Yeah, it does seem pretty silly that this was an infraction. The analogy with one line of flaming making the whole post a flame doesn't really work - flaming is of itself obnoxious while backseat modding is only a problem if people clog up threads and think of themselves as mods. I've seen helpful advice and suggestions infracted far too often on this site.
Simply repeating that "it's the rules so they should be punished" doesn't justify the rules. This guy was simply helping somebody by telling them where they would be best able to get similar questions answered, and did not adversely affect anyone in any way at all. I'd like to see SC explain how the world is better off for that infraction, and why we should be discouraged from helping people. Ofc, it is more likely that everyone on this thread will be infracted than a triggerhappy mod will back down (please note - meant as a friendly joke not a flame).
Can't it be both ;)?
Kidding, back on topic, the main, Main problem i see with the infraction is this isn't how the rule was supposed to be seen as, imo.
When that rule was first put up, i assume the purpose was to keep users from wasting a post just to do what the moderators are suppose to do, For example, if the post just said: "You Need Deck Tags" that should be infractable, as that is what is trying to be avoided. But when you give a friendly reminder, as a small gesture, and then continue on with w/e your post was trying to say, that shouldn't be against the rules.
I don't think it's an error to have a split instant/sorcery, but I would expect such a card to make use of it's dual nature in some way. Say the first half did something for each sorcery in your graveyard and the latter for each instant, that could be good. It would play into the red/blue sorcery/instant devision seen in older cards like Anarchist/Scrivener, Magnivore/Cognivore, and mirrored later in the Izzet guild with Izzet Guildmage. For the card in question, there was no reason to not be both sorceries or more preferably both instants.
This ties in to the issue last round about flip cards that don't become legendary. The rules don't prohibit either, but they defy convention for no gain. I feel that breaking such conventions is acceptable if and only if there is some beneficial interaction you couldn't otherwise achieve.
So, using your almighty organizer powers, do you think deducting a point for having it as an instant//sorcery is fair, or should he get the point back? (I am asking here because i have a feeling the next round will be something similar where someone will try a design that is not techniclly incorrect, but shouldn't normally be done).
Precisely. If I write up a full-blown primer for a decklist and then decide to flame someone for a line or two at the end, it's still flaming despite the awesome post.
That's not quite the right analogy. By putting that little snip in the beginning, it did nothing to sway his post and he still made his point. Flaming someone, even for a line, makes the entire post look like a flame. As i see it, that was a friendly tap on the shoulder, and shouldn't have warranted an infraction.
Would 'trip and King keep me informed if there is a score change? I have comments that I kept to myself b/c of the round worked out and I didn't want to be that guy
My rule of thumb is -1 point in a format error, (such as a split card having instant and sorcery) because the card has no issues under the rules. The only time i would deduct ALL polish (or even, dq the card) is if the card could not functionally work.
Pending Cantrip's final decision, my scores stand.
Edit @ Cantrip: Didn't realize i was being generous. I thought that PWJ and GM were still my responsibility, and i was just covering KoolKoal. I am fine with w/e, you just confused me for a sec :).
Why was your sideboard in your bag after you had started game 1???
Your sideboard must be visible on the table whenever you present your deck to your opponent. You cannot keep it in a bag, and then take it out after game 1 to sideboard. [when you know you aren't being deck checked]
What's to stop you having multiple sideboards in there?
So while yes these guys should be punished for their crimes, you lost that round because you failed to follow the DCI tournament rules.
That was so not the point of his post. And where does it say he didn't had to worry about not getting deck checked? It is a nats after all.
I feel the first 15 points should go into a checklist style platform where it asks very simple question with very straightforward answers and you simply get a point if you did that thing. For example:
Would spike like this card?
Is it the appropriate color or in the appropriate color combinations?
Is it templated correctly?
Is the name evocative of what the card does.
Examples of questions that would NOT be here are:
Is this card fun?
Would this card break the standard format?
Would this card be a limited powerhouse?
The first group of questions are objective. Everyone should have the same answers for those questions. The second set of questions starts asking about oppinionated things, and this is where arguments spawn from. The previous rubrics ask specific things but ask for subjective, oppinionated answers, so likely, two different people will have two views. If you fit all of your specific questions into an objective form of questioning, nobody can argue with that.
I would like to try something like that, but the problem i could see coming up is that is too black and white. Anyone could judge a card like that for the first 15 points. And from the players stand point, i feel that we continously see the same shell for a card from every designer, with slight diffrences from those last 10 points (which isn't necessarily bad, but i would feel that would get boring really fast.
I'm not saying this discussion should end, however it irritates me when I see people going back and forth on who's right about the meta when they can just see who's right in a game. But if you're going to say a loss for Jund doesn't mean anything if it's on MWS, then you should reevaluate what you consider success to be for a deckbuild.
That is not what i said was all. I just said the MWS is not what you should solely base the decision on. The problem with MWS is the decks themselves. You see a lot of garbage out there, and then you see people who netdeck, but try using crappy replacements, OR they play the deck badly. I used to be able crush mono red with faeries on mws, because the people who used rdw had bad build, and did not know how to run the deck.
So, let's say it's a coin flip where one side is Jund and the other is MWC. Tails, Jund wins. If it had come up heads, I'd be trying to convince people Mono-White-Control is not as dominant as it looks.
But that isn't how you have been explaining the situation. The idea of 80-20 post side board means that you roll a 20 sided die, 1-16 means that MWC wins a game while 17-20 wins jund. ONLY game 1 is the coin flip a good example. A little worse than 20% chance to win a match is not exactly my kind of odds.
The only thing that I can see when there's more than 3 similar decks that make top 8 is that more people decided to play that particular deck. With a deck as popular as Jund, when you do the math for any particular event it's likely more than 3 will show up
2nd: The deck is just incredibly popular. I'm going to do with your second option.
Honestly, that is my main point, mws doesn't tell you everything you need to know about the deck, nor does just straight out testing. The t8s tell alot more than some of the guys are willing to admit.
The fallacy in his testing is that he could just be making up that garbage about MWC being 80-20. Lets assume he is telling the truth, a MWC deck made top 16, why couldn't it beat jund? If jund and vampires was running rampant and the 5k (which i assume MWC has just as good of a game against the Twilight bastards), why is jund still dominting? Surely a deck that goes 80-20 post board against jund, and is vlose to 60-40 pre-board can wipe the floor with those decks?
Bottom line, i can't just take the word of one person who claims jund does badly, and the problem i have with mws, is i never see the variety of decks i need to see. Just garbage random decks and maybe a couple of viable ones. Jund may not be the new faeries, but its getting pretty close.
Please don't confront my argument that the deck makes the results with the repeated, bare-bones assertion that the results make the deck.
Not only does that confront a reasoned argument with a bare premise, but it's an incorrect statement on its own.
Well, the explanation for its presence would mean 1 of two things to me:
1st: The deck IS in fact the best deck in the format right now.
I think this is the case, but for the sake of argument
2nd: The deck is just incredibly popular.
My argument is:
1) The "best deck" is defined as the deck that gives any given player the greatest chance to place in any given event.
2) How many players in the top 8 play Jund does not tell us anything about what chance any given Jund player had of placing in the top 8 when the tournament started.
3) Therefore, we cannot know from this information whether Jund is the "best deck".
Why wouldn't playing jund give you the best chance to win a tournament? The deck lists that all made the t8 are very similar with a couple of card changes between them. How many players making the t8 tells us that the jund decks are winning against a field of other decks.
If you have a different definition of "best deck" or a different interpretation of the results, remark on those merits. I'm sure your approach will be wrong, but at least we'll have something to talk about.
Aside from that argument, I've stated several on-the-merits claims for why I don't think Jund is the "best deck" and why, even if I'm wrong and it is, it cannot remain the "best deck".
And as for my not-so-secret "super secret tech" read these threads:
Understand the theory, decide on a list, proxy it up, play it against a friend with a proxy Jund list. Use your own results to inform yourself.
Some of those lists are as bad as 50-50 against Jund, but with current sideboards they indeed can pull ahead to 80-20.
Here's a typical board v. Jund from MWC:
Devout Lightcaster
Ethersworn Canonist
Celestial Purge
Really? Because the mono white, and bant lists i have been playing have been losing pretty badly. The sideboard makes up for it, but not to the sum of 80-20. Maybe 60-40, and that's being generous. Even if i were to assume that your 80-20 was accurate, why aren't either of those decks you listed making top 8s? My only logical solution is that maybe they can't be jund in a match, but lose to most of the other decks being played.
The key is to resolve something big while Jund is depleted of removal. You do this by taking creature A who used to eat bolt and creature B who used to eat terminate and introducing creature C and D. Now creature C eats bolt and creature D eats terminate while creature A or B, or both, go unanswered and win the game, even facing many more creatures on the other side of the mat.
You say that like its easy to do. You still have to land something big, hold back for your own removal, or the oppisite will happen when they resolve broodmate dragon, or bbe. That's like saying the key to beating faeries is to lure their counterspells on their turn, and then play on your turn, not gonig to happen most of the time.
Devout Lightcaster comes in and has to take a bolt to get it out of the way. If it doesn't, it shuts down all offense besides Bloodbraid.
Broodmate dragon, Great Sable Stag?
Creature A: Baneslayer. You get this out v. jund with an empty hand and you're 80-20. Easily. Creature B: take your pick.
Again, easiar said than done.
Of the two or three MWC decks that had this sideboard strategy, one placed in T16 at Philly.
Meanwhile, most Jund players do not realize that transformation to creature heavy midrange is how MWC is played. They're stuck sideing in Goblin Ruinblaster and Jund Charm. Anything they take out for these actually makes the match-up less favorable for them.
Again, why didn't all three make it, IF most jund players don't know this, and jund and vampires was running rampant at the 5k? There seems to be a lot of holes in that statement. And as someone who used to play jund, i probably wouldn't side jund charm in against you in all honesty. Ruinblaster would be a maybe and would go in for GSS.
[QUOTE]I noticed everyone in support of the supposed ridiculousness of jund has failed to really back up their points with hard evidence aside from shouting the words quick and card advantage. I am no magic genius nor do I claim to be, but it seems that the reason jund is doing well is it was and still is a consistent aggro deck with built in, but limited card advantage through the cascade mechanism. So this leaves me to question why it did so well?
How about, two different tournaments taking 5 of the 8 spots? i know that's the obvious answer. The card advantage part is a HUGE reason why jund is good as well. Green and red are probably the weakest cards in terms of card advantage, so getting cards that allow X for 1s and being that fast is pretty impressive.
The answer is that the first few weeks of every major rotation are dominated by aggro because control decks require much more time to get off the ground and to fine tune. So what deck is going to win the most in the first week? The aggro deck that has lost the least from rotation and hence is the most proven consistency . It would then logically follow to ask why every first two weeks of a rotation is as dominated by one single deck?
Yes, i would agreee with that if it weren't for the fact that control has VERY little to work with. The counterspells are all jank, there is no realy card advantage that comes with a good price (jace require you to tap 3 mana to start with 1 card, and sign in blood costs 2 life). So until i see worldwake, i don't know how control could have a chance....
The answer to that is that 1. Jund almost lost NOTHING to the rotation. I know this point could be argued depending on your build to no end, but the point remains that Jund looks almost identical to pre rotation. I would say the closest deck to this in regards to post and pre similarity is bant, but bant lost that merfoly guy that would turn into a 5/3 trample which was very important to their ability to get consistent mid - late game damage through. So jund has an inate week 1-2 advantage with proven consistency. 2. THe second reason for its overwhelming success is that rarely have we seen an aggro/midrange deck that has such built in card advantage. So when the meta is just formed and there is nothing but aggro the aggro that is most consistent and can generate CA will reign king.
Jund lost quite a bit, just nothing that spelled the deck's end.
Jund builds lost Sygg, River Cutthroat, Boggart Ram-gang, and kitchen finks. Jund's colors and power of cascade is why the deck is the strongest coming out post rotation.
That being said Jund is still only a very good deck not an all powerful monster of a deck that will stand the test of time. I say this confidently only because when the meta changes (because it surely always will) how is jund going to respond? It does not have to truly insane quickness of some tier one decks of the past like the white weenies I think the qucik deck of this format is bushwacker. It has a good CA mechanism, not the insane card advantage of many control decks or mid range token decks of seasons past. And it does not have overwhelming versatility that all good control decks and some mid range decks have.
Jund is going to be a solid deck because the flexibility of the cards it runs allows it to deal with just about any strategy it comes across. It has the mass removal for weenies, the answer all maelstrom pulse, and arguably the best burn spells and creatures in the game. Seems like it can respond to the meta pretty well...
So in conclusion is Jund good? Yes. Is it going to be Tier one? I would say yes but less confidently than my first answer. Is it the deck to beat right not? yes. Will it be the deck to beat for much longer? No by a long shot. I would say once control(mono white, four color and others) begins to get its stuff together and bushwacker tunes up its deck a little more through playtesting. Both those decks will overtake jund as I am sure many other will.
When you say control gets its stuff together, i have to assume you mean when the next set comes out. Control is really the least scariest (pardon my grammar) deck out there right now. Bushwhacker can fine tune itself for later game, but as i have tested, it weakens my overall early game and taking away from why i play boros bushwhacker.
Can't it be both ;)?
Kidding, back on topic, the main, Main problem i see with the infraction is this isn't how the rule was supposed to be seen as, imo.
When that rule was first put up, i assume the purpose was to keep users from wasting a post just to do what the moderators are suppose to do, For example, if the post just said: "You Need Deck Tags" that should be infractable, as that is what is trying to be avoided. But when you give a friendly reminder, as a small gesture, and then continue on with w/e your post was trying to say, that shouldn't be against the rules.
Just my 2 cents.
I think some mods are good, and some are bad. I don't think it they should get an entire thread, but a pm to compliment them.
So, using your almighty organizer powers, do you think deducting a point for having it as an instant//sorcery is fair, or should he get the point back? (I am asking here because i have a feeling the next round will be something similar where someone will try a design that is not techniclly incorrect, but shouldn't normally be done).
That's not quite the right analogy. By putting that little snip in the beginning, it did nothing to sway his post and he still made his point. Flaming someone, even for a line, makes the entire post look like a flame. As i see it, that was a friendly tap on the shoulder, and shouldn't have warranted an infraction.
My rule of thumb is -1 point in a format error, (such as a split card having instant and sorcery) because the card has no issues under the rules. The only time i would deduct ALL polish (or even, dq the card) is if the card could not functionally work.
Pending Cantrip's final decision, my scores stand.
Edit @ Cantrip: Didn't realize i was being generous. I thought that PWJ and GM were still my responsibility, and i was just covering KoolKoal. I am fine with w/e, you just confused me for a sec :).
Goodnight all, see you in some morning.
That was so not the point of his post. And where does it say he didn't had to worry about not getting deck checked? It is a nats after all.
I would like to try something like that, but the problem i could see coming up is that is too black and white. Anyone could judge a card like that for the first 15 points. And from the players stand point, i feel that we continously see the same shell for a card from every designer, with slight diffrences from those last 10 points (which isn't necessarily bad, but i would feel that would get boring really fast.
That is not what i said was all. I just said the MWS is not what you should solely base the decision on. The problem with MWS is the decks themselves. You see a lot of garbage out there, and then you see people who netdeck, but try using crappy replacements, OR they play the deck badly. I used to be able crush mono red with faeries on mws, because the people who used rdw had bad build, and did not know how to run the deck.
But that isn't how you have been explaining the situation. The idea of 80-20 post side board means that you roll a 20 sided die, 1-16 means that MWC wins a game while 17-20 wins jund. ONLY game 1 is the coin flip a good example. A little worse than 20% chance to win a match is not exactly my kind of odds.
The fallacy in his testing is that he could just be making up that garbage about MWC being 80-20. Lets assume he is telling the truth, a MWC deck made top 16, why couldn't it beat jund? If jund and vampires was running rampant and the 5k (which i assume MWC has just as good of a game against the Twilight bastards), why is jund still dominting? Surely a deck that goes 80-20 post board against jund, and is vlose to 60-40 pre-board can wipe the floor with those decks?
Bottom line, i can't just take the word of one person who claims jund does badly, and the problem i have with mws, is i never see the variety of decks i need to see. Just garbage random decks and maybe a couple of viable ones. Jund may not be the new faeries, but its getting pretty close.
Edit:
Oh, and my judgings are done. Post me with any problems. A couple of points, i would be more than happy to talk with.
Well, the explanation for its presence would mean 1 of two things to me:
1st: The deck IS in fact the best deck in the format right now.
I think this is the case, but for the sake of argument
2nd: The deck is just incredibly popular.
Why wouldn't playing jund give you the best chance to win a tournament? The deck lists that all made the t8 are very similar with a couple of card changes between them. How many players making the t8 tells us that the jund decks are winning against a field of other decks.
Really? Because the mono white, and bant lists i have been playing have been losing pretty badly. The sideboard makes up for it, but not to the sum of 80-20. Maybe 60-40, and that's being generous. Even if i were to assume that your 80-20 was accurate, why aren't either of those decks you listed making top 8s? My only logical solution is that maybe they can't be jund in a match, but lose to most of the other decks being played.
You say that like its easy to do. You still have to land something big, hold back for your own removal, or the oppisite will happen when they resolve broodmate dragon, or bbe. That's like saying the key to beating faeries is to lure their counterspells on their turn, and then play on your turn, not gonig to happen most of the time.
Broodmate dragon, Great Sable Stag?
Again, easiar said than done.
Again, why didn't all three make it, IF most jund players don't know this, and jund and vampires was running rampant at the 5k? There seems to be a lot of holes in that statement. And as someone who used to play jund, i probably wouldn't side jund charm in against you in all honesty. Ruinblaster would be a maybe and would go in for GSS.
How about, two different tournaments taking 5 of the 8 spots? i know that's the obvious answer. The card advantage part is a HUGE reason why jund is good as well. Green and red are probably the weakest cards in terms of card advantage, so getting cards that allow X for 1s and being that fast is pretty impressive.
Yes, i would agreee with that if it weren't for the fact that control has VERY little to work with. The counterspells are all jank, there is no realy card advantage that comes with a good price (jace require you to tap 3 mana to start with 1 card, and sign in blood costs 2 life). So until i see worldwake, i don't know how control could have a chance....
Jund builds lost Sygg, River Cutthroat, Boggart Ram-gang, and kitchen finks. Jund's colors and power of cascade is why the deck is the strongest coming out post rotation.
Jund is going to be a solid deck because the flexibility of the cards it runs allows it to deal with just about any strategy it comes across. It has the mass removal for weenies, the answer all maelstrom pulse, and arguably the best burn spells and creatures in the game. Seems like it can respond to the meta pretty well...
When you say control gets its stuff together, i have to assume you mean when the next set comes out. Control is really the least scariest (pardon my grammar) deck out there right now. Bushwhacker can fine tune itself for later game, but as i have tested, it weakens my overall early game and taking away from why i play boros bushwhacker.