It ocurred to me last night that you actually do win this match. After I drop Sky Swallower - at 2 life - you play Mage. At this point, the game draws - an attack from me yields a lethal counter-attack from you. At the end of my turn, however, you play Snake. Then, you attack for lethal through my blocker.
Hey, you're right! I'm so glad I'm not responsible for scoring these.
So far, we only have 1 4-drop... also I didn't mean we need it because we need a 4-drop, we need it because we need a strong win condition. Right now we only have 2 reliable win conditions, and one of them is Null Champion. Sure, we could get there with a bunch of random 2/2s, 3/3s, and 1/1 fliers, but honestly I think we need something powerful to do in the late game, and Invoker gives us that. Flame slash will do little more than kill a nuisance creature (or if we're lucky, kill a bomb leveler or Drana), whereas the Invoker is actually a threat that can win us the game if unanswered. It can win even if they have an answer, as long as the answer is white or blue based (Narcolepsy, Guard Duty, Domestication, Puncturing Light, Smite, Regress, etc.).
This was my reasoning as well. Solid guy that wins games is what we need.
Feyd_Ruin targets himself with Firestorm to discard Nether Spirit, which is a wonderful blocker. Once he is at a comfortable life total (Sheltered Valley), he starts attacking.
No matter what, he can't stop me from hardcasting Mindbreak when he plays Teferi. If I resolve Meddling Mage naming Meddling Mage and exile Teferi, he can't win unless he has twice as much life as I do (since Children only beats for 1). His two options are Teferi in my upkeep or Teferi in response to my Mage, but they are not different - either way I Mindbreak it, leaving him at 5 life and me at 8. Then I play Mage on Mage, putting me at 2. On his turn, he plays Children, putting him at 2. Then I attack with mage, he has to block, and that's that.
This works, but I think it should be 3-3. On the play, I play mage naming mage. If you Mindbreak it, I play other mage naming mage. Glimmer doesn't help you because you can't play both Glimmer for Mage and Mindbreak.
While I agree with being the correct pick here, I completely disagree with your reasoning. RoE is a draft environment where card value differs greatly depending on the type of deck being drafted. Due to this, it is not worthwhile to discuss the value of cards 'in the abstract' because we aren't drafting in the abstract, we are drafting within an environment. Forked Bolt would have been sick in ZZW, but its pretty meh in RoE. Especially in comparison to Bloodthrone, given what we have already, the Bloodthrone is going to be way better than Forked Bolt. Regardless I still think the Hatcher is better.
What I meant was more that Bloodthrone is a synergy pick whereas Bolt's value doesn't depend so much on what else you have in your deck. Synergy picks are more risky--Bloodthrone in particular is near useless without support.
We've wanted a Bloodthrone for some time now, both for tokens and for Traitorous Instinct abuse. But bolt and hatcher are both better in the abstract. Leaning towards Hatcher.
2.2b. A player may not submit a deck that can't win against any deck.
2.2b. A player may not submit a deck that can't win 6-0(or 4-1 if we want to allow that) against any defining deck.
A defining deck is either a deck of 5 basic lands or a deck that can win 6-0 against a defining deck.
The one change I made is making a deck of 5 basic lands illegal. Because that would be stupid.
It would be simpler to say
2.2b. A player may not submit a deck that can't win 6-0 against any deck that satisfies 2.2a and 2.2c.
The difference it does make is that, rather than every deck being illegal by viture of its legality being unprovable, instead means that every entry must be accepted, but the entrant must be informed that their deck is illegal, when it intuitively does not appear to be.
It does not, however, do anything about the problem of unprovable legality, just shifts the response to it.
On further inspection, you may not have been attempting to fix that problem when you suggested your fix. In which case, your fix is potentially a good idea when we sort out the more significant oversight in the rules.
Something's not getting through here. In my system:
* 5x Forest is legal, but would get a reminder because it cannot 6-0 a single legal deck.
* 5x Mishra's Factory is legal and would not get a reminder, because it can 6-0 vs 5x Forest.
Not even jcsuperstar's solution fixes the problem. Technically, mods will have to send back every deck. We wouldn't actually do that, but it doesn't solve the problem.
But it does! In my system, we wouldn't classify can't-win decks as "illegal"; we would just alert their submitters to the fact that they can't win. So Forest x5 would be a legal deck, and any deck that beats Forest x5 would not be sent back.
Backbuild weeks would require special rules, but otherwise I think this fix works fine.
I'm not appealing the ruling of this round, just making a suggestion for a rules change.
I think? Stabbing pain looks good too, but we have nothing in black.
But... it sure looks like green is open. Acidic Slime?
Hey, you're right! I'm so glad I'm not responsible for scoring these.
This was my reasoning as well. Solid guy that wins games is what we need.
These are correct. But I'm wondering why you didn't also notice
6. jcsuperstar – Leyline of Lifeforce / Leyline of Sanctity / Meddling Mage / Meddling Mage / Mystic Snake
vs.
4. Mogg
Illusions of Grandeur / Mindbreak Trap / Orim's Chant / Silence / Sky Swallower
6-0 -> 3-3
Silence doesn't target, so it gets past Leyline of Sanctity. So Mogg casts Silence before going off and mystic snake can't stop it.
Is this enough to lose my POTM??
In this case my 6-0's vs tomsloger and vezokpiraka stand.
This works, but I think it should be 3-3. On the play, I play mage naming mage. If you Mindbreak it, I play other mage naming mage. Glimmer doesn't help you because you can't play both Glimmer for Mage and Mindbreak.
Leyline of Lifeforce / Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir / Children of Korlis / Meddling Mage / Meddling Mage
vs
1. tomsloger
Transcendence / Forsaken Wastes / Mana Drain / Dispel / City Of Traitors
Listed: 2-2 Corrected: 6-0
First upkeep of the game I play Teferi, Children, Mage naming Transcendence, Mage naming wastes. His counters do nothing.
___
vs.
11. vezokpiraka
Children Of Korlis / Akroma's Blessing / Castigate / Path to Exile / Grand Arbiter Augustin IV
Listed: 2-2, Corrected: 6-0
First upkeep of game I play Teferi, Children, Mage naming Arbiter, Mage naming PtE.
What I meant was more that Bloodthrone is a synergy pick whereas Bolt's value doesn't depend so much on what else you have in your deck. Synergy picks are more risky--Bloodthrone in particular is near useless without support.
Regardless,
is the pick.
It would be simpler to say
2.2b. A player may not submit a deck that can't win 6-0 against any deck that satisfies 2.2a and 2.2c.
Something's not getting through here. In my system:
* 5x Forest is legal, but would get a reminder because it cannot 6-0 a single legal deck.
* 5x Mishra's Factory is legal and would not get a reminder, because it can 6-0 vs 5x Forest.
There's no issue of unprovability.
But it does! In my system, we wouldn't classify can't-win decks as "illegal"; we would just alert their submitters to the fact that they can't win. So Forest x5 would be a legal deck, and any deck that beats Forest x5 would not be sent back.
Backbuild weeks would require special rules, but otherwise I think this fix works fine.
I'm not appealing the ruling of this round, just making a suggestion for a rules change.