|
Post by grumpyoldgamer on Oct 20, 2011 17:45:46 GMT -5
A topic the guys talked about a bit in the last episode. Currently we have Cranial Plating and Frantic Search, which are definitely problematic cards. The big question however, is: Is it enough?
Personally, I think that it's not. I don't think that the classic metagame is healthy, not with Infect and Storm running amok and warping the format. Sure other decks do get good results occasionally, like UR Post or Goblins or Mono Black, but not on the same level as the former.
In my opinion, the format could probably benefit for not having to deal with the following three cards:
- Glistener Elf - Basically a two-Power attacker for 1cmc with no drawback, this should probably have been an Uncommon in the first place. It is not overpowered, but it does make the Infect deck a turn too-fast for most other decks in the format.
- Invigorate - This is Pauper’s Blazing Shoal. Like Blazing Shoal, it’s a card which is virtually unplayed in any deck except one where it allows for turn-two kills. It’s not too good, it’s just too fast.
- Lotus Petal - As a simple mana fixer, this is fine. However, it's usually more than that. It's a free Storm count for ritual-based Storm decks, which can also accelerate them into a potential turn-one kill. It can also hasten the Infect deck in a fashion similar to Glistener Elf.
Thoughts? Opinions?
|
|
|
Post by yugular on Oct 20, 2011 18:18:30 GMT -5
I don't agree on Glistener Elf, and I am unsure on Lotus Petal.
While Glistener Elf is fast, its not unfair and it is relatively easy to answer - as most decks want to have removal anyways. Invigorate is the problematic card, as it is free 4 poison counters. Infect deck without Invigorate is already a turn slower, if both cards are taken out the deck would suffer too much!
Lotus Petal on the other hand is just mana fixing and ramp. It doesn't win games on its own or even fetch cards that win the games. Granted it is very efficient, but not a card that pushes any deck over the edge. Storm is a strong deck, but maybe ban something else? I don't know if banning Lotus Petal makes a huge difference in the end.
|
|
|
Post by RockBass on Oct 20, 2011 21:40:23 GMT -5
This is a really tough one for me, because I don't like the idea of banning too many cards.
Invigorate has to go. Infect is too fast with it, and it doesn't have the randomness that makes other combo type decks fizzle on their own. A deck like Infect needs to be risk/reward, and the risk isn't there.
I think banning Glistener Elf would be too much for the deck to recover, so it should probably stay for now.
Regarding Storm, another piece of the puzzle needs to go, but I don't think it should necessarily be Lotus Petal. I wonder if it should be a card like Impulse or Manamorphose......
|
|
|
Post by grumpyoldgamer on Oct 21, 2011 17:01:13 GMT -5
My argument on Glistener Elf is that it’s too fast a creature in the context where it’s most commonly used.
Look at it this way: The Infect deck seek to play a creature on turn one, whether a Glistener Elf or a 2cmc creature thanks to Lotus Petal, and end the game on turn two with a flurry of pump spells. From that perspective, it’s a combo deck and not an aggro deck as it should likely be. Without Glistener Elf (and even more so if Lotus Petal is banned too), the combo becomes less reliable and the deck has to use an alternate plan to win. It reverts back to an aggro deck, a fast and powerful one for sure, but one which other deck can interact with.
Also to consider, is the fact that banning Glistener Elf allows for other Infect strategies to be developed. Right now, as far as Infect goes, there are no reasons to play anything else but Mono Green Infect. It’s by far the most efficient and effective build. Without the possibility of a turn-two kill however, it make sense to start considering other options, adding other colors to the mix for various and unique effects. Glistener Elf is not only a problem because it allows a player to kill an opponent too quickly, it also strangle the possibility of other viable builds and strategies with Infect.
On Lotus Petal: Let’s be honest here: there are few good reasons to use the Petal as a mana fixer. There are far better options than it, the Karoo Lands being only one example. For those who played the game when Lotus Petal was Block and Standard legal, you’ll remember what it was used for: a Mox-type effect used to gain an unfair advantage on your opponent. There’s a reason why the card was banned in so many formats over the years, and it’s certainly not because of its ability to fix mana.
Right now, Lotus Petal is used in Storm decks and in Infect decks to do exactly what it’s infamously known for: it allows these decks to do what they do best a turn too early.
|
|
|
Post by nyukon on Oct 24, 2011 18:39:26 GMT -5
Gonna have to agree with Chris if you start banning to many cards it could potentially kill the format Invigorate does have to go though but Glistner elf and Lotus petal aren't that bad yes Lotus petal does get abused in storm but where does the banning end if you ban lotus petal than later other stuff like chromatic star and sphere get banned and than the next card that a good player abuses gets banned than be fore you know it there is nothing left. Glistner elf without invigorate is not bad and it's a creature it's easy enough to kill minus the invigorate.
|
|
|
Post by yugular on Oct 25, 2011 1:23:29 GMT -5
Grumpy's point on the uses of Lotus Petal is pretty accurate, still I am unsure if it deserves to be banned though. Playing Lotus Petal often means that the player is putting all his eggs into one keg. If the opponent can crush that keg the player will lose a lot of resources in a one hit. I mean it has it's drawback too. Although I must also say that there aren't that many spells that can interact during the first two turns.
|
|
|
Post by RockBass on Oct 25, 2011 9:25:44 GMT -5
I'm warming up to the ban on Lotus Petal.
I feel that banning a card needs to affect the metagame as a whole, in a sense. When Jace was banned, it affected not only the premier deck in Standard, but all decks planning on running blue.
Banning Lotus Petal will affect the Infect (poet) most of all, but it will also help to slow down the "God Hands" that Affinity and Storm sometimes get from running it.
Invigorate would be most missed in Infect, for sure. But it will also affect any decks running green.
|
|
bobblyigg
New Member
I've got a raging Brainstorm and I'm not afraid to use it
Posts: 47
|
Post by bobblyigg on Oct 26, 2011 20:47:38 GMT -5
I think you are thinking about banning cards in the wrong way. Do Affinity and Storm need to be weakened? Not really. Is Infect too strong? Probably. Will banning Invigorate affect any deck other than Infect? Not in the slightest. You show me a non-Infect green deck that plays Invigorate and I'll show you a terrible green deck.
Without the god draws that Lotus Petals give Affinity and Storm the decks would be a lot less playable in tournaments. You don't see them that often at the top of the standings because of their inconsistencies (and also because they are easy to sideboard against). The coin flip aspect gives them a chance against decks that sacrifice power for consistency.
|
|
|
Post by gabochido on Nov 22, 2011 11:06:28 GMT -5
I agree that infect and storm are the most uninteractive decks to play against and that getting rid of them would make pauper a better format. However, if you look at the dailies, the top decks are quite varied even without any bannings, so I would think any bannings would have to be very subtle.
I would go for glistener elf and invigorate. I've been beaten by infect decks just running a blight mamba and a rancor but that actually felt fair. Being beaten turn 2 by a glistener elf does not feel fair. Removing the elf gets rid of the possibility of a turn 2 kill and gives most decks more of a chance to react.
Invigorate is also a patently unfair card that wasn't designed with the infect mechanic in mind. Even mutagenic growth feels fair in its effect and cost compared to this. Removing Invigorate from the pool would force the infect strategy to have a better mid range plan than just play a creature and attack once, which would in turn make for a more interactive game against most decks.
I'm not sure what the best way to bring down the power of goblin or grapeshot based storm decks without totally crippling them (by banning the actual storm cards). I guess lotus petal is one possibility though I'm not sure it would make that much of a difference and I'd rather they didn't because I just bought a playset!
|
|
|
Post by yugular on Dec 15, 2011 4:38:19 GMT -5
New banlist coming up in 20th of Dec. Please someone remind me to update the official banlist topic after that! Although I doubt they ban anything...
|
|
|
Post by nyukon on Dec 16, 2011 19:38:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dougbiss on Jan 5, 2012 13:54:12 GMT -5
Time to get this topic going again... In the latest episode (#39) Mikey made his case for banning COP:Black. Even though he's obviously wrong, is there anyone else who thinks that? (I only post this because he seems to enjoy getting pissed off soooo much!) As for the rest of the discussion, I don't think Infect in its current state is that broken. Why isn't it dominating the Daily Events if it's so busted? From December 5th to December 14th there were 33 pauper Infect decks that went 3-1 or better in the Daily Events. This is out of over 400 decks. Affinity (39), WW (52), Goblins (47) and MUC (45) all had more top finishes than Infect did. If you combine all the versions of Storm into a generic Storm type, it had 57 wins, although no individual version reached 20 wins. Where's the "broken" in those numbers? That's a pretty healthy looking cross section if you ask me. I can see wanting to hurt the current Infect archetype because it goes against the spirit of the game, one player winning without the other being involved at all. This would be the same reason to do it to Storm, and the same reason they did it to the good old T1 Channel/Fireball in the very first days of the game. No one likes to lose without playing. But the numbers don't suggest that either of these archetypes need to be addressed with bannings based on their win rates.
|
|
|
Post by yugular on Jan 5, 2012 18:16:07 GMT -5
Yeah I don't see any bans coming. Though the idea of banning Cloudpost/Glimmerpost isn't too bad, it would be fun to see the format without that combo.
I don't even comment on CoP:B
|
|
|
Post by grumpyoldgamer on Jan 5, 2012 18:49:22 GMT -5
Yeah, Cloudpost and Glimmerpost are fine. If you want crazy life gain in Pauper, play Martyr of Sands.
|
|
|
Post by RockBass on Jan 6, 2012 0:54:02 GMT -5
If we banned everything Mike disliked there wouldn't be a planet, let alone certain Magic cards...
|
|