of the people who have submitted decks into 5CB.
You might love comparing the data, but catering to your love of data and known metagames has driven out other players.
Roughly how many players would you expect to see entering for a Normal week with an extensively expanded banlist?
(I ask because I'd expect it to be between Normal and Special week numbers, which is to say still very low.)
(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>