No Goblins Allowed :: 3cm meta discussion

We have also established that 2/3 of the three free threads don't work and 1/3 can at best 3-3 someone.

Like...two people with different decks, or like a team submits a joint deck...

I like the first, not the second.

Teams would be stupid in a lot of formats. For example this one.

Glacial Chasm + Jinxed Choker + Mishra's Workshop

Hunted Phantasm + Black Lotus + Wasteland

a 3rd deck I haven't shared yet that counters their bad matchups while still doing well enough

^^ A team of 3 could release these three things and have a decently high score.

Basically, it would remove a ton of the risk from the game because you could release multiple really really good things and do semi-well to average vs most metas. This would be unfair to single players who wouldn't have a hedge against their one deck just stupidly bombing (like a few first round decks we can use as obvious examples).

Author:	razorborne [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:37 am ]
Post subject:	3cm meta discussion
for discussion of ongoing rounds' metas, to avoid clogging the main thread.

Author:	mjack33 [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
So far, for round 4, we have: Jinxed Choker + Glacial chasm + Mishra's Workshop Ensnaring Bridge + forbidden orchard + black lotus hunted phantasm + black lotus + some control land We have also established that 2/3 of the three free threads don't work and 1/3 can at best 3-3 someone.

Author:	masterofdoom [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
I'm playing the dumb deck with that 1r 3/4 because it is the silliest.

Author:	POSValkir [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
I never really had a problem with Bridge, its a bit annoying to work around, but thats part of the game. Tabernacle is the real card I hate. But in this format it's particularly funny. Specially against your Phantasm deck. Ajani is pretty strong against a lot of stuff here too since his abilities are extremely relevant.

Author:	thatmarkguy [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
mjack33 wrote: We have also established that 2/3 of the three free threads don't work and 1/3 can at best 3-3 someone. Actually, while ChancellorBlast can't win on the draw, it can tie. So the deck can 4-1; it can't 6-0. Simian Spirit Guide / Artifact Blast / Chancellor of the Forge vs Black Lotus / Black Lotus / Frost Titan is a 4-1 for the Blast deck (in this "All permanents have Moroii" format). On the play, Blast reveals Chancellor pregame, plays out the hasty token that doesn't ping the first upkeep (because it enters play during the upkeep) and it deals its 20th damage to the oppoonent the same turn it causes the 19th lifeloss to its owner. Blasts a Lotus when one gets played and Titan never lands. 3-0 On the draw, Blast deck doesn't reveal chancellor at all (if it did, it would cause 20 lifeloss to player before 20 damage to opponent). But would still blast the first lotus. 1-1. 3-0 + 1-1 = 4-1.

No Goblins Allowed http://862838.jrbdt8wd.asia/

3cm meta discussion http://862838.jrbdt8wd.asia/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8301	Page 1 of 42

Author:	Rush_Clasic [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
Because it's like trying to break the metagame of a tournament. Really, what we need is team 3CM. Who wants to try team 3CM?

Author:	POSValkir [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
I see it that way too, its no different than asking why we have a constructed thread... Like...two people with different decks, or like a team submits a joint deck... I like the first, not the second.

Author:	POSValkir [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
I definitely see that issue when discussing specific cards and decks in Vanilla. Although its more like discussing what the best Rock, best Paper, and Best Scissors in, with a little bit of the subtle manipulation you can throw into the beginning of a regular RPS game to influence the outcome in your favor.

Author:	Rush_Clasic [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
POSValkir wrote: Like...two people with different decks, or like a team submits a joint deck... I like the first, not the second. Probably run some team unified variation. Either no card (other than basic land) may be in multiple decks for one team, or no card (other than basic land) may show up more than twice across all decks per team. Then you take team cumulative scores, having them not face each other. Probably do 3 person teams. 2 if there aren't enough players. The idea would be to discuss what the likely 3 deck constructions would have to be, then find ways to weasel points out of what's forced upon players.

Author:	POSValkir [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
As far as I can tell, this game is about weaseling points anyways. The easier it is to obfuscate that math, the more frustrating/rewarding it becomes. A delicate balance seems necessary and I think 3 people seems too many. 2 is nice. Much more predictable, but with just enough variance to encourage rather than discourage. I see another problem in team selection, should probably be random.

Author:	mjack33 [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
I think it's a lot more fun to discuss things prior to the decks coming out then the day afterwards when everyone has lost all interest . I also think it makes the average deck quality a lot better. Teams would be stupid in a lot of formats. For example this one. Glacial Chasm + Jinxed Choker + Mishra's Workshop Hunted Phantasm + Black Lotus + Wasteland a 3rd deck I haven't shared yet that counters their bad matchups while still doing well enough ^^ A team of 3 could release these three things and have a decently high score. Basically, it would remove a ton of the risk from the game because you could release multiple really really good things and do semi-well to average vs most metas. This would be unfair to single players who wouldn't have a hedge against their one deck just stupidly bombing (like a few first round decks we can use as obvious examples).

Author:	POSValkir [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
The missing deck is paper...and I havent found it yet...Phantasm may be too good for this round... Edit: Oh wait...no, I think I did...

Author:	mjack33 [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
That might end up being my deck tbh. I haven't found a better one yet . Edit: Disclaimer: Jack can and will lie about what deck he is going to run.

Author:	POSValkir [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
I didn't even notice the subtle "I found it" part of your comparison lol...my bad.

Page 1 of 42	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Rush_Clasic [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
mjack33 wrote: Teams would be stupid in a lot of formats. For example this one. Glacial Chasm + Jinxed Choker + Mishra's Workshop Hunted Phantasm + Black Lotus + Wasteland a 3rd deck I haven't shared yet that counters their bad matchups while still doing well enough ^^ A team of 3 could release these three things and have a decently high score. Only if they judge the format correctly. If as a team you hedge, you're likely to hit a middle-ground that doesn't have the possibility for quality wins. Team formats with collective scores naturally push scores toward the middle, which makes meta-gaming that much more important. Also, a team format gives you a natural way to talk about formats with another person without your research getting used by the public at large. mjack33 wrote: Basically, it would remove a ton of the risk from the game because you could release multiple really really good things and do semi-well to average vs most metas. This would be unfair to single players who wouldn't have a hedge against their one deck just stupidly bombing (like a few first round decks we can use as obvious examples). There's not a ton of risk in the game as is. People tend to (a) run something familiar, (b) run something clever, or (c) run something that's winning their perceived meta-game. There isn't a lot of leveraging beyond that. Yes, the scores will tend to average out more, but again, this format puts a higher premium on being able to properly find the good decks and meta-game accordingly. There wouldn't be single-players; everyone would be part of a team. @POSV: Two players is probably much better, if for no other reason than making communication easier. It could also be run as a single tournament where everyone gets to play with every other person at least once.

Author:	mjack33 [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
BTW, for anyone who wants a free colorless mana without paying the life cost, sheltered valley might be a good tech . Like in a manland deck or something.

Author:	POSValkir [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
Ha! I was looking at Undiscovered Paradise along those lines, didnt even see that one. Edit: I was trying to build a Serra Ascendant deck to really mess with the meta, but I just don't think its possible Edit 2: Also, if someone can make Transcendence not lose or 2/2 this round...you are the best ever.

Author:	mjack33 [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
Transcendence says that any life lost or damage taken sends you up in life totals and not down. There is no way to even 2/2 with it. You are just going to smack dab hit 20+ life and lose the game.

Author:	POSValkir [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
Its all about timing...the problem is the cost. It's probably doable in 4CM...but it's just too expensive to use here, you can't get the support card you need to threaten while you wait for the play... Kinda seems dumb the card costs 6 when without a Erebos, God of the Dead type card it basically reads "gain 10 life". Bah, Erebos...whatever, a card that prevents you or everyone from gaining life.

Author:	mjack33 [ Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 3cm meta discussion
Hmm.... you could technically use something like necropotence to get around said effect. That being said, yeah it's a 6cmc card. I don't even know what you would do in an ult format. That isn't just negated by doing some bridge thing better.