WOW! I had wondered whether double exponential growth was possible in 2CB... You score 6,749,928,758,618 damage by my calculations (between 2^42 and 2^43), blowing my puny 67 million (2^26) out of the water!
(Also, WhammWhamme: not an infinite loop without haste.)
On turn 5 when you have two non-sick Spawnwrithes, enchant one with Breath of Fury, attack with both, get tokens, sac the enchanted, attatch Breath of Fury to one of the (sick) tokens, and get a last attack in with the other non-sick Spawnwrithe, ending the turn with 4 Spawnwrithes and 6 damage. (Slightly better than the 4 Spawnwrithes and 4 damage you would have without Breath of Fury Tricks.)
On subsequent turns, if you start with X Spawnwrithes, you can attack with X+(X-1)+(X-2)+...+1 Spawnwrithes. All but one Spawnwrithe dies in this process, so you end the turn with X*(X+1)/2 + 1 Spawnwrithes, having done X*(X+1) damage that turn. So I calculate:
Number of Spawnwrithes at the end of each turn:
1: 0
2: 0
3: 1
4: 2
5: 4
6: 11
7: 67
8: 2279
9: 2598061
10: 3374961778892
I will give a hint for my damage puzzle (trying to do at least 67,108,864 damage to a helpless opponent in 10 turns in 2CB+Lands).
Since 67,108,864 = 2^26, doubling once, or even twice per turn isn't going to cut it. Doubling three or four times per turn might be fast enough, if you can start early. The solution I have in mind doubles increasingly often as turns progress, and in fact cutting the race off at turn 10 makes my envisioned solution less impressive, because by just waiting till turn 15, I could have done 2^96 = 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 damage instead...
WhammWhamme: you made a spoiler tag typo! Also, your second solution doesn't quite work because...
Gemstone Caverns is legendary! Of course this can easily be fixed by replacing Student of Warfare with Sprout or the like.
2CB Backbuild losing to Worldpuge+Battle of Wits:
In addition to Mogg's solution is the classic Impatience + blank.
I have two:
Are there (many) other "essentially different" XCB decks can win the mirror on the draw? I have one in mind for X=7, but maybe there are others solutions.
What's the maximum amount of (non-infinite) damage you can do in 2CB+Lands to a helpless opponent within the first 10 turns? I don't know the true answer, but the number to match/beat is 67108864.
Since it's not mentioned in the rules: do split cards work in the "obvious" way for spellweaver week? (The costs and effects of the other card being spliced onto both sides of the split card.)
And if I combine two split cards, I choose one from Card A, one from Card B, right?
EDIT: Rebound mechanic shouldn't work (beyond exiling the spell), as it involves casting without paying the mana cost.
Notes: I beat the Pox decks by discarding Time Vault and just using Wings of Night and Day to keep their over-sized monster tapped.
Versus Catmurderer, my strategy is as follows: if Catmurderer plays Viridian Trollupter before my 5th turn, then I can safely play Time Vault on my turn, take 5 poison damage, then take all the turns thereafter. Otherwise wait till turn 5 to take all the turns.
EDIT: I wanted to share another cool turn 3 combo deck I came up with this round.
"The Immortal Elf", Safehold Elite + Medicine Runner / Goblin Bombardment
I didn't go with this deck, because it generally loses to Swords to Plowshares and other instant speed removal (with Med Runner trigger on the stack), which I also expected to see in greater quantity.
Ok good, but "may" is slightly underspecified in that it doesn't say resolve:
(1) Do different monsters submitted with the same nickname get the same card name?
(2) Do identical monsters submitted with different nicknames get different card names?
Both could be relevant in situations involving the legend rule or Phyrexian Revoker. I don't really care what the answers are, so long as they're accounted for in advance.
Ok, glad we got that settled! Time to move on and crush round 2.
So what's the rule for naming monsters for next week? I would suggest that the name chosen by the user does not become the monster's card name; instead, the monster's card name should be the unordered pair of the two names. Example: {"Adamaro, First to Desire", "Jaya Ballard, Task Mage"} is the same as {"Jaya Ballard, Task Mage", "Adamaro, First to Desire"}.
I think Personman makes a good point about the Meddling Mage argument being flawed/irrelevant, so I am back in the position where I think fnord's deck works under the (IMO) most reasonable interpretation of the rules.
HOWEVER, I now think the most important point is that late submission should not be cause for leniency. If Feyd says he would have outright killed the deck earlier (as is certainly his prerogative), then he should also outright kill the deck later.
I know I've submitted at least one deck to Feyd that I thought would be legal under slightly ambiguous special week rules only to be shot down. Fine, but I submitted a (worse) backup deck along with it; should I be punished for doing so?
(Incidentally, it was Manaverve week 2.22. I wanted to play Fireblast + Storm World, which certainly wins against some obviously legal decks, but can't do a full 20 damage. It was explicitly stated that rule 2.2a on "winning too fast" treated players as if they started on 20 life, but no such provision was explicitly made in rule 2.2b on "winning at all".)
Ah, but Meddling Mage can't name land cards.
Since you agree that Meddling Mage should've been able to name your card, you must've been obligated to give it a non-land name.
And thus, I hope, ends this debate.
This is actually a really good point. Since Feyd's rules specify that Meddling Mage "works", my new opinion is that "Island" is not an acceptable name for a monster.
I agree with everything Personman said. Worse than the existence of loopholes (for which searching is indeed pretty standard practice during special weeks) is the idea that there may be strategic considerations regarding submission time in special rounds with potentially ambiguous rules.
Personally, I will take this incident as a reminder to ask questions to get special week rules clarified as much as possible before the round, instead of assuming everybody else agrees with what I think is the most logical. Although... there are strategic considerations regarding that as well. Damn.
I'm (weakly) in favor of keeping fnord's deck legal/functional, per Mogg's reasoning that the monster's name is (heavily implied to be) the name of the monster card. I am also sympathetic to Niv's "dick move"/"last minute" argument, but I think Mogg's argument is more relevant. I think AtheistGod's argument/example is incorrect: naming your monster "Vampire" does not make it a Vampire creature (hence does not protect it from Anowon).
Since the naming rule was somewhat underspecified, let's make sure we go into round 2 with no ambiguity (even if there are no more Retraced Images out there, this could be relevant in resolving situations involving the legend rule). So Feyd_Ruin, do we have complete freedom to name out monsters whatever we want round 2, or shall we adopt some other official rule, for example LSK's suggestion?
Side note: today I learned that the legend rule doesn't apply in the situation where a legendary permanent shares a name (such as "Island") with a non-legendary permanent (comprehensive rules 420.5e).
Finally, for the first time in recent history, I checked over my results and have a few suggestions:
05 Niv: 1-4
(As noted above by Niv, although I actually never have to take damage from Mana Vault, thanks to World Queller eating artifacts if desired.)
06 Keitaru: 2-2
Iona's Big Sis comes down T3 when playing aroud Nature's Claim. On the play, this bans "Oxidda Engine". On the draw, World Queller can trade monsters, but then the Wurm tokens get me.
16 Tane: 4-1
On the play, ban Bonesplitter. On the draw, I take 8 before playing Iona's Big Sis. When Tane attacks again T3, I have to block the deadly 4+9 damage, trading my 7/7 for his 9/7.
19 DragonDart: 0-6
I can't stop T1 Anowon, and if I ever play Iona's Sis, Anowon kills her first.
23 greentea9: 4-1
On the play, ban "Saint Anger". On the draw, ban its ability and World-Quell to trade.
24 Personman: 6-0
Chant means Iona's Big Sis comes down T3 (banning Chant). Anurid then sacrifices itself due to empty graveyard (World Queller is eating artifacts/enchantments/planeswalkers, not lands).
I went over my own matches (and a few of Mogg's), and I believe I should be 6-0 against 15, as Antonia goldfishes turn 25 (to my 35).
WOW! I had wondered whether double exponential growth was possible in 2CB... You score 6,749,928,758,618 damage by my calculations (between 2^42 and 2^43), blowing my puny 67 million (2^26) out of the water!
(Also, WhammWhamme: not an infinite loop without haste.)
On turn 5 when you have two non-sick Spawnwrithes, enchant one with Breath of Fury, attack with both, get tokens, sac the enchanted, attatch Breath of Fury to one of the (sick) tokens, and get a last attack in with the other non-sick Spawnwrithe, ending the turn with 4 Spawnwrithes and 6 damage. (Slightly better than the 4 Spawnwrithes and 4 damage you would have without Breath of Fury Tricks.)
On subsequent turns, if you start with X Spawnwrithes, you can attack with X+(X-1)+(X-2)+...+1 Spawnwrithes. All but one Spawnwrithe dies in this process, so you end the turn with X*(X+1)/2 + 1 Spawnwrithes, having done X*(X+1) damage that turn. So I calculate:
Number of Spawnwrithes at the end of each turn:
1: 0
2: 0
3: 1
4: 2
5: 4
6: 11
7: 67
8: 2279
9: 2598061
10: 3374961778892
Damage done each turn:
1: 0
2: 0
3: 0
4: 2
5: 6
6: 20
7: 132
8: 4556
9: 5196120
10: 6749923557782
Anyway, my idea was only exponential in turn-number squared, e.g. exp(C*T^2) for some C>0. Here's what I had in mind:
Solarion + Freed from the Real. Sunburst for 1 off of 7 islands, and over the next few turns, tap to double 26 times before attacking once.
Good thread. I'm quite happy with the answers to both of the questions I asked. Will try to think of more.
Since 67,108,864 = 2^26, doubling once, or even twice per turn isn't going to cut it. Doubling three or four times per turn might be fast enough, if you can start early. The solution I have in mind doubles increasingly often as turns progress, and in fact cutting the race off at turn 10 makes my envisioned solution less impressive, because by just waiting till turn 15, I could have done 2^96 = 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 damage instead...
Gemstone Caverns is legendary! Of course this can easily be fixed by replacing Student of Warfare with Sprout or the like.
2CB Backbuild losing to Worldpuge+Battle of Wits:
In addition to Mogg's solution is the classic Impatience + blank.
I have two:
Are there (many) other "essentially different" XCB decks can win the mirror on the draw? I have one in mind for X=7, but maybe there are others solutions.
What's the maximum amount of (non-infinite) damage you can do in 2CB+Lands to a helpless opponent within the first 10 turns? I don't know the true answer, but the number to match/beat is 67108864.
And if I combine two split cards, I choose one from Card A, one from Card B, right?
EDIT: Rebound mechanic shouldn't work (beyond exiling the spell), as it involves casting without paying the mana cost.
X | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 | PT
1 | 0 6 0 0 6 0 6 6 6 3 X 6 6 2 6 0 6 6 3 0 6 6 3 | 80
Notes: I beat the Pox decks by discarding Time Vault and just using Wings of Night and Day to keep their over-sized monster tapped.
Versus Catmurderer, my strategy is as follows: if Catmurderer plays Viridian Trollupter before my 5th turn, then I can safely play Time Vault on my turn, take 5 poison damage, then take all the turns thereafter. Otherwise wait till turn 5 to take all the turns.
EDIT: I wanted to share another cool turn 3 combo deck I came up with this round.
"The Immortal Elf", Safehold Elite + Medicine Runner / Goblin Bombardment
I didn't go with this deck, because it generally loses to Swords to Plowshares and other instant speed removal (with Med Runner trigger on the stack), which I also expected to see in greater quantity.
(1) Do different monsters submitted with the same nickname get the same card name?
(2) Do identical monsters submitted with different nicknames get different card names?
Both could be relevant in situations involving the legend rule or Phyrexian Revoker. I don't really care what the answers are, so long as they're accounted for in advance.
So what's the rule for naming monsters for next week? I would suggest that the name chosen by the user does not become the monster's card name; instead, the monster's card name should be the unordered pair of the two names. Example: {"Adamaro, First to Desire", "Jaya Ballard, Task Mage"} is the same as {"Jaya Ballard, Task Mage", "Adamaro, First to Desire"}.
HOWEVER, I now think the most important point is that late submission should not be cause for leniency. If Feyd says he would have outright killed the deck earlier (as is certainly his prerogative), then he should also outright kill the deck later.
I know I've submitted at least one deck to Feyd that I thought would be legal under slightly ambiguous special week rules only to be shot down. Fine, but I submitted a (worse) backup deck along with it; should I be punished for doing so?
(Incidentally, it was Manaverve week 2.22. I wanted to play Fireblast + Storm World, which certainly wins against some obviously legal decks, but can't do a full 20 damage. It was explicitly stated that rule 2.2a on "winning too fast" treated players as if they started on 20 life, but no such provision was explicitly made in rule 2.2b on "winning at all".)
This is actually a really good point. Since Feyd's rules specify that Meddling Mage "works", my new opinion is that "Island" is not an acceptable name for a monster.
Personally, I will take this incident as a reminder to ask questions to get special week rules clarified as much as possible before the round, instead of assuming everybody else agrees with what I think is the most logical. Although... there are strategic considerations regarding that as well. Damn.
Since the naming rule was somewhat underspecified, let's make sure we go into round 2 with no ambiguity (even if there are no more Retraced Images out there, this could be relevant in resolving situations involving the legend rule). So Feyd_Ruin, do we have complete freedom to name out monsters whatever we want round 2, or shall we adopt some other official rule, for example LSK's suggestion?
Side note: today I learned that the legend rule doesn't apply in the situation where a legendary permanent shares a name (such as "Island") with a non-legendary permanent (comprehensive rules 420.5e).
Finally, for the first time in recent history, I checked over my results and have a few suggestions:
05 Niv: 1-4
(As noted above by Niv, although I actually never have to take damage from Mana Vault, thanks to World Queller eating artifacts if desired.)
06 Keitaru: 2-2
Iona's Big Sis comes down T3 when playing aroud Nature's Claim. On the play, this bans "Oxidda Engine". On the draw, World Queller can trade monsters, but then the Wurm tokens get me.
16 Tane: 4-1
On the play, ban Bonesplitter. On the draw, I take 8 before playing Iona's Big Sis. When Tane attacks again T3, I have to block the deadly 4+9 damage, trading my 7/7 for his 9/7.
19 DragonDart: 0-6
I can't stop T1 Anowon, and if I ever play Iona's Sis, Anowon kills her first.
23 greentea9: 4-1
On the play, ban "Saint Anger". On the draw, ban its ability and World-Quell to trade.
24 Personman: 6-0
Chant means Iona's Big Sis comes down T3 (banning Chant). Anurid then sacrifices itself due to empty graveyard (World Queller is eating artifacts/enchantments/planeswalkers, not lands).
R1:
A1: Bitterblossom
R2: Bitterblossom
A2: get a token
R3: get a token, play Liliana, kill Antonia's token
Liliana is in no danger, so Reyemile can charge her up and kill more tokens later.