This is the results for round 2.17 and the start for round 2.18.
Round 2.17
This round was Niche Week.
We had our own mini 2CB card set that half of our deck came from. You can reference those cards here.
The Entries
01 Feyd_Ruin :: Trizzy Minizzy Trizzon, Blind Titan / Island Sanctuary I'd like to thank fnord for reminding me last round that Island Sanctuary is good in XCB. I couldn't decide what to pair trizzy with until the last second, and fnord reminded me of Sanctuary.
02 Draco9 :: Paradox Virus Sharazi Replicator / Paradox Haze When I made the Replicator, I thought Leyline of Lifeforce was a great sidekick. Paradox Haze just makes it comical though. You have 128 guys on the battlefield before they die. :x
03 Error1 :: recursions not dead Tolarian Negotiator / White Sun's Zenith I'm glad you still liked the Negotiator after I changed him a bit. Zenith was very nice this round, even with all of the recursion hate within the niche.
04 Reyemile :: Infi-tithe Mind Tithe / Anurid Scavenger I was hoping someone would play Mind Tithe with the Scavenger. Dual threats hurt a little, but you still outraced if they couldn't drop one by 4th.
05 Sir Mu :: Teeg-Tithe Mind Tithe / Gaddock Teeg Teeg-Tithe was an unintended gem you picked up on, and I was most impressed with it. Unfortunately, everyone played creatures this round which kept you down.
06 TANE :: A Lack of Negotiation Tolarian Negotiator / Vindicate Negotiator was decent. Vindicate is normally good, but was only decent this round. Unfortunately, this was a tight round, and double decency didn' combine to awesome.
07 Mogg :: Unbalanced Overbalance / Riftwing Cloudskate It was definitely a very interesting and well thought out deck. I thought you'd win the round for a bit, but the last few decks brought you down.
08 benbuzz790 :: Mental Anguish Mind Tithe / Anurid Scavenger I guess Tithe-Anurid was a little too obvious, as it was the only repeated deck. I actually made Tithe for Anurid and Mayor players.
09 Antonia :: EAPoe, Blind Titan Shaladi, Blind Titan / Nevermore I expected Shaladi to do better then she did. The never-ending token got you quite a few ties. Nevermore would have garnered more wins if there weren't so many 2 drops this round.
10 Personman :: Weeeooooweoowee Overbalance / Student of Warfare Interestingly, student got you more wins then balance, although the discard did prove pivital a few times. The LD part almost came into play against VM4L, and the Wrath effect gave you some ties.
11 fnord :: Thanx Draco9! Maelstrom Pendant / Akki Blizzard-Herder Even though you scored low, I hold the deck high as you broke the Pendant. It was the abundance of two drops that kept you down.
12 Parsley :: Duplicity Sharazi Replicator / Dissipate Replicator was the main reason I didn't want Niche-Niche decks. Combined with Tithe, it would be broken. Dissipate was decent this round, and was good backup.
13 VikingMetal4L :: Mom's Homemade Divinity Divine Fracture / Wistful Thinking I'm surprised Divine Fracture wasn't played more. It servered you extremely well. If it was combined with a second kill, you would have absolutely dominated the round.
14 Catmurderer :: Vyran's Deadly Gas Vyranohai, Blind Giant / Deathcloud The interaction between your two cards was disheartening. Deathcloud could only ever tie the game, since it'd cause you to sac or discard your wincon. I don't fault you though, since you were undoubtably rushed; having to reenter twice within a matter of hours.
There were 14 players with 91 matches and 182 total games.
13 hands ended in a draw. 7 matches had at least one draw.
That's 7% of all games, averaging 0.9 games per player.
The following player(s) had the most drawn games, with 5 total draws: Antonia : Personman
13 matches were a 3-3 split.
That's 14% of all matches, averaging 1.9 matches per player.
The following player(s) had the most split matches, with 6 total splits: fnord
71 matches were a 6-0 sweep.
That's 78% of all matches, averaging 5.1 matches per player.
The following player(s) had the most 6-0 match sweeps, at 10 total sweeps: Error1
There were 23 unique cards submitted, out of 28 total.
5 cards were repeated:
Next Round will be 'The New Normal'.
Entries are due Saturday Night at Midnight.
The New Normal
This is a normal round. However, "normal" has changed. Specifically, the permission rule has been added, and everything has been streamlined.
Also, since Dark Ascension is suppose to be fully and officially spoiled tomorrow, I'm going to allow it if it is.
(It's normally only legal if it's spoiled before the start of the new round, but this is only a 1 day difference. Bad luck on when it fell.)
We will try the counter rule for a couple of weeks, and see how things progress. We could potentially revert back to the old way if people dislike it.
Resources
Basic 2CB Rules
0. Overview
Two Card Blind (2CB) is a weekly Magic tournament, run entirely within this forum. To compete, players submit two-card decks which are played against each other. Scoring assumes optimal play, without randomness or concealed information.
Apart from normal magic, Two Card Blind also uses a "land rule" in order for you to cast your spells. You get a basic land of your choice to play each turn, and can play a land from your hand in addition to these lands you get each turn.
1. Game Rules
1.1. Except for the changes described in these rules, games follow the rules of a normal game of Magic.
1.2. Players' decks contain exactly two 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. Each player owns an infinite number of basic land cards outside of the game. Players may play these land cards from outside of the game, and each player may play an additional land each turn if they play that land from their hand.
1.5. A random effect produces the result that least benefits the owner of the source of the effect.
1.6. Each player plays two games (one match) against each other player.
1.6a. Each player is the starting player once per match.
1.6b. If no player can win, the game is a draw.
1.6c. Games are played with perfect information.
1.6d. 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 2CB 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).
2.1b'. If an illegal deck is submitted, the deck may be editted at the moderator's discretion (i.e.: If a deck is submitted with a banned card, but can still be considered a legal deck--such as being able to win against a goldfish deck--without that card, the deck may still be included, but without the offending card).
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, 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 - do any of the following before the end of an opponent's second turn: Win the Game, Force any card in an opponent's hand to change zones, or Counter any spell an opponent has cast with its own spell.
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), as well as any card from a completely and officially spoiled set that would become legal in vintage upon its release, with the exception of the following banned cards:
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; 6 is a match win, 2 a drawn or split game, and 1 or 4 a draw/loss or draw/win respectively. A player's points are listed at the end of his or her row.
2.5. The player with the most Player of the Month 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 Player of the Month points equal to their average match result for that round, rounded 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).
2.5c. Each week, 0.5 Player of the Month points will be given to the player who's deck is deemed to be the most creative and original, either by moderator's choice or by poll.
2.5d. Each week, after the round is posted, the first player to able to post a deck that can successfully win each match 6-0 against every deck accepted will also receive 0.5 Player of the Month points.
Wooow, so I was an idiot this round. Had to send in like three different versions. Pretty much the only thing I didn't do wrong was submit three cards.
decks posted.
grid finished, but probably needs corrections.
Note:
Cards that have "put into a graveyard from the battlefield" would trigger from the battlefield, and not the graveyard.
They will thus not trigger against a Tolarian Negotiator.
-----
NEXT WEEK
Next week is a normal week, except that Dark Ascension will be legal if it truly is fully spoiled tomorrow (since it's only a 1-day difference), and the Counter rule has been added for at least a couple of weeks. We'll see how it goes before we decide on it's permanency.
Note, the rules have not yet been fully updated for clarity.
To spell the new 2.2a out:
You may not win the game before the end of an opponent's 2nd turn.
You may not force a card in an opponent's hand to change zones before the end of his 2nd turn.
You may not counter any of your opponent's cast spells with your own spell before the end of his 2nd turn.
Note:
This does leave room for activated abilities to counter spells, but I see no problems except Counterbalance, which I will ban.
It's needed to avoid any rules-confusion on cards like Brain Gorgers
---
Extra Bonus Points!!!!
I will give 1 POTM bonus point to each person for each deck they come up with that can 6-0 everyone this round (rather than just 1 single bonus 1 time).
HOWEVER, I will only give 1 bonus point out for each niche card - first come, first nab'd. Each person can get only 2 bonus points this way.
20
IE: You will get 1 bonus point if you are the first to come up with a Divine Fracture deck that beats everyone entered this round 6-0.
20
IE: You can get a 2nd bonus point for also being the first to come up with an Overbalance deck. etc.
I know that Divine Fracture / Hammer of Bogardan (the deck I considered running) 6-0s everyone, except Tane (0-6) and fnord (3-3).
So I'm almost positive there are at least a few of them out there.
Well I completely misread the meta. Here I was thinking most people would go for cool creature-less johnny combos.
your deck was exceptionally broken at what it did.
unfortunately, the meta was exceptionally other-geared.
I was expecting you to do extremely well, but it was a meta gamble.
I still consider you as 1 of only 2 people that really broke a card, with fnord as the 2nd (completely IMO of course).
your deck was exceptionally broken at what it did.
unfortunately, the meta was exceptionally other-geared.
I was expecting you to do extremely well, but it was a meta gamble.
I still consider you as1 of only 2 people that really broke a card, with fnord as the 2nd (completely IMO of course).
Fun game fact; against fnord I win. On the play I tithe Maelstrom Pendant and then play Teeg on my second turn. My opponent can't play anything but his creature which is a dinky 1/1 that I can beat. On the draw he plays pendant then I tithe his creature. Now each copy costs 5 not 2 and I play my 2/2 on turn 2 and beat his face in, his 1/1 unable to win.
Since Dark Ascension will be spoiled tomorrow, will those cards be legal to use? Or if they can't, can submissions be postponed until tomorrow when they become revealed?
Since Dark Ascension will be spoiled tomorrow, will those cards be legal to use? Or if they can't, can submissions be postponed until tomorrow when they become revealed?
I will allow them if they are revealed tomorrow as promised.
I don't see any reason to penalize us for a 1 day bad luck difference.
But don't submit based off our spoiler yet, as we only take official sources.
edit: Sir Mu - updated. I actually caught both of those wins, and have no earthly idea why I didn't 6-0 you, heh.
On the draw, I start turn 1 mind-tithing Overbalance. If he keeps Riftwing Cloudskate in his hand, I Mind-Tithe it and lock him out. If he suspends it turn two, it will come in after my turn 4; I can turn 3 Anurid, turn 4 Mind Tithe his Overbalance before Cloudskate comes back. When I recast the Anurid I win the race against his Cloudskate
Wait, I think I beat Draco9: if he ever plays replicator, I just kill them and win. If he doesn't, on turn four I play Student and then Overbalance for discard.
EDIT: And now for some rules and wording quibbles:
2.1b'. If an illegal deck is submitted, the deck may be editted at the moderator's discretion (i.e.: If a deck is submitted with a banned card, but can still be considered a legal deck--such as being able to win against a goldfish deck--without that card, the deck may still be included, but without the offending card).
I don't know why we have this. It's never been used, and I can't imagine it being used to anything but the detriment of the round -- most 1-card decks are going to be hopelessly hobbled. Even worse, it gives the moderator a very vaguely defined moral choice in which they have a vested interest. Can you ever really be sure you chose to exclude the deck instead of allowing a 1-card version for the health of the game, rather than because the 1-card version beats you? Let's just only accept legal decks.
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).
This confuses and angers me. I want results to be right! Why on earth would we preserve an error just because it happened a week ago? Why do some rounds deserve four rounds of scrutiny but others only one? Sure it's sad if someone loses their PotM title to a mistake, but... they didn't deserve it in the first place. If anyone feels like submitting corrections to my two-year-old 2CB results, I'll gladly take 'em.
2.2a. A player may not submit a deck that can - against any deck - do any of the following before the end of an opponent's second turn: Win the Game, Force any card in an opponent's hand to change zones, or Counter any spell an opponent has cast with its own spell.
Why is this stuff capitalized?
2.5b. Each round, each player receives Player of the Month points equal to their average match result for that round, rounded 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).
Why do we do this? It still doesn't make any sense. We have the technology to store scores accurately and display them in short form. The only thing rounding does is make it possible for close races to randomly go to the wrong person.
Wait, I think I beat Draco9: if he ever plays replicator, I just kill them and win. If he doesn't, on turn four I play Student and then Overbalance for discard.
You're right. Will update soon.
(I use 2 computers, and the one with the spreadsheet is often being otherwise used, so I can't always update right away.)
I don't know why we have this. It's never been used, and I can't imagine it being used to anything but the detriment of the round -- most 1-card decks are going to be hopelessly hobbled. Even worse, it gives the moderator a very vaguely defined moral choice in which they have a vested interest. Can you ever really be sure you chose to exclude the deck instead of allowing a 1-card version for the health of the game, rather than because the 1-card version beats you? Let's just only accept legal decks.
I've used it in 5CB, and I almost used it this week for catmurderer.
He would have gotten 21 points with Trizzon.
Note: My personal rule is to try to sub out any offending card with Darksteel Relic or Evermind.
It's my belief that a bad entry is better then no entry.
That said, the rule itself needs rewording.
Probably something more along the lines of:
2.1b. If an illegal deck is submitted, and if that deck would become legal with the removal of a single card, that deck will be accepted with the exclusion or substitution of the illegalizing card - whichever the moderator deems least detrimental to the round.
This confuses and angers me. I want results to be right! Why on earth would we preserve an error just because it happened a week ago? Why do some rounds deserve four rounds of scrutiny but others only one? Sure it's sad if someone loses their PotM title to a mistake, but... they didn't deserve it in the first place. If anyone feels like submitting corrections to my two-year-old 2CB results, I'll gladly take 'em.
It's not that we don't want to know the correct results, it's that we don't want to try to change player of the month points, etc, from a long time ago. This rule was instated because someone did this to 5cb a while back. It caused a lot of chaos and hostility.
I know, personally, that several 5CB and 3CB rounds have errors in them from a long time ago in past seasons because people often mistake Tabernacle as using a sacrifice effect, rather then it's destroy effect. We'd have to track down people who no longer even come to these forums to update their post, etc.
In the end, there needs to be some cut off point. I agree with the rules that once we've determined the player of the month, the points you received should stand. Pointing it out is perfectly fine, we don't want to continue to make that mistake, but expecting us to change points that determine PotM, possibly changing the winner, who got any benefits out that (PotM special), etc... just isn't good.
Consider this: Everyone who's ever played Karn could have their entries removed if we go back. That would have considerable effect to a lot of rounds.
Before this rule was instated, it was generally given that you had until the next round. After discussion, it was compromised to monthly, so that PotM would remain intact after it was given.
Why is this stuff capitalized?
Thanx to me forgetting to update the resources in the spreadsheet, I had to rewrite the rules 3 times. It either shouldn't be, or it should have the (1) (2) (3) in it. Somehow I did neither
Why do we do this? It still doesn't make any sense. We have the technology to store scores accurately and display them in short form. The only thing rounding does is make it possible for close races to randomly go to the wrong person.
[/spoiler]
For ease of keeping track of and display, as well has having a nice real number that each person gets.
I could potentially make a PotM sheet that calculates this completely, but until then I'd have to go to each past round, remove the rounding feature, etc. It's already a slight hassle, and future mods may not even use the spreadsheet tool.
I actually want to change the rules to multiply this number by ten, so that you get what feels like a real points value. Magic never uses decimals at all (forget Unhinged!), and it just seems to streamline better.
-
Note:
I encourage the questioning and discussion of any and all rules.
The XCB ruleset has grown and evolved considerably since the start of the game.
Each time, it gets a little better, a little clearer, and a little more fun.
Two Card Blind (2CB) is a weekly Magic tournament, run entirely within this forum. To compete, players submit two-card decks which are played against each other. Scoring assumes optimal play, without randomness or concealed information.
Apart from normal magic, Two Card Blind also uses a "land rule" in order for you to cast your spells. You get a basic land of your choice to play each turn, and can play a land from your hand in addition to these lands you get each turn.
1. Game Rules
1. After the Game Rules section, there is only one return before Tournament Rules. I suggest having a consistent one return or two returns throughout.
2. I suggest changing instances of 'you' to 'players' to match the rest of the rules, as follows: "Unlike normal Magic, Two Card Blind uses a "land rule" to allow players to cast their spells. Players have access to basic lands of their choice to play each turn, and each player may play an additional land each turn from his or her hand."
1.4. Each player owns an infinite number of basic land cards outside of the game. Players may play these land cards from outside of the game, and each player may play an additional land each turn if they play that land from their hand.
3. I suggest re-phrasing the bolded portion as follows: "A player may play one of these lands any time he or she could normally play a land. A player may play one additional land each turn from his or her hand."
The new phrasing accomplishes four things:
a. removes the plural 'players' to match the rest of the rule.
b. specifies when land may be played from outside the game.
c. breaks the compound sentence into two sentences to make the rule easier to follow
d. clarifies how many lands a player may play per turn if that player's deck has two lands (under the current rules, it's unclear to me whether the answer is 'two' or 'three'.)
2.2a. A player may not submit a deck that can - against any deck - do any of the following before the end of an opponent's second turn: Win the Game, Force any card in an opponent's hand to change zones, or Counter any spell an opponent has cast with its own spell.
4. Decks have cards, not spells. Also, I don't like the potential interpretation that Eladamri's Vineyard makes Dissipate illegal. I suggest the following phrasing: "A player may not submit a deck that can - against any deck - do any of the following before the end of an opponent's second turn: win the game, force a card in an opponent's hand to change zones, or allow that player to counter a spell an opponent controls by casting his or her own spell paid for entirely by sources that he or she owns."
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; 6 is a match win, 2 a drawn or split game, and 1 or 4 a draw/loss or draw/win respectively. A player's points are listed at the end of his or her row.
5. I suggest re-phrasing the bolded section as follows: "2 two drawn games or a split match, and 1 and 4 a draw/loss and draw/win, respectively". Basically: correct the description of 2, replace 'or' with 'and', and add a comma before 'respectively'.
2.1b. An illegal deck is not counted. The removal of an illegal deck does not affect deck distribution (see Rule 2.4).
6. Rule 2.4 (heats) doesn't exist in the 2CB rules. The bolded portion above should be removed, and rule 2.5 (below) should be renumbered to be rule 2.4.
2.5. The player with the most Player of the Month 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 Player of the Month points equal to their average match result for that round, rounded 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).
2.5c. Each week, 0.5 Player of the Month points will be given to the player who's deck is deemed to be the most creative and original, either by moderator's choice or by poll.
2.5d. Each week, after the round is posted, the first player to able to post a deck that can successfully win each match 6-0 against every deck accepted will also receive 0.5 Player of the Month points.
7. In 2.5b, I suggest replacing 'Player of the Month' with 'Player of the Month (POTM)'. Subsequent instances of 'Player of the Month' should be replaced with 'POTM' - 'Player of the Month' is a mouthful.
8. In 2.5c, 'Who's' should be 'whose'.
9. In 2.5d, "first player to able to post" should be changed to "first player to post", removing the redundant 'to' and specifying that a post actually needs to be made.
10. The return between 2.5b and 2.5c should be removed, and 2.5c and 2.5d should be aligned with 2.5a and 2.5b.
This is the results for round 2.17 and the start for round 2.18.
Round 2.17Next Round : 2.18 Resources
No longer staff here.
grid finished, but probably needs corrections.
Note:
Cards that have "put into a graveyard from the battlefield" would trigger from the battlefield, and not the graveyard.
They will thus not trigger against a Tolarian Negotiator.
-----
NEXT WEEK
Next week is a normal week, except that Dark Ascension will be legal if it truly is fully spoiled tomorrow (since it's only a 1-day difference), and the Counter rule has been added for at least a couple of weeks. We'll see how it goes before we decide on it's permanency.
Note, the rules have not yet been fully updated for clarity.
To spell the new 2.2a out:
You may not win the game before the end of an opponent's 2nd turn.
You may not force a card in an opponent's hand to change zones before the end of his 2nd turn.
You may not counter any of your opponent's cast spells with your own spell before the end of his 2nd turn.
Note:
This does leave room for activated abilities to counter spells, but I see no problems except Counterbalance, which I will ban.
It's needed to avoid any rules-confusion on cards like Brain Gorgers
---
Extra Bonus Points!!!!
I will give 1 POTM bonus point to each person for each deck they come up with that can 6-0 everyone this round (rather than just 1 single bonus 1 time).
HOWEVER, I will only give 1 bonus point out for each niche card - first come, first nab'd. Each person can get only 2 bonus points this way.
I know that Divine Fracture / Hammer of Bogardan (the deck I considered running) 6-0s everyone, except Tane (0-6) and fnord (3-3).
So I'm almost positive there are at least a few of them out there.
No longer staff here.
your deck was exceptionally broken at what it did.
unfortunately, the meta was exceptionally other-geared.
I was expecting you to do extremely well, but it was a meta gamble.
I still consider you as 1 of only 2 people that really broke a card, with fnord as the 2nd (completely IMO of course).
No longer staff here.
Fun game fact; against fnord I win. On the play I tithe Maelstrom Pendant and then play Teeg on my second turn. My opponent can't play anything but his creature which is a dinky 1/1 that I can beat. On the draw he plays pendant then I tithe his creature. Now each copy costs 5 not 2 and I play my 2/2 on turn 2 and beat his face in, his 1/1 unable to win.
I will allow them if they are revealed tomorrow as promised.
I don't see any reason to penalize us for a 1 day bad luck difference.
But don't submit based off our spoiler yet, as we only take official sources.
edit: Sir Mu - updated. I actually caught both of those wins, and have no earthly idea why I didn't 6-0 you, heh.
No longer staff here.
On the draw, I start turn 1 mind-tithing Overbalance. If he keeps Riftwing Cloudskate in his hand, I Mind-Tithe it and lock him out. If he suspends it turn two, it will come in after my turn 4; I can turn 3 Anurid, turn 4 Mind Tithe his Overbalance before Cloudskate comes back. When I recast the Anurid I win the race against his Cloudskate
I copied the card wrong and had him as a 3/3 for some reason.
Updated the rules, cleaned them up a bit.
No longer staff here.
sorry for the false positives mogg.
Edit:
Redid the rules some more for clarity.
No longer staff here.
EDIT: And now for some rules and wording quibbles:
I don't know why we have this. It's never been used, and I can't imagine it being used to anything but the detriment of the round -- most 1-card decks are going to be hopelessly hobbled. Even worse, it gives the moderator a very vaguely defined moral choice in which they have a vested interest. Can you ever really be sure you chose to exclude the deck instead of allowing a 1-card version for the health of the game, rather than because the 1-card version beats you? Let's just only accept legal decks.
This confuses and angers me. I want results to be right! Why on earth would we preserve an error just because it happened a week ago? Why do some rounds deserve four rounds of scrutiny but others only one? Sure it's sad if someone loses their PotM title to a mistake, but... they didn't deserve it in the first place. If anyone feels like submitting corrections to my two-year-old 2CB results, I'll gladly take 'em.
Why is this stuff capitalized?
Why do we do this? It still doesn't make any sense. We have the technology to store scores accurately and display them in short form. The only thing rounding does is make it possible for close races to randomly go to the wrong person.
(I use 2 computers, and the one with the spreadsheet is often being otherwise used, so I can't always update right away.)
I've used it in 5CB, and I almost used it this week for catmurderer.
He would have gotten 21 points with Trizzon.
Note: My personal rule is to try to sub out any offending card with Darksteel Relic or Evermind.
It's my belief that a bad entry is better then no entry.
That said, the rule itself needs rewording.
Probably something more along the lines of:
2.1b. If an illegal deck is submitted, and if that deck would become legal with the removal of a single card, that deck will be accepted with the exclusion or substitution of the illegalizing card - whichever the moderator deems least detrimental to the round.
(In example: If a player submitted Mayor of Avabruck / Duress, their entry should be accepted as Mayor of Avabruck / nothing or Mayor of Avabruck / Darksteel Relic - whichever is least detrimental to the round, and least beneficial to them.)
It's not that we don't want to know the correct results, it's that we don't want to try to change player of the month points, etc, from a long time ago. This rule was instated because someone did this to 5cb a while back. It caused a lot of chaos and hostility.
I know, personally, that several 5CB and 3CB rounds have errors in them from a long time ago in past seasons because people often mistake Tabernacle as using a sacrifice effect, rather then it's destroy effect. We'd have to track down people who no longer even come to these forums to update their post, etc.
In the end, there needs to be some cut off point. I agree with the rules that once we've determined the player of the month, the points you received should stand. Pointing it out is perfectly fine, we don't want to continue to make that mistake, but expecting us to change points that determine PotM, possibly changing the winner, who got any benefits out that (PotM special), etc... just isn't good.
Consider this: Everyone who's ever played Karn could have their entries removed if we go back. That would have considerable effect to a lot of rounds.
Before this rule was instated, it was generally given that you had until the next round. After discussion, it was compromised to monthly, so that PotM would remain intact after it was given.
Thanx to me forgetting to update the resources in the spreadsheet, I had to rewrite the rules 3 times. It either shouldn't be, or it should have the (1) (2) (3) in it. Somehow I did neither
For ease of keeping track of and display, as well has having a nice real number that each person gets.
I could potentially make a PotM sheet that calculates this completely, but until then I'd have to go to each past round, remove the rounding feature, etc. It's already a slight hassle, and future mods may not even use the spreadsheet tool.
I actually want to change the rules to multiply this number by ten, so that you get what feels like a real points value. Magic never uses decimals at all (forget Unhinged!), and it just seems to streamline better.
-
Note:
I encourage the questioning and discussion of any and all rules.
The XCB ruleset has grown and evolved considerably since the start of the game.
Each time, it gets a little better, a little clearer, and a little more fun.
No longer staff here.
2. I suggest changing instances of 'you' to 'players' to match the rest of the rules, as follows: "Unlike normal Magic, Two Card Blind uses a "land rule" to allow players to cast their spells. Players have access to basic lands of their choice to play each turn, and each player may play an additional land each turn from his or her hand."
3. I suggest re-phrasing the bolded portion as follows: "A player may play one of these lands any time he or she could normally play a land. A player may play one additional land each turn from his or her hand."
The new phrasing accomplishes four things:
a. removes the plural 'players' to match the rest of the rule.
b. specifies when land may be played from outside the game.
c. breaks the compound sentence into two sentences to make the rule easier to follow
d. clarifies how many lands a player may play per turn if that player's deck has two lands (under the current rules, it's unclear to me whether the answer is 'two' or 'three'.)
4. Decks have cards, not spells. Also, I don't like the potential interpretation that Eladamri's Vineyard makes Dissipate illegal. I suggest the following phrasing: "A player may not submit a deck that can - against any deck - do any of the following before the end of an opponent's second turn: win the game, force a card in an opponent's hand to change zones, or allow that player to counter a spell an opponent controls by casting his or her own spell paid for entirely by sources that he or she owns."
5. I suggest re-phrasing the bolded section as follows: "2 two drawn games or a split match, and 1 and 4 a draw/loss and draw/win, respectively". Basically: correct the description of 2, replace 'or' with 'and', and add a comma before 'respectively'.
6. Rule 2.4 (heats) doesn't exist in the 2CB rules. The bolded portion above should be removed, and rule 2.5 (below) should be renumbered to be rule 2.4.
7. In 2.5b, I suggest replacing 'Player of the Month' with 'Player of the Month (POTM)'. Subsequent instances of 'Player of the Month' should be replaced with 'POTM' - 'Player of the Month' is a mouthful.
8. In 2.5c, 'Who's' should be 'whose'.
9. In 2.5d, "first player to able to post" should be changed to "first player to post", removing the redundant 'to' and specifying that a post actually needs to be made.
10. The return between 2.5b and 2.5c should be removed, and 2.5c and 2.5d should be aligned with 2.5a and 2.5b.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy