Primary and only casual rule: "any rule that is fine for the most part of the playgroup, is a fine rule". So any further thread with: "if somebody uses/does .... in a casual game, is it ethical/ok?", read the answer above.
- Being a "Johnny/Spike" means you like self-torture. You win often in casual, so everybody hates you; you loose often in competitive, so you hate yourself.
I had a feeling that scores were going to be low across the board this round...perhaps it may have been better to not participate at all for the sake of keeping the average high?
Anyone else find it amusing that WingedKagouti placed 2nd although his deck was randomly chosen into the top 8? I'm not saying it was a bad deck, I just think it's a little weird that a deck which almost didn't make it into the round could have potentially won this week.
I'll be honest I didn't vote for you as it was hard to judge the deck's power this round and that is really what put you over the top for me Kagouti. Decks I thought would do well did poorly. The protection you put in there was the most effective out of all the decks this round. I also won the most games playing your deck (1 deck went 0-10, 2 decks went 1-9, your deck went 6-4 to give an example).
I was actually surprised how low power some of these decks were. I really kept thinking that there must be something I was doing wrong but I feel like the meta I play in just was to powerful. Most of these decks had no answer for a deck that is lethal by the 4th-5th turn. The reason it took me so long to finish this contest is that the decks at best were very effective at stalling the game out. I must have had 5-6 games take 30min+.
Congrats to DLink. Your ability to make unique decks that still maintain a proper balance and equilibrium is amazing.
On another note with the exception of dlink I feel like this round had the closest judges scores yet. Good job judges!
ChefStix, could you give some insight into what you consider "cookie-cutter" vs [not] for mana-bases? And to what degree did mana-base decisions outside of their effectiveness affect your decisions (if you don't mind me asking)?
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
I'll be honest I didn't vote for you as it was hard to judge the deck's power this round and that is really what put you over the top for me Kagouti. Decks I thought would do well did poorly. The protection you put in there was the most effective out of all the decks this round. I also won the most games playing your deck (1 deck went 0-10, 2 decks went 1-9, your deck went 6-4 to give an example).
I was actually surprised how low power some of these decks were. I really kept thinking that there must be something I was doing wrong but I feel like the meta I play in just was to powerful. Most of these decks had no answer for a deck that is lethal by the 4th-5th turn. The reason it took me so long to finish this contest is that the decks at best were very effective at stalling the game out. I must have had 5-6 games take 30min+.
I wanna say something here...
(firstI don't want to single Chefstix out because I think other judges do the same, it's just his comments here that got me thinking about this...)
I've noticed that judges state that this deck went undefeated on workstation and the like, this deck went 2-8, etc.
Chefstix talks here about not putting a deck in top 8 because it was hard to judge it's "power", he also says he's facing a very powerful meta for testing our decks, that our decks need to respond to a turn 4 or 5 clock.
As for myself, I always play multiplayer in my casual and I never play on workstation and the like, the decks I build aren't meant to go against raw power. Not because I'm not good enough or too poor to compete, but by choice; that's what the format requires for success. Pure aggro decks aren't worth a damn in multiplayer and so you rarely have to face them.
Also, most times I build a deck, I have to take it down a notch before playing it so I don't become a target.
I think judges should acknowledge that difference, because I don't think playing casual circu vs legacy goblins (or any other proven duel powerhouse) is a fair test and was probably why the scores were very low this round.
Primary and only casual rule: "any rule that is fine for the most part of the playgroup, is a fine rule". So any further thread with: "if somebody uses/does .... in a casual game, is it ethical/ok?", read the answer above.
- Being a "Johnny/Spike" means you like self-torture. You win often in casual, so everybody hates you; you loose often in competitive, so you hate yourself.
@ Expired Rascals:
I consider a mana base that uses about 50% original duals "cookie-cutter". Also, I'm not sure I fully understand the second question. Mind clarifying it for me.
@fdtori
I tried very hard to not find overpowered decks. Going lethal turn 5 isn't that bad. I avoided decks that were lethal turn 3 (aforementioned legacy goblins). Having said that I also play exclusively multiplayer IRL and I agree most of these decks would have done much better in a multiplayer format. Alas I don't exactly have the benefit of spending 9 hours with my buddies play testing these decks so MWS is my only option. Try and believe me when I said I take into account the deck power level differences when judging.
Basically I don't think that you have to design a deck that can bang with the best. I don't think for a second you should have to when building a deck think "will this survive a turn 3 onslaught". That doesn't mean you can ignore the threat of a deck that is going lethal turn 5. Especially if they combo'ed that threat out and one basic piece of proper removal could have saved the whole day. I was attacked by a 13/13 Primalcrux one game on the 5th turn and since all my counters and removal was situational I could do nothing. If I was able to remove that card since the opponent spent like 4 cards just to get 1 out of the field I would have been in a great position.
@ fdtori:
I haven't been testing these vs tuned net-decks. I just play in games labeled "casual" on 'trice. Turn 5-6 fishbowl kills tend to be standard for decks not tuned to be faster, or tempo or control based. I have not been testing in multiplayer games for a number of reasons: 1. they take forever. I love multiplayer games, but I simply cannot meet the the rigorous demands of testing when 20 games with a deck takes 20 hours. When i can do 20 games in 4-6 hours, I can be much more assured of a deck's potential (I actually do between 9 and 20 games per deck, depending on the deck and whether I feel I've seen all the deck can do and possibly running a couple more if I really love the build :)). 2. Multiplayer is too dependent on politics. I don't want to be losing with a CDCC deck simply because the meta I walked into considers Top to be a threat card (you laugh, but it has happened). I simply cannot guarantee fair testing practices in multiplayer. 3. The game is drastically different in multiplayer. What a deck needs to deal with in multiplayer and how it needs to deal with it changes big time when going from 1v1 to a 4,5 or 6 player game. It is simply unfair to expect any given deck to be able to compete equally in both multiplayer and 1v1. 4. Each different type of multiplayer imposes different requirements alluded to in number 3. 5. Part of our judging criteria is the capacity and power to win. A good record in multiplayer is considered somewhere between 25% and 35% wins. How can I objectively evaluate the power to win based off a losing record? I feel like I mostly would just be giving my preferred decks good marks here rather than having empyrically justifiable scores. 6. Up till now, nobody had insinuated that their build was multiplayer specific. As I said above, it would be unfair to assume a 1v1 deck would be fine for multiplayer. Without any signally of the format, 1v1 is assumed.
I would recommend against submitting multiplayer-specific decks, I just don't see a good way to accommodate their special needs.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
I understand what you mean. I think over the years I have come to associate Casual with multiplayer and my deckbuilding has been skewed accordingly.
We all pretty much build our decks according to our meta though and again I have a feeling Power is taking center stage more this time around because that's what the judges meta is made of.
I remember that when I was judge I rarely tested the decks as thoroughly as you guys seem to be doing, mainly because in my meta power and speed were not always relevant. It was mostly about how flexible and adaptable your deck was; what synergies it could develop/protect and how it took advantage of them.
But anyway, nevermind that, there are still some rounds left and I shall yet adapt !
Primary and only casual rule: "any rule that is fine for the most part of the playgroup, is a fine rule". So any further thread with: "if somebody uses/does .... in a casual game, is it ethical/ok?", read the answer above.
- Being a "Johnny/Spike" means you like self-torture. You win often in casual, so everybody hates you; you loose often in competitive, so you hate yourself.
When I build these decks I tune it to beat aggro first. This round was very difficult to fit in such requirements because a deck with Circu typically loses to a good Aggro deck. It would seem most judges had no problem holding back Aggro with my deck except Chefstix - not sure what kind of aggro deck you were testing against. If it's crashing out of the gates aggro like RDW, Sligh and Stompy, then yes, obviously any deck not running massive amounts of dedicated stalling will have trouble. I fine tuned to the current Standard/Extended decks like Valakut Ramp, Naya Aggro, Vampires, Faeries, etc, and I could beat them a fair amount of the time. I did have trouble with RDW, but really, that's no surprise. I think the matchup against Aggro with a Control-Combo deck like Circu is quite difficult to win unless you run a complete aggro stopper like Web of Inertia + Leyline of the Void.
I was actually really surprised at the experience other judges had against aggro. Perhaps it was just chance occurrences that I didn't draw the cards necessary when facing aggro or maybe it was the aggro it was up against. Unfortunately I don't remember the exact nature of the aggro it was up against. I wasn't playing it against standard/extended aggro but pure casual aggro. That could have made the difference as well. If you have MWS I would love to play a few games with you just to see if I was doing it wrong (having said that I don't really play aggro and only actually have 1 pure aggro deck + 1 mid-range aggro). I looked over my quick notes but unfortunately didn't record what the aggro was it was against. If it makes any difference every deck but Kagouti's deck really didn't have a great answer to aggro. On paper your deck looked like it should so again maybe it was just bad luck.
Here are the quick notes:
1st Almost set up twice but was stopped each time. Ended up dying without much of an impact on the other player.
2nd Almost set up many times and established control many times. Got the opponent down to 9 health but ended up falling flat on my face. While it was a competitive game it always felt like I was struggling to survive.
3rd Was never able to set up again. Held on for some time but eventually couldn’t keep up against a nasty sliver deck.
4th Lost again to sliver deck. Held on thanks to the various discard/removal options. Still didn’t ever feel like I was going to win
5th Finally a win. Was able to keep my opponent’s hand full of junk with head games. Was facing a combo deck.
6th Another quick loss to aggro. Turn 4 loss
6th Long drawn out battle with treefolk deck went well. Was able to use head games properly for the 1st time. In the end it made no difference though and the deck lost.
7th Another drawn out battle with a treefolk deck. Established a JTMS for the first time and used it twice but was buried by a nasty combination of pump spells.
8th Another loss to mid-range aggro. Wasn’t able to accelerate fast enough to make Circu a factor.
9th This one felt like it could have been a win until the opponent quit on me. As such I’ll count it as one.
10th Loss to pure burn deck. Had absolutely nothing to stop it.
Edit: Just re-read the quick notes.. looks like you got a bonus test game as well. Two "6th game". Whoops
Congrats to you !
Not to nitpick, but my average should be 17.63...
Thanks.
Anyone else find it amusing that WingedKagouti placed 2nd although his deck was randomly chosen into the top 8? I'm not saying it was a bad deck, I just think it's a little weird that a deck which almost didn't make it into the round could have potentially won this week.
R: Copypasta Sauce {Browbeat}
UR: Mana Cache , One Spell to Bind them All {Magnetic Theft}
UG: Epic Struggle , All-In-Poison {Metamorphosis}
UW: Planar Overlay , Decree of the Bailiff {Saprazzan Bailiff}
BG: Thought Gorger , Dark Chroma {Umbra Stalker}
UBR: Dwarven Shrine
WUBRG: Dissipation Field , Maelstrom Nexus
I was actually surprised how low power some of these decks were. I really kept thinking that there must be something I was doing wrong but I feel like the meta I play in just was to powerful. Most of these decks had no answer for a deck that is lethal by the 4th-5th turn. The reason it took me so long to finish this contest is that the decks at best were very effective at stalling the game out. I must have had 5-6 games take 30min+.
Congrats to DLink. Your ability to make unique decks that still maintain a proper balance and equilibrium is amazing.
On another note with the exception of dlink I feel like this round had the closest judges scores yet. Good job judges!
The Mimeoplasm
Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Rhys the Redeemed
Merieke Ri Berit
Nekusar, the Mindrazer
Cromat Wurm Tribal
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Looking for Green friendly EDH players/groups in the Toronto area. PM me if this is you.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
I wanna say something here...
(first I don't want to single Chefstix out because I think other judges do the same, it's just his comments here that got me thinking about this...)
I've noticed that judges state that this deck went undefeated on workstation and the like, this deck went 2-8, etc.
Chefstix talks here about not putting a deck in top 8 because it was hard to judge it's "power", he also says he's facing a very powerful meta for testing our decks, that our decks need to respond to a turn 4 or 5 clock.
As for myself, I always play multiplayer in my casual and I never play on workstation and the like, the decks I build aren't meant to go against raw power. Not because I'm not good enough or too poor to compete, but by choice; that's what the format requires for success. Pure aggro decks aren't worth a damn in multiplayer and so you rarely have to face them.
Also, most times I build a deck, I have to take it down a notch before playing it so I don't become a target.
I think judges should acknowledge that difference, because I don't think playing casual circu vs legacy goblins (or any other proven duel powerhouse) is a fair test and was probably why the scores were very low this round.
What do others think about this?
I consider a mana base that uses about 50% original duals "cookie-cutter". Also, I'm not sure I fully understand the second question. Mind clarifying it for me.
@fdtori
I tried very hard to not find overpowered decks. Going lethal turn 5 isn't that bad. I avoided decks that were lethal turn 3 (aforementioned legacy goblins). Having said that I also play exclusively multiplayer IRL and I agree most of these decks would have done much better in a multiplayer format. Alas I don't exactly have the benefit of spending 9 hours with my buddies play testing these decks so MWS is my only option. Try and believe me when I said I take into account the deck power level differences when judging.
Basically I don't think that you have to design a deck that can bang with the best. I don't think for a second you should have to when building a deck think "will this survive a turn 3 onslaught". That doesn't mean you can ignore the threat of a deck that is going lethal turn 5. Especially if they combo'ed that threat out and one basic piece of proper removal could have saved the whole day. I was attacked by a 13/13 Primalcrux one game on the 5th turn and since all my counters and removal was situational I could do nothing. If I was able to remove that card since the opponent spent like 4 cards just to get 1 out of the field I would have been in a great position.
The Mimeoplasm
Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Rhys the Redeemed
Merieke Ri Berit
Nekusar, the Mindrazer
Cromat Wurm Tribal
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Looking for Green friendly EDH players/groups in the Toronto area. PM me if this is you.
I haven't been testing these vs tuned net-decks. I just play in games labeled "casual" on 'trice. Turn 5-6 fishbowl kills tend to be standard for decks not tuned to be faster, or tempo or control based. I have not been testing in multiplayer games for a number of reasons:
1. they take forever. I love multiplayer games, but I simply cannot meet the the rigorous demands of testing when 20 games with a deck takes 20 hours. When i can do 20 games in 4-6 hours, I can be much more assured of a deck's potential (I actually do between 9 and 20 games per deck, depending on the deck and whether I feel I've seen all the deck can do and possibly running a couple more if I really love the build :)).
2. Multiplayer is too dependent on politics. I don't want to be losing with a CDCC deck simply because the meta I walked into considers Top to be a threat card (you laugh, but it has happened). I simply cannot guarantee fair testing practices in multiplayer.
3. The game is drastically different in multiplayer. What a deck needs to deal with in multiplayer and how it needs to deal with it changes big time when going from 1v1 to a 4,5 or 6 player game. It is simply unfair to expect any given deck to be able to compete equally in both multiplayer and 1v1.
4. Each different type of multiplayer imposes different requirements alluded to in number 3.
5. Part of our judging criteria is the capacity and power to win. A good record in multiplayer is considered somewhere between 25% and 35% wins. How can I objectively evaluate the power to win based off a losing record? I feel like I mostly would just be giving my preferred decks good marks here rather than having empyrically justifiable scores.
6. Up till now, nobody had insinuated that their build was multiplayer specific. As I said above, it would be unfair to assume a 1v1 deck would be fine for multiplayer. Without any signally of the format, 1v1 is assumed.
I would recommend against submitting multiplayer-specific decks, I just don't see a good way to accommodate their special needs.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
I understand what you mean. I think over the years I have come to associate Casual with multiplayer and my deckbuilding has been skewed accordingly.
We all pretty much build our decks according to our meta though and again I have a feeling Power is taking center stage more this time around because that's what the judges meta is made of.
I remember that when I was judge I rarely tested the decks as thoroughly as you guys seem to be doing, mainly because in my meta power and speed were not always relevant. It was mostly about how flexible and adaptable your deck was; what synergies it could develop/protect and how it took advantage of them.
But anyway, nevermind that, there are still some rounds left and I shall yet adapt !
R: Copypasta Sauce {Browbeat}
UR: Mana Cache , One Spell to Bind them All {Magnetic Theft}
UG: Epic Struggle , All-In-Poison {Metamorphosis}
UW: Planar Overlay , Decree of the Bailiff {Saprazzan Bailiff}
BG: Thought Gorger , Dark Chroma {Umbra Stalker}
UBR: Dwarven Shrine
WUBRG: Dissipation Field , Maelstrom Nexus
I was actually really surprised at the experience other judges had against aggro. Perhaps it was just chance occurrences that I didn't draw the cards necessary when facing aggro or maybe it was the aggro it was up against. Unfortunately I don't remember the exact nature of the aggro it was up against. I wasn't playing it against standard/extended aggro but pure casual aggro. That could have made the difference as well. If you have MWS I would love to play a few games with you just to see if I was doing it wrong (having said that I don't really play aggro and only actually have 1 pure aggro deck + 1 mid-range aggro). I looked over my quick notes but unfortunately didn't record what the aggro was it was against. If it makes any difference every deck but Kagouti's deck really didn't have a great answer to aggro. On paper your deck looked like it should so again maybe it was just bad luck.
Here are the quick notes:
2nd Almost set up many times and established control many times. Got the opponent down to 9 health but ended up falling flat on my face. While it was a competitive game it always felt like I was struggling to survive.
3rd Was never able to set up again. Held on for some time but eventually couldn’t keep up against a nasty sliver deck.
4th Lost again to sliver deck. Held on thanks to the various discard/removal options. Still didn’t ever feel like I was going to win
5th Finally a win. Was able to keep my opponent’s hand full of junk with head games. Was facing a combo deck.
6th Another quick loss to aggro. Turn 4 loss
6th Long drawn out battle with treefolk deck went well. Was able to use head games properly for the 1st time. In the end it made no difference though and the deck lost.
7th Another drawn out battle with a treefolk deck. Established a JTMS for the first time and used it twice but was buried by a nasty combination of pump spells.
8th Another loss to mid-range aggro. Wasn’t able to accelerate fast enough to make Circu a factor.
9th This one felt like it could have been a win until the opponent quit on me. As such I’ll count it as one.
10th Loss to pure burn deck. Had absolutely nothing to stop it.
Edit: Just re-read the quick notes.. looks like you got a bonus test game as well. Two "6th game". Whoops
The Mimeoplasm
Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Rhys the Redeemed
Merieke Ri Berit
Nekusar, the Mindrazer
Cromat Wurm Tribal
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Looking for Green friendly EDH players/groups in the Toronto area. PM me if this is you.