I take it back. This format is awful.

Evil Presence can't really be a consideration in a world with Moxes and Lotus and no Artifact Blast... can it?

I mean, I'm sure some decks will run dual lands (not Volcanic Island though, lol!) but so many decks will be running landless I can't imagine Evil Presence being worth the cardslot.

I...can't find any non-creature threats...and any pumpable creatures can't beat themselves...but looking again, you're right. I forgot Mana/Threat/Threat can use Lotus to put 3CMC worth of creatures on the field...so there's one deck that 6-0's it.

I already assumed I knew the deck Door was talking about, but couldn't find the deck that 6-0'd it...so this is strong evidence to support my suspicions .

Although now I'm curious about Evil Presence...I can't really find anything to do with it...

As Mark said...in reality I can't even find a deck that cares about Duals...

Edit: I *think* I found the deck you're talking about Mown...but that 2-2's the deck I'm thinking of.

Realistically, no, there is absolutely no reason for playing Evil Presence, which is why I don't mind mentioning it. It is, however, a reason you can't make a deck that ties with everything.

Even if you Evil Presence a dual land, all the 1-drops die to each other, so you could just as well play removal instead.

The elephant in the room, Lotus/Lotus/Threat, is only 6-0'd by Dual/Threat/Removal, which could probably be considered 1 deck. Although in my metagame of now 8 decks(!), I can't find a single one that is 6-0'd by only one unique deck.

Yeah, the elephant was the other deck I thought Door might be talking about...although I don't know why you're using Dual over Basic or Mox in your counter deck...

I think this round really needs a 4th card ...it seems TOO much downside. With a 4th card the potential threat field opens up quite a bit but is still horribly stunted.

At the end of the day it seems all about how many people play elephant.

Edit: Although technically there is one LLF deck that 2-2's elephant...so I guess they are interchangeable at least.

Your choice of mana source is effectively irrelevant.

Every LLF deck 2-2's itself, although the two most obvious contenders 3-3 each other, which is the only reason I can find for why you would want to choose it instead of the optimal LLF deck.

Why would anyone play War Mammoth

Cause its cute

Hmm, I guess there is one that 3-3's the other...so there are three different LLF decks that are viable choices...none of which are any more/less vulnerable to the rest of the field. That's the thing about this round. The individual cards in the archetype don't seem to matter in a substantial way...just the archetypes.

Edit: Well actually, the non-elephant LLF's actually 2-2 my fun deck...so there's that.

The one that has the higher power has two relevant vulnerabilities against the field that the other two do not.

The one that has the lower toughness loses head to head against the one that doesn't. Which is reason enough alone to eliminate that one from consideration, all else being extremely close to equal.

It has one relevant ability...because if it's removed, you lose anyway. That ability is only relevant against...nothing it doesn't beat anyway . There is only one creature that actually kills it (that isn't itself)...it's only relevant against one creature in the whole format.

Edit: Just saw your edit...damage from the third card is irrelevant. It wins ties up any combat situation...

Edit 2: This is so friggin cryptic...I think you're thinking of a fourth card?

I only know of two LLF decks, I don't know what the third viable threat would be.
Anyway, I do believe the format has actual depth, but it relies on people not playing LLF.

I'm running LLF lmao

This meta is such a crap-shoot of "How many people got to level 12 of preparation rather than level 11?"

I hope Lotus/Lotus/Fattie wins because everyone went too deep.

do you hate fun or something

both of you

oh wait, I forgot it was a tie between this format and gauntlet. nevermind

lol, screw it...I'm playing my fun deck!

Isn't that always the case? LLF won the past two vanillas because of that.

Level 1: I should play LLF!
Level 2: People are going to expect people to play LLF so I'm going to play Channex/Foil/ArtiBlast!
Level 3: People are going to expect Channex/Foil/Artiblast so I should play a deck that's immune to them!
Level 4: People are going to be playing decks strong against Channex that would get rocked by LLF, I should play LLF!
Level 5: People are going to expect people to play LLF so I'm going to play Channex/Foil/ArtiBlast!
Level 6: People are going to expect Channex/Foil/Artiblast so I should play a deck that's immune to them!
Level 7: People are going to be playing decks strong against Channex that would get rocked by LLF, I should play LLF!
Level 8: People are going to expect people to play LLF so I'm going to play Channex/Foil/ArtiBlast!
Level 9: People are going to expect Channex/Foil/Artiblast so I should play a deck that's immune to them!
Level 10: People are going to be playing decks strong against Channex that would get rocked by LLF, I should play LLF!
Level 11: People are going to expect people to play LLF so I'm going to play Channex/Foil/ArtiBlast!

The people who went to level 12 lost, because they were beaten by the people who either stopped at 10, or plowed on through to 13, and hardly anyone actually stopped at level 11 (if they did, 10/13 wouldn't have won).

Okay, my mind keeps changing on this format. Let's just say I'm a gun-jumper and I'm completely unprepared. I've done this a million times; how can I so easily fall into the familiar doomsaying trap? (Note: The format is still absurdly tight, but there's room for interesting maneuvering.)

Personal Incarnation is better than Djinn for one specific scenario.

No. Not Pyroblast either. I mean a realistic, but unlikely scenario.
Which I've more or less already mentioned.