I want to agree with this, but it has the same problem as all honor-code rules - it asks players to voluntarily give up an advantage, and thereby rewards those who choose not to. There is no way to differentiate a player who starts thinking about their deck a few hours before the deadline, sees the "loophole", assumes everyone else saw it too and submits a deck that uses it in an attempt to remain competitive from a player who saw it during format discussion, realized no one else was thinking about it, and sat on it until submitting a few hours before the deadline.
Of course, in a friendly game where the moderator participates, we have to have an honor code, and we do, and it works great, because we are all good people. But I don't see why we shouldn't minimize it as much as possible. I know from experience as a moderator that it is easiest to do the job fairly when I make a clear distinction for myself between "format construction time" and "deck construction time". During the former, I try my very hardest to make the format truly airtight. During the latter, hopefully at least a few days later and thread discussion later, I try my best to break it.
I think that dichotomy should apply to everyone, and that no one should be punished for playing the game to the best of their ability. We should all be honorable while we are discussing the format, and I trust everyone here to do that. But once we've settled on a formal definition, all bets should be off - the joy of this game is in the creativity we all manage to display when trying to squeeze every last bit of value out of a format into a tiny little deck.
I respect the instinct behind asking players to "play fair", but I think it can only have unfortunate results - either the moderator will be put in the position of making an a fairly arbitrary judgment call about what the "spirit" of the rule really was, or players will shy away from submitting exciting, boundary-pushing decks for fear of running up against such a judgment call. As a player, I don't want to worry about making the moderator uncomfortable by submitting a deck - I just want it to be unambiguously legal or illegal.
No. Not every week needs to be the same.
Particularly when the mod is someone like tomsloger (er, no offense) who isn't usually one of the people spotting the holes in someone else's format.
Having a battle of wits between myself and (say) Mogg, trying to figure out the holes in the format? That's a fun challenge.
Trying to figure out what loophole tomsloger missed? Not so much. It's usually easy, at which point we play the "real" format (e.g. the format based around pacts and dark rituals), which is usually not even remotely like what he was trying to do.
(Seriously, the guys who can make a format and spot the loopholes in their *wording* that aren't there in their *intent* have honed a skill over time - it's REALLY hard, which means unless you want to slowly drive out the more average XCB players from taking over as mod for a bit, you need to cut some slack)
I'll note that I count myself among the guys who isn't good at spotting the holes in their own formats.
Personally, I think that "mana denial doesn't work this round" is a better sort of round rule than something complicated that is almost certain to have some kind of unforeseen loophole.
Why? Because with a rule that MAY have a loophole, you have to try and work out what the loophole might be, and if it's obvious then the entire round is going to be dominated by the loophole...
...which means that the intent of the round is lost completely. The idea that seemed cool to you is "no mana denial". Rocking. Let's go with that.
1
Why block Geist when you can block Teeg? This makes the turn 4 swing for only 4, since Geist gets blocked and deals no damage.
Then token (drop to 11), Teeg swings (drop to 9), token (drop to 8), then hold off Teeg and swing for 1+2+3+4+5+6+7 before dying...
3-3
1
No. Not every week needs to be the same.
Particularly when the mod is someone like tomsloger (er, no offense) who isn't usually one of the people spotting the holes in someone else's format.
Having a battle of wits between myself and (say) Mogg, trying to figure out the holes in the format? That's a fun challenge.
Trying to figure out what loophole tomsloger missed? Not so much. It's usually easy, at which point we play the "real" format (e.g. the format based around pacts and dark rituals), which is usually not even remotely like what he was trying to do.
(Seriously, the guys who can make a format and spot the loopholes in their *wording* that aren't there in their *intent* have honed a skill over time - it's REALLY hard, which means unless you want to slowly drive out the more average XCB players from taking over as mod for a bit, you need to cut some slack)
I'll note that I count myself among the guys who isn't good at spotting the holes in their own formats.
1
Why? Because with a rule that MAY have a loophole, you have to try and work out what the loophole might be, and if it's obvious then the entire round is going to be dominated by the loophole...
...which means that the intent of the round is lost completely. The idea that seemed cool to you is "no mana denial". Rocking. Let's go with that.
1
1
I agree that adding a rule is the right move. I'd argue that that goes whichever way it goes.