| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Once you've registered and completed email validation, you'll need to reply to the thread in The Welcome mat before you gain full access to the site. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Baltimore Banning Poll | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 14 2013, 01:55 PM (1,688 Views) | |
| BerserkerBob | May 28 2013, 02:59 PM Post #46 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I voted against the ban. Most legend decks that are weak to Omni already run Have a Blast!/Death of the Dream/Reality Gem. It didn't hurt the decks to run them, and even if the opponent doesn't run Omni, the cards were used on annoying locations and on-goings. They will still probably run one of those cards regardless of the Omni ban or not. Pathetic is the card that saves us from burn decks. It is incredibly easy to make a working burn deck in this format. To make matters worse, there is no definite burn card to count on seeing, so it's impossible to come up with a non-pathetic attempt hard counter to burn. It would be terribly boring if everyone just ran a burn deck, but i wouldn't blame people for wanting an easy win since PA would be ban. There is no way I could find a tournament like that enjoyable and it would be a waste of my time and money. |
![]() |
|
| minivan987 | May 28 2013, 05:17 PM Post #47 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The poll results started off 7 vs 2 in favor of banning and then things got weird and now we apparently have 18 people having voted and we don't even know how many people of that 18 were actually going to show up in the first place since we only had 11 people vote in the "what format?" thread... So that's kind of how we got to this point. |
![]() |
|
| SuperAzn | May 28 2013, 05:28 PM Post #48 |
Elite Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One person said they're not showing if the cards are banned, seems like that opinion should out weigh everyone's personal wants. Anyone else coming or not depending on if the are legal or not??? And again if I could I'd change my vote to no don't ban so actually it should be 10-8 in favor of no ban... As a titans player, losing to or having plans ruined because of one of those cards is something I'm familiar with... Edited by SuperAzn, May 28 2013, 05:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| blues686 | May 28 2013, 06:45 PM Post #49 |
Elite Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The people that recently voted are from my play group that dont go on these forums much. I brought it to their attention to vote since they plan on going |
![]() |
|
| blues686 | May 28 2013, 06:49 PM Post #50 |
Elite Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Nazrat | May 31 2013, 01:38 PM Post #51 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Decision has been made. I sincerely hope that everyone still comes out. I am banning Omnipotence, but leaving Pathetic Attempt alone. Having Omnipotence in a format that revolves around "Legends" FORCES every deck to either play Omnipotence, resource row hate, or both. And when a single card forces you to play it or a dedicated card to stop it, it becomes detrimental to the format and deck building. Also, on a side note, I had to push the tournament back 2 weeks due to the M:tG PreRelease and Release. For all information and discussion moving forward involving this tournament, please discuss in the main thread. Thanks! |
![]() |
|
| SuperAzn | May 31 2013, 07:23 PM Post #52 |
Elite Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I suggested this as the first post in the original Baltimore thread but you wanted to ban both and now you choose to just go the route of 1. I'm still gonna come but i feel like you did a lot of asking about something we didn't really end up getting a say in. |
![]() |
|
| OMB | May 31 2013, 08:00 PM Post #53 |
|
Elite Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think your post was half the reason there was a discussion in the first place. As it stands the voting is 50/50 (though I know you said you probably would have changed your vote) so any decision it going to cause some disagreement. Ultimately, this discussion wasn't necessarily graceful, but I think it was fruitful in that it probably resulted in the best outcome. Omni can easily shut down a number of decks in the format and while decks that typically operate around a legend or two run answers to Omni these are not typical decks. I can't speak for everyone, but pretty much everything I've built ends up running at least 2-4 cards that would not be in my deck were I not required to have 12 cards for each legend. These are the slots I would fill with tech/hate, but because of the requirements they need to be filled with less optimal choices. As Nazrat said the power of Omni in this format would pretty much dictate that Omni, hate, or both would need to be run to be competitive and that's not a very fun environment. As for PA, numerous people expressed concern over the possible dominance of burn and control decks in the format (there have been a number of both at the other tournaments). These concerns resulted in PA being left alone so that in the absence of Omni's more permanent shutdown players will have one-shot answers for powerful burn/legend effects. Obviously the entire point of opening the floor on this issue was to try and have a better tournament experience and not to alienate any players. Hopefully everyone will still come as there has been a decent amount of interest expressed in this tourney after a bit of a down turnout in NYC. Just my two cents. |
![]() |
|
| SuperAzn | May 31 2013, 11:16 PM Post #54 |
Elite Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
While it is the best outcome, I just don't understand what the big fuss over banning not 1 but both was, to in the end ask what to do, and then to just decide its gonna be X way anyway. The end result isn't even what we voted on... |
![]() |
|
| Drstrange | Jun 1 2013, 01:43 PM Post #55 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Guess that is the reason why there was asked to voice your opinion too? 1 person came up with an idea, that seems pretty legit because this whole forum is full of crap about omni and PA and they always get named together. So the idea to name them both at the same time to ban or not seems like a logical decision. Now he asked to voice/write down your choices to get real input on the issue... and in hindsight sees that maybe the poll should've been: Ban both Ban PA Ban Omni Ban neither But maybe he didnt come up with that in the start? thats where the input is for, I dont get the fuzz you guys are giving nazrat for trying... not getting what you voted on? The votes are devided as hell.. so nothing actually can/could be decided on them. Personally I didnt vote, for obvious reasons of never being able to get there :P but I can see Omni being a bitch in a format where you practically know 50% of someones deck from turn 1. If burn is indeed a big issue as to what has been voiced as an issue by allot, then I think the choice to ban Omni but not PA seems like a good choice to me. From reading this threat I get that the votes are dead even on banning (from the choices given). But the elaborations on the votes are mostly "Don't ban because of burn" or "Ban because of easy shutdown by Omni". So what excactly is wrong or "just decide its gonna be X way anyway" by Nazrat? Seems to me he read all you guys gave and looked at the voting results and imo couldnt make any better decision based upon that. Edited by Drstrange, Jun 1 2013, 01:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nazrat | Jun 1 2013, 04:34 PM Post #56 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Again, please.. For all information and discussion moving forward involving this tournament, please discuss in the main thread. Thanks |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Vs. System Organised Play · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





2:28 PM Jul 11