I can't believe I didn't remember Walker, although it's just as vulnerable to Daze and doesn't pump each token that comes out, but makes it far better in the event of trade wars. I think Overseer is by far the best of the three, but I can see an argument between Walker and Chrono thanks to Daze/Thalia type things.

Edit: Actually, I'm glad I didn't remember Walker, cause it loses to Shoal...

Also, if someone want to map out the Walker deck vs me, I'd be happy to let you...I think I 6-0 it, but it might be 3-3 or 2-2...or 4-1? Pretty sure I win on the draw...

Walker beats shoal. While a spell with x in the cost is on the stack, its cmc is based on the chosen x. So once it leaves your hand it has cmc 2 and steps past shoal no problem.

O ya, forgot that the thopters are artifact creatures as well, was just thinking of Overseer as free-pumping itself, not the whole swarm.


Already covered but I typed it out before the new-post summary so dammit I ain't deleting it: (Walker wouldn't lose to Shoal. While it's on the stack, the Walker spell's CMC is defined by the chosen value of X (it's only once it's a permanent on the battlefield, or a card in any other zone, that "X" is assumed 0). So if X was 1, its CMC on the stack would be 2.)

Well that's a good thing to know...

Also, I can't believe I fared this well with my deck in a high powered Lotus round...

dodging the anti-lotus decks was worth a bunch of points on its own

I don't have time to go through 2v6 right now, but here's my crack at 2v8.

If you go first, you +1 Vraska until she ults. I don't have time to get three blockers before you do so, so I lose.

If I go first, I do have time to make my first Hangarback Walker a 2/2, then swing it into Vraska to get two Thopters. At this point, if you ult from 7, the game will stall until my second Hangarback Walker is big enough to win. So you have to get to 8 loyalty.



You do have your -3 ability, but I'm pretty sure if you use that at any point in the above scenario, Vraska gets killed by Thopters and I win.

So I'm gonna call it a 3-3.

New Round: Vanilla Redux
Begins Friday, October 7th
Ends Wednesday, October 12th

Ok, as far as 2v6. I think its 2-2. As far as I can tell, I have no profitable attacks vs. Jim unless Jim does something stupid...which he can't . Jim has only one profitable attack plan vs me, which is to pressure with only one Walker while pumping the other.

If I ever attack, Jim gets a flying swarm I can't race.
If Jim ever double attacks and it's less than lethal, I let it through and swing back, eventually winning the race thanks to chumpers.
If Jim ever double attacks and its lethal, I chump and still win the race thanks to swarms.
If Jim never attacks, my swarm is eventually lethal.

If Jim pumps one, and attacks with a second...
If I kill the attacking one, there are multiple avenues...but if Jim plays the most efficient route, Jim wins.
If I chump with a token, we are in a neutral position. We each only get a +1/+1 counter per turn. I haven't hit every price point here, but it seems like I'd have the advantage since my counter attacks would deal equivalent damage and I'll still have enough chumpers to kill in time.

Therefore, I believe the game remains in a neutral position of Jim attacking with a Walker every turn, me chumping every turn and passing.

I agree.

There's a poll up! Time to vote!

Vanilla Results

Consolation Prize: mark777 (after random tiebreaker with Golgari_Spy) (City of Traitors or Hangarback Walker)
Pick one nonbasic card to ban from a deck that placed 1st this round. Your deadline is the end of Round 3 submissions.

Winner: CommanderJim
You may each suggest a new alternate format to be added to next season's poll.

thalia, you let me down

twice

One day left to submit Vanilla Redux decks!

I'm not sure what to think about the current meta. This was the first Lotus round I played, and was therefore interesting for me. But I don't think I like it, now that it's (almost) over. I'm almost tempted to submit a lose-all deck, just to be able to ban the thing again. But it would need to win the round ...

The decks fall into two categories: Lotus eaters, and Lotus haters. And that is not good, makes it a much less creative, and much more a guessing environment. To be fair, that's true of non-Lotus rounds too, but there you have a wider variety of known decks to worry about; here, you just need to take the stand on the one card.

I think we should just ban it again, regardless of the prize bans. City is fine, but IMO Lotus is not. But of course I will listen if anybody tries to convince me otherwise.

I think last round demonstrated that the lotus eater play was a bad play and it isn't about to get any better. This round was the round that it might have had surprise value, and even here it stumbled. There's just too many other decent lotusless plays that its winrate is never going to be good enough.

I, for one, submitted my anti-lotus deck last round because I ran out of planning time and fell back on a lazy play that I was hoping would strike lucky and expected to strike 50%, but didn't even do that (damn you Gutshot).

It's an age old argument whose only answer is: any meta is about playing the biggest threat or countering the biggest threat. If you don't like lotus, that's fine...but I personally don't see it as anything more than an enabler that expands deck options. So when you don't have a lotus round the question is "play Mayor or play anti-Mayor" and when you have a lotus round the question is "play lotus or play anti-lotus".

Really though, in any meta, there is a third option...like what Jim and I played last round. Neither of us played anti-lotus and neither of us played lotus.

I guess the question is, how many level one decks are available? Or in this particular case, can a deck that is neither a Lotus eater or a Lotus hater compete?

Ideally, you keep on banning things until there is no clear dominant choice. Here, this is even more important, since there is no randomness in game play. So all your decisions boil down to guessing the metagame.

Vraska is probably the best thing you can do with two Loti. Spy has the best anti-Lotus deck, which, ironically, plays Lotus. You and Jim did well because everybody else was in the Lotus-anti Lotus vortex.

I just don't know. It's my gut feeling that banning the Lotus would make for a more diverse metagame. But if the others are fine with it, I won't insist. I guess what I would like to see is a format where new editions would present some interesting new decks. Maybe, instead of vanilla-vanilla redux we could go for a Vintage-Modern kind of split? A round of Vintage 3cm, followed by a round of Standard 3cm?

There have been diverse metas with Lotus and non-diverse metas...same as when lotus is banned. I used to argue that banning cards which are overpowered with lotus is more format diversifying than simply banning lotus, but I've come to believe that's a naive opinion too.

I think diversity relies more on the number and personality of the players in the game than the available card pool. For the most part you're either playing for fun or playing to win. If everyone is playing to win, the format won't be very diverse since the decks will be, at best, slight twists on known powerhouses...if people are playing for fun, you'll have some interesting concoctions. Additionally, the more players there are, the less you are punished for having an off-path choice.

The best choice with dual lotus is Dragon Broodmother since Grave Titan is banned. It wins fastest and is resistant to removal. Vraska beats it, but Vraska loses to several decks Broodmother doesnt.

Turn 1 discard is often a good choice in lotus rounds too since it definitely 3-3's while catching a lot of the format off guard.

I kind of switch between playing for fun and playing to win. But more often than not I'm playing for fun. Especially in the formats we vote for. I have a lot of decks in a text file that are meant for Vanilla 3CM and are built for fun, but I don't bother running them because I know they won't do well against the typical array of decks that show up.

The one I think looks like the most fun is:

Pendelhaven
Rakdos Carnarium
Scythe Leopard

But I haven't run it because there's almost always a token deck that can outrace it or a method for killing the Leopard before I can make any significant use of it. Discard kills the deck, too.

If you run Undiscovered Paradise you can have a 1cmc disruption card in there as well. Might actually make it competitive.

Fun is good and all, but I don't really even see the fun in .. a 3/4 creature?