I guess I'm going to take this over. Be patient with me while I figure out how it all works. If there have been any ongoing issues that need resolving like discussion on bans or rules changes or types of special mechanics being used, I'd encourage you to post about them below, or PM me about them, so that I'm up to date. For now, I'm assuming that the rules as listed below are current and accepted, and that there's nothing else I need to know in order to moderate the game.
PM me some decks and we'll get this round moving. There aren't going to be any special rules this week while I work out any kinks that might crop up. I intend under normal circumstances to work through results on Modays and Tuesdays, and post results on Tuesdays or Wednesdays, so to make this a weekly thing, you'll have at least 4 days from Wednesday to Sunday to make submissions.
So get your decks in by Sept 4th at midnight!
FIVE CARD BLIND
This is the results for round 3.18 and the start for round 3.19
Round 3.18
This round was a normal week.
Entries
TANE :: TANE's deck of using the same strategy as everyone else except a turn slower Claws of Gix / Lion's Eye Diamond / Lion's Eye Diamond / Shelldock Isle / Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre Shelldock Isle is cute, but just loses to Channel, unfortunately. I thought it might actually have potential for a long time while figuring matches, since you can legend-rule kill other Ulamogs over and over without losing life, and eventually take over the game, but your deck was just too slow to take advantage.
Reyemile :: Reyemile's deck of being really afraid of people running double Chancellors City of Traitors / Black Lotus / Channel / Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Elixir of Immortality City of Traitors was a good land choice; I dunno if that's a standard build. I'm curious about the Elixir though. It seems like that could have been something a lot more useful.
XScorpion :: XScorpion's deck of hoping no one else runs Karakas because a 1/1 win condition is not gonna get there Chancellor of the Forge / Island / Foil / Karakas / Leyline of Singularity Foil and Karakas pretty much got you there most of the time; your actual WC was largely irrelevant. I tend to think there has to be something better than a 1/1, though.
Heart of Draco :: Fear my Squid.dec Sheltered Valley / Black Lotus / Channel / Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Chancellor of the Annex This was definitely the most polished-feeling build of the week, and it showed in the scores. Having access to both Ulamog and Chancellor on turn 1 is amazing, although it is (of course) weak to Karakas/Leyline in a big way.
Catmurderer :: Catmurderer's deck of having a useless spell to cast that gets rid of Chancellor triggers Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre / Channel / Black Lotus / Karakas / Orim's Chant Yeah, Orim's Chant did not perform well this round. About its only use was as a sacrifice spell to be able to get around Chancellor when you were going first, which was something, I guess. Despite that, the rest of the build was solid.
Mogg :: Mogg's deck of being way the heck better on the play than otherwise Black Lotus / Chalice of the Void / Chancellor of the Annex / Channel / Lich's Mirror I still don't really see why Lich's Mirror is good here. Yes, it makes a little infinite mana combo with Channel, but what do you get out of it? You still lose hard to anybody who can resolve Ulamog turn 1 on the play, AND you're super weak to Lotus hate, Foil, and Karakas/Leyline. I think a second Chancellor would have served you much better.
The Grid
X | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 | X S 0 6 0 0 0 | 8 | 1.3
2 | S X S 0 2 S S | 10 | 1.6
3 | 6 S X 2 6 0 1 | 17 | 1.8
4 | 0 6 2 X 2 S 6 | 18 | 3.0
5 | 6 2 0 2 X 0 1 | 11 | 1.8
6 | 6 S 6 S 6 X S | 24 | 4.0
7 | 6 S 4 0 4 S X | 18 | 3.0
(S stands for a 3/3 Split, which is 2 points)
Resources
Basic 5CB 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).
2.1d. A player may name his or her deck. If a player does not, then the moderator may name it.
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 since the start of the round.
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 or S 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, the moderator may choose to divide players 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 or her 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. Each round, each player receives POTM points equal to his or her average match result for that round, rounded down to 1 decimal place. For example, a player scoring 6-6-6-6-X-0-0-0 in a round with 8 decks receives 3.4 points (24/7).
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
The posted rules lack their formatting. Below, I've posted the formatted rules as well as updated round results.
When posting a deadline, it can be a good idea to give a time zone. I, for one, like to know exactly when my deck is due.
Resources
Basic 5CB 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).
2.1d. A player may name his or her deck. If a player does not, then the moderator may name it.
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 since the start of the round.
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 or S 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, the moderator may choose to divide players 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 or her 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. Each round, each player receives POTM points equal to his or her average match result for that round, rounded down to 1 decimal place. For example, a player scoring 6-6-6-6-X-0-0-0 in a round with 8 decks receives 3.4 points (24/7).
Midnight EST on 9-4-11 for the people who want to wait until the last possible instant, then.
Do people prefer having special rules almost every week, or would you prefer to have a week with just the regular rules every once in a while? I mean, I can see the appeal of making johnny decks and doing cool stuff, but it kinda seems like the point of the game is to figure out and adapt to the metagame, and that's impossible with every week having different rules. But I'll go along with whatever the majority want to do; I'm fine with it either way.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
Do people prefer having special rules almost every week, or would you prefer to have a week with just the regular rules every once in a while? I mean, I can see the appeal of making johnny decks and doing cool stuff, but it kinda seems like the point of the game is to figure out and adapt to the metagame, and that's impossible with every week having different rules. But I'll go along with whatever the majority want to do; I'm fine with it either way.
Personally, I like having special weeks most of the time. I like having a seed or direction to start my deckbuilding off with. With normal weeks it seems like you just pick one of the known good decks and hope everyone else picks something that loses to it (I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's what it feels like for me).
I've attached the three .txt files that I use for the formatting.
When you paste them in, it's simply [5cb] [grid] [footer].
It's easier on you if you just update 5CB files as they are submitted, and work what you can on the grid before the posting date. (I save them as 5CB2.txt, etc, that way next week you can start with the clean file again)
The last one (footer) needs updating to add in the last couple of winners, rounds, and august potm, if we can figure that out.
You may still have to turn WYSIWYG editor off when posting the round, but either way this should hopefully help.
AFAIK, there aren't any rules, bans, etc, that have been called into question or anything.
We did a poll on specials here if you want ideas for special rounds in the future. So far we've done Free Lotus, Last Stand, Its a Trap!, Vanguard, and Mix and Match. Pure Evocation is the only broken one you may want to avoid.
People generally like specials at least three of the four weeks a month. It makes them rethink the whole format and build something new.
Special weeks seem to be the only way to keep interest high.
Well... duh. The meta isn't sufficiently prone to changing otherwise. Normal weeks these days consist of banging your head against the same old, same old. A stable metagame is a boring metagame.
Special weeks seem to be the only way to keep interest high.
That might be true for the veterans of 5CB, but not for someone like me who's new to the format. I've been following the threads for several weeks now but this is the first one I've entered, since all the special weeks have stopped me from trying out the deck idea I've been looking at
Well... duh. The meta isn't sufficiently prone to changing otherwise. Normal weeks these days consist of banging your head against the same old, same old. A stable metagame is a boring metagame.
This is an interesting perspective. If it's true that most people aren't interested in the metagame as it stands, there are ways we could shake it up. It seems like the game isn't going to be sustainable without the ability to provide an interesting metagame within the regular rules. Maybe we could make some way of encouraging people to avoid netdecks?
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
This is an interesting perspective. If it's true that most people aren't interested in the metagame as it stands, there are ways we could shake it up. It seems like the game isn't going to be sustainable without the ability to provide an interesting metagame within the regular rules. Maybe we could make some way of encouraging people to avoid netdecks?
There's a variety of fixes; the one that people have tended to use is 'run a special week with a low impact special rule', which means the decks are similar but slightly different to normal weeks.
One option would be to take some staple cards out back and shoot them, as it's not really specific 'netdecks' as a small core of staples that tends to make formats same-y. (I think we probably need to say goodbye to Karakas and Channel at this point, at least temporarily... but I could easily be forgetting something important)
And finally, one random idea I had: If you don't submit a deck for a normal week, the mod submits the last deck you submitted for a normal week on your behalf.
Makes beating last week's meta perhaps more useful.
There's a variety of fixes; the one that people have tended to use is 'run a special week with a low impact special rule', which means the decks are similar but slightly different to normal weeks.
This seems like the easiest thing to do, although I'd like to consider ideas that don't feel like such a stopgap.
One option would be to take some staple cards out back and shoot them, as it's not really specific 'netdecks' as a small core of staples that tends to make formats same-y. (I think we probably need to say goodbye to Karakas and Channel at this point, at least temporarily... but I could easily be forgetting something important)
This makes me think maybe it'd be worthwhile to change the way the banned list works so that cards rotate on and off of it. Like maybe Channel could be used 1 out of every 4 normal rounds, while Barren Glory could be legal every 15th round and Trinisphere legal every 40. Gives players a chance to play with crazy stuff now and then, but keeps the meta fresh every time, anyway.
And finally, one random idea I had: If you don't submit a deck for a normal week, the mod submits the last deck you submitted for a normal week on your behalf.
Makes beating last week's meta perhaps more useful.
Not sure I like this, since it seems likely to encourage most players to build very similar decks. Say there are three less active players in the last round who played different decks, it'd be really easy for 8 different players to come up with the exact same tactic for beating those decks, since they'd basically have bullseyes on them.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
This makes me think maybe it'd be worthwhile to change the way the banned list works so that cards rotate on and off of it. Like maybe Channel could be used 1 out of every 4 normal rounds, while Barren Glory could be legal every 15th round and Trinisphere legal every 40. Gives players a chance to play with crazy stuff now and then, but keeps the meta fresh every time, anyway.
This isn't a very good idea, because what happens when you bring back a known broken card is that players who remember why it was banned submit the most problematic deck that contained it, making for a very dull round.
What it comes down to is that if you resolve your spells, you win. But because they're not hard to disrupt the existence of this kind of deck isn't massively unfair. Take Channel out of the cardpool and put it back in occasionally and either you get a dull round or the field has too many inexperienced players in and whoever submitted the above gets a cheap win. Not very interesting.
this is the first one I've entered, since all the special weeks have stopped me from trying out the deck idea I've been looking at
Have you tried scoring your new deck idea against Normal rounds such as 2.167 and 3.08? The trouble with Normal rounds is that it's almost impossible to take on the existing metagame profitably. If you do well against both those fields then I'll be impressed!
--
(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>
This isn't a very good idea, because what happens when you bring back a known broken card is that players who remember why it was banned submit the most problematic deck that contained it, making for a very dull round.
What it comes down to is that if you resolve your spells, you win. But because they're not hard to disrupt the existence of this kind of deck isn't massively unfair. Take Channel out of the cardpool and put it back in occasionally and either you get a dull round or the field has too many inexperienced players in and whoever submitted the above gets a cheap win. Not very interesting.
Have you tried scoring your new deck idea against Normal rounds such as 2.167 and 3.08? The trouble with Normal rounds is that it's almost impossible to take on the existing metagame profitably. If you do well against both those fields then I'll be impressed!
Yeah, basically, once people have figured out the optimal use for Card X it's time to say goodbye to it forever, because all it's doing from there on it is dragging down the meta.
Have you tried scoring your new deck idea against Normal rounds such as 2.167 and 3.08? The trouble with Normal rounds is that it's almost impossible to take on the existing metagame profitably. If you do well against both those fields then I'll be impressed!
I hadn't, but by my count I get 30 points in 5cb 3.08 and 12 in 5cb #167, which is more than the highest in 3.08 and equal second in 167. I only looked over those matchups quickly, though, so I may have made a mistake or two
I'm a fan of a more mercurious Banned List. I think we should do a normal week for the first week each month, poll for bans or unbans, and do specials the rest of the month. I think the meta is interesting as new cards come out and old staples are removed. I agree that specials keep interest high, but I also agree that this dies if theonly thing keeping it going is the specials. Frankly, I'm excited to finally have a normal week.
The best way to have normal rounds and a constantly changing meta is a ban list that increases weekly.
The moderator would ban one card from each deck that was submitted. This card would be the most important card in the deck.
Example:
Deck 1-
Channel
Black Lotus
Ulamog
Chancelor of the Annex
Mental Misstep
- Ban Channel (This is chosen by the moderator not the player.)
Deck 2-
Black Lotus
Black Lotus
Black Lotus
Black Lotus
Ulamog
Ban - Black Lotus (again chosen by moderator)
*The difference is what is the pivotal card. Ulamog is a great creature, but in each deck channel and black lotus are the key cards which enable the creature/whatever.*
This would continue with each deck submitted. (I would assume that there would be around 10 entries, so 10 cards would enter the temporary ban list.)
By banning a large number of key cards you will force the players into making new (and generally less powerful decks) which should greatly diversify the decks submitted.
I don't think a huge number of bans are really desirable. We want the game to HAVE a metagame. If you want to play with a fresh perspective every time, then that's what the special weeks are for.
I just want to be clear on this: it is largely agreed that the regular metagame as it currently exists is "figured out", right? If it's really, honestly true that the common perspective doesn't offer room for innovation in the current metagame, then I'll start looking into [light!] changes to the way the banned list works to make room for people to innovate. I don't want to ban the whole swath of tier 1 cards and start with a brand new meta; that cuts out way too many interesting possibilities.
My current idea is that each winner of POTM will get to choose a card that will be banned for regular weeks during the next month, after which there will be a poll asking whether players generally would like that card to remain banned for a while. If so, it'll be banned for 3(6?) months, at which point I'll post another poll asking whether people feel it ought to be permanently banned or if people want to bring it back. I expect most cards will not go on the permaban list, but if people feel like a card is keeping the game from being interesting on a long-term basis, then it can go away.
The POTM will, alternately, be able to choose to unban a card if he wants, for a month, after which it will be subject to the same process of popular review. I don't feel like an occasional 1- or 2-week experiment with probably-broken cards is likely to ruin anything, and it might give people an opportunity to see if cards on the banned list really deserve their spot.
Additionally, if a card is voted to be temp banned on the monthly poll more than once, then it will be permanently banned instead, and there will be no second vote after the 3 months are over.
This way, participation is rewarded, and the people with the strongest grasp on the metagame have the most impact on decisions that affect it. But even so, the metagame will evolve slowly enough that everyone should be able to adapt to it fairly well, while never falling into the kind of rut we're seeing now. Does this seems reasonable to people?
I realize banning (potentially) 12 cards a year is a lot, but for the most part I think people should find the changes refreshing, and I'm leaving plenty of room at every stage for players to change their minds if they decide a banned card offers interesting design options.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
While I might have different opinions on the particulars (like exactly when and how things are banned) and I don't the the meta is quite figured, I would be happy to have the system mentioned in the above post.
I don't think a huge number of bans are really desirable. We want the game to HAVE a metagame. If you want to play with a fresh perspective every time, then that's what the special weeks are for.
I just want to be clear on this: it is largely agreed that the regular metagame as it currently exists is "figured out", right? If it's really, honestly true that the common perspective doesn't offer room for innovation in the current metagame, then I'll start looking into [light!] changes to the way the banned list works to make room for people to innovate. I don't want to ban the whole swath of tier 1 cards and start with a brand new meta; that cuts out way too many interesting possibilities.
My current idea is that each winner of POTM will get to choose a card that will be banned for regular weeks during the next month, after which there will be a poll asking whether players generally would like that card to remain banned for a while. If so, it'll be banned for 3(6?) months, at which point I'll post another poll asking whether people feel it ought to be permanently banned or if people want to bring it back. I expect most cards will not go on the permaban list, but if people feel like a card is keeping the game from being interesting on a long-term basis, then it can go away.
The POTM will, alternately, be able to choose to unban a card if he wants, for a month, after which it will be subject to the same process of popular review. I don't feel like an occasional 1- or 2-week experiment with probably-broken cards is likely to ruin anything, and it might give people an opportunity to see if cards on the banned list really deserve their spot.
Additionally, if a card is voted to be temp banned on the monthly poll more than once, then it will be permanently banned instead, and there will be no second vote after the 3 months are over.
This way, participation is rewarded, and the people with the strongest grasp on the metagame have the most impact on decisions that affect it. But even so, the metagame will evolve slowly enough that everyone should be able to adapt to it fairly well, while never falling into the kind of rut we're seeing now. Does this seems reasonable to people?
I realize banning (potentially) 12 cards a year is a lot, but for the most part I think people should find the changes refreshing, and I'm leaving plenty of room at every stage for players to change their minds if they decide a banned card offers interesting design options.
This will likely lead to few, if any, bans. To win PotM requires two things:
1) An indepth understanding of the 5CB metagame
2) Submitting to all four rounds in a month
Someone who is submitting to all four rounds and understands the meta intimately is unlikely to want to change things; as is, they're winning and having fun doing so.
Put bluntly, the players you're in danger of losing aren't the ones who win PoTM.
I think it would be best for the entire community to get involved in the decision making when it comes to banning/unbanning cards, instead of it being a privilege to those who got PoTM or something. Instead of a poll, people should submit their input via PM to the moderator on what they want banned.
I also would like some special formats to be run more than once/twice a year. Not sure which ones specifically.
This will likely lead to few, if any, bans. To win PotM requires two things:
1) An indepth understanding of the 5CB metagame
2) Submitting to all four rounds in a month
Someone who is submitting to all four rounds and understands the meta intimately is unlikely to want to change things; as is, they're winning and having fun doing so.
Put bluntly, the players you're in danger of losing aren't the ones who win PoTM.
1) Having few bans is a good thing. I am not, at all, looking to ban a lot of cards.
2) I'm less concerned with losing players at all at this point than I am with making the sure the game is engaging and fun. Adding an extremely tangential benefit to winning POTM adds a layer of engagement the game currently lacks, while the occasional ban or possibility of a ban gives the game a sense of anticipation or suspense that should make it slightly more interesting to "spectate."
3) I think you attribute an insufficient amount of care for the game's interests to those players who play it most, at the highest level of success. Why don't you try asking the people who have won POTM recently what they would do with the opportunity to shake up the game by banning or unbanning a card? I bet you get some very opinionated answers, with very few of them suggested no changes at all.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
The most successful XCB I've seen that had a solid and evolving metagame was on TCG player.
Each week the most important card in the top deck was banned. (See example above for example of what to ban...)
This keep things interesting by having to figure out what was broken but still legal then have that banned... then find another broken thing...
It really kept consistent and interesting decks where you COULD figure out the meta. I think this is important because sometimes it is impossible to read what the meta will be. Most times it is a general crapshoot with everyone just submitting very powerful decks; the focus is not on meta.
I'd say 1 "temporary" (for the extent of the contest...) per week which adds on itself for several weeks would be interesting.
I hadn't, but by my count I get 30 points in 5cb 3.08 and 12 in 5cb #167, which is more than the highest in 3.08 and equal second in 167. I only looked over those matchups quickly, though, so I may have made a mistake or two
That's extremely high - good work!
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>
This will likely lead to few, if any, bans. To win PotM requires two things:
1) An indepth understanding of the 5CB metagame
2) Submitting to all four rounds in a month
Someone who is submitting to all four rounds and understands the meta intimately is unlikely to want to change things; as is, they're winning and having fun doing so.
Put bluntly, the players you're in danger of losing aren't the ones who win PoTM.
I totally disagree. Look at Modern 5CB. I did well the first few weeks using tired, old strategies, and was the first to suggest banning them.
I think the bans should be mercurius, but not heavy. That way, the meta is constantly in flux and interesting, but you aren't simply wrecking the format to make a new one. I personally like the idea of the 1 a month ban-list change (it makes each month feel different too), but I do agree that it shouldn't be PotM. It should be a quick poll.
I think the bans should be mercurius, but not heavy.
I think maybe you mean "mercurial" in the sense of "frequently varied"?
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I'm going to take this over. Be patient with me while I figure out how it all works. If there have been any ongoing issues that need resolving like discussion on bans or rules changes or types of special mechanics being used, I'd encourage you to post about them below, or PM me about them, so that I'm up to date. For now, I'm assuming that the rules as listed below are current and accepted, and that there's nothing else I need to know in order to moderate the game.
PM me some decks and we'll get this round moving. There aren't going to be any special rules this week while I work out any kinks that might crop up. I intend under normal circumstances to work through results on Modays and Tuesdays, and post results on Tuesdays or Wednesdays, so to make this a weekly thing, you'll have at least 4 days from Wednesday to Sunday to make submissions.
So get your decks in by Sept 4th at midnight!
This is the results for round 3.18 and the start for round 3.19
Round 3.18
This round was a normal week.
EntriesThe Grid Resources
The posted rules lack their formatting. Below, I've posted the formatted rules as well as updated round results.
When posting a deadline, it can be a good idea to give a time zone. I, for one, like to know exactly when my deck is due.
Resources
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Do people prefer having special rules almost every week, or would you prefer to have a week with just the regular rules every once in a while? I mean, I can see the appeal of making johnny decks and doing cool stuff, but it kinda seems like the point of the game is to figure out and adapt to the metagame, and that's impossible with every week having different rules. But I'll go along with whatever the majority want to do; I'm fine with it either way.
Personally, I like having special weeks most of the time. I like having a seed or direction to start my deckbuilding off with. With normal weeks it seems like you just pick one of the known good decks and hope everyone else picks something that loses to it (I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's what it feels like for me).
I've attached the three .txt files that I use for the formatting.
When you paste them in, it's simply [5cb] [grid] [footer].
It's easier on you if you just update 5CB files as they are submitted, and work what you can on the grid before the posting date. (I save them as 5CB2.txt, etc, that way next week you can start with the clean file again)
The last one (footer) needs updating to add in the last couple of winners, rounds, and august potm, if we can figure that out.
You may still have to turn WYSIWYG editor off when posting the round, but either way this should hopefully help.
AFAIK, there aren't any rules, bans, etc, that have been called into question or anything.
We did a poll on specials here if you want ideas for special rounds in the future. So far we've done Free Lotus, Last Stand, Its a Trap!, Vanguard, and Mix and Match. Pure Evocation is the only broken one you may want to avoid.
People generally like specials at least three of the four weeks a month. It makes them rethink the whole format and build something new.
Thanx again man
No longer staff here.
Well... duh. The meta isn't sufficiently prone to changing otherwise. Normal weeks these days consist of banging your head against the same old, same old. A stable metagame is a boring metagame.
That might be true for the veterans of 5CB, but not for someone like me who's new to the format. I've been following the threads for several weeks now but this is the first one I've entered, since all the special weeks have stopped me from trying out the deck idea I've been looking at
This is an interesting perspective. If it's true that most people aren't interested in the metagame as it stands, there are ways we could shake it up. It seems like the game isn't going to be sustainable without the ability to provide an interesting metagame within the regular rules. Maybe we could make some way of encouraging people to avoid netdecks?
There's a variety of fixes; the one that people have tended to use is 'run a special week with a low impact special rule', which means the decks are similar but slightly different to normal weeks.
One option would be to take some staple cards out back and shoot them, as it's not really specific 'netdecks' as a small core of staples that tends to make formats same-y. (I think we probably need to say goodbye to Karakas and Channel at this point, at least temporarily... but I could easily be forgetting something important)
And finally, one random idea I had: If you don't submit a deck for a normal week, the mod submits the last deck you submitted for a normal week on your behalf.
Makes beating last week's meta perhaps more useful.
This seems like the easiest thing to do, although I'd like to consider ideas that don't feel like such a stopgap.
This makes me think maybe it'd be worthwhile to change the way the banned list works so that cards rotate on and off of it. Like maybe Channel could be used 1 out of every 4 normal rounds, while Barren Glory could be legal every 15th round and Trinisphere legal every 40. Gives players a chance to play with crazy stuff now and then, but keeps the meta fresh every time, anyway.
Not sure I like this, since it seems likely to encourage most players to build very similar decks. Say there are three less active players in the last round who played different decks, it'd be really easy for 8 different players to come up with the exact same tactic for beating those decks, since they'd basically have bullseyes on them.
This isn't a very good idea, because what happens when you bring back a known broken card is that players who remember why it was banned submit the most problematic deck that contained it, making for a very dull round.
Channel is a perfect example of this:
Black Lotus
Channel
Lich's Mirror
Decree of Silence
Some Win Condition
What it comes down to is that if you resolve your spells, you win. But because they're not hard to disrupt the existence of this kind of deck isn't massively unfair. Take Channel out of the cardpool and put it back in occasionally and either you get a dull round or the field has too many inexperienced players in and whoever submitted the above gets a cheap win. Not very interesting.
Have you tried scoring your new deck idea against Normal rounds such as 2.167 and 3.08? The trouble with Normal rounds is that it's almost impossible to take on the existing metagame profitably. If you do well against both those fields then I'll be impressed!
(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, basically, once people have figured out the optimal use for Card X it's time to say goodbye to it forever, because all it's doing from there on it is dragging down the meta.
I hadn't, but by my count I get 30 points in 5cb 3.08 and 12 in 5cb #167, which is more than the highest in 3.08 and equal second in 167. I only looked over those matchups quickly, though, so I may have made a mistake or two
The moderator would ban one card from each deck that was submitted. This card would be the most important card in the deck.
Example:
Deck 1-
Channel
Black Lotus
Ulamog
Chancelor of the Annex
Mental Misstep
- Ban Channel (This is chosen by the moderator not the player.)
Deck 2-
Black Lotus
Black Lotus
Black Lotus
Black Lotus
Ulamog
Ban - Black Lotus (again chosen by moderator)
*The difference is what is the pivotal card. Ulamog is a great creature, but in each deck channel and black lotus are the key cards which enable the creature/whatever.*
This would continue with each deck submitted. (I would assume that there would be around 10 entries, so 10 cards would enter the temporary ban list.)
By banning a large number of key cards you will force the players into making new (and generally less powerful decks) which should greatly diversify the decks submitted.
I just want to be clear on this: it is largely agreed that the regular metagame as it currently exists is "figured out", right? If it's really, honestly true that the common perspective doesn't offer room for innovation in the current metagame, then I'll start looking into [light!] changes to the way the banned list works to make room for people to innovate. I don't want to ban the whole swath of tier 1 cards and start with a brand new meta; that cuts out way too many interesting possibilities.
My current idea is that each winner of POTM will get to choose a card that will be banned for regular weeks during the next month, after which there will be a poll asking whether players generally would like that card to remain banned for a while. If so, it'll be banned for 3(6?) months, at which point I'll post another poll asking whether people feel it ought to be permanently banned or if people want to bring it back. I expect most cards will not go on the permaban list, but if people feel like a card is keeping the game from being interesting on a long-term basis, then it can go away.
The POTM will, alternately, be able to choose to unban a card if he wants, for a month, after which it will be subject to the same process of popular review. I don't feel like an occasional 1- or 2-week experiment with probably-broken cards is likely to ruin anything, and it might give people an opportunity to see if cards on the banned list really deserve their spot.
Additionally, if a card is voted to be temp banned on the monthly poll more than once, then it will be permanently banned instead, and there will be no second vote after the 3 months are over.
This way, participation is rewarded, and the people with the strongest grasp on the metagame have the most impact on decisions that affect it. But even so, the metagame will evolve slowly enough that everyone should be able to adapt to it fairly well, while never falling into the kind of rut we're seeing now. Does this seems reasonable to people?
I realize banning (potentially) 12 cards a year is a lot, but for the most part I think people should find the changes refreshing, and I'm leaving plenty of room at every stage for players to change their minds if they decide a banned card offers interesting design options.
You got my vote.
This will likely lead to few, if any, bans. To win PotM requires two things:
1) An indepth understanding of the 5CB metagame
2) Submitting to all four rounds in a month
Someone who is submitting to all four rounds and understands the meta intimately is unlikely to want to change things; as is, they're winning and having fun doing so.
Put bluntly, the players you're in danger of losing aren't the ones who win PoTM.
I also would like some special formats to be run more than once/twice a year. Not sure which ones specifically.
Have we done Rule of Law week yet?
1) Having few bans is a good thing. I am not, at all, looking to ban a lot of cards.
2) I'm less concerned with losing players at all at this point than I am with making the sure the game is engaging and fun. Adding an extremely tangential benefit to winning POTM adds a layer of engagement the game currently lacks, while the occasional ban or possibility of a ban gives the game a sense of anticipation or suspense that should make it slightly more interesting to "spectate."
3) I think you attribute an insufficient amount of care for the game's interests to those players who play it most, at the highest level of success. Why don't you try asking the people who have won POTM recently what they would do with the opportunity to shake up the game by banning or unbanning a card? I bet you get some very opinionated answers, with very few of them suggested no changes at all.
Each week the most important card in the top deck was banned. (See example above for example of what to ban...)
This keep things interesting by having to figure out what was broken but still legal then have that banned... then find another broken thing...
It really kept consistent and interesting decks where you COULD figure out the meta. I think this is important because sometimes it is impossible to read what the meta will be. Most times it is a general crapshoot with everyone just submitting very powerful decks; the focus is not on meta.
I'd say 1 "temporary" (for the extent of the contest...) per week which adds on itself for several weeks would be interesting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of how diverse the decks were with weekly bannings:
http://forum.tcgplayer.com/showthread.php?244556-3CB-Round-9-Results&daysprune=365
http://forum.tcgplayer.com/showthread.php?245087-3CB-Round-10-Results&daysprune=365
That's extremely high - good work!
(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 totally disagree. Look at Modern 5CB. I did well the first few weeks using tired, old strategies, and was the first to suggest banning them.
I think the bans should be mercurius, but not heavy. That way, the meta is constantly in flux and interesting, but you aren't simply wrecking the format to make a new one. I personally like the idea of the 1 a month ban-list change (it makes each month feel different too), but I do agree that it shouldn't be PotM. It should be a quick poll.
I think maybe you mean "mercurial" in the sense of "frequently varied"?
(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>