Chicago Recap and the Ban Discussion - Enter The Labyrinth #7
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- Team Labyrinth had a blast in Chicago! Listen as we discuss how we did at the event and how we arrived at the decks we played. We also touch on the changes to playing Lorcana online with the end of Pixelborn. Then we get into the hard discussion of whether or not we would ban any cards in the current format.
Sorry this episode is late! It was recorded last week, but Bannibal was on family vacation and couldn't edit it. Some of the topics aren't as timely as we might like them to be, but we hope it's enjoyable and informative nonetheless.
Support the team on Patreon:
/ posts
Follow us on Twitter:
@LabyrinthTCG
@LukevVonderland
@BannibalHarca
@Humble4538
@LorcanaBro
Decks Discussed in this episode:
Humble's Ruby Sapphire
dreamborn.ink/decks/gTofvodVi...
LorcanaBro's Ruby Sapphire:
dreamborn.ink/decks/loTOPeNEL...
vVonderland's Emerald Steel:
dreamborn.ink/decks/KdWSxPrW0...
Bannibal Harca's Sapphire Steel:
dreamborn.ink/decks/SLrtLvAGI...
Timestamps:
DLC Chicago: (0:00)
Humble and LorcanaBro in top 64: (38:20)
How are we going to play without Pixelborn: (42:48)
Ban discussion: (52:58)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 72 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องศึก vs โจอาคิม"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hT1EOSsRPac/mqdefault.jpg)
I agree with Humble. Disney didn't have a problem with Pixelborn - they had a problem with Thea, Manticxre, Mishi cash events. Since Disney did not have a way to stop them directly, Disney opted to remove the vehicle that they used to run hold cash events.
Great pod. Side note - Best tip for TTS, change your rotation degrees from default 15 to 90!
That’s just such a fixed mindset to think that the games you didn’t win were unwinnable. I don’t even care if that actually is true (unlikely) - just the way you said it and the saltiness in your voice speaks volumes. Your hard brag about how good you were on day two was even more over the top. I’m not sure if you wanted to sound like that but it sure came across that way. I would have loved to play you in my pod… and been gracious in victory or defeat.
The guy who WAS kind and gracious was vVonderland even though things didn’t go his way. It was great to talk to him on a break and he was a good ambassador for your team.
It was great seeing you all at Chicago! I gave Bannibal an awkward fist bump later in the day, thanks for being cool 😅 I was win and in from Round 6 on and unfortunately dropped a game in round 8. Wasn’t sure on the whole asking for a concession discussion so erred on the side of caution but still had a great time! Thanks for all the discussion and hope to see the team in Vegas!
The problem with Bucky is it prevents decks from even being played. That's a huge problem if one card prevents color combos and forces steel or red to be in everything
without bucy we will have only red meta
@@lemonparadise4937 absolutely not. I played blue purple in set 3 and absolutely feasted on Ruby am. Green purple can take red blue. But we are prevented from playing certain decks because one card we can't interact with. I think you'd see a more balanced meta and new decks without Bucky
@@Marredplatypus its cool that you Play something and you won im set 3. But we are in set 4 and things changed, purple Red, Red blue and steel blue new Toys and green have only diablo and bucky to try to compete with that. Even 3 cost Ursula is unplayable now since Red can remove IT in turn 3 with brawl
Without bucky green emerald is a tier d deck
Chicago had zero multiplayer events as they all got canceled. They did add $10 on demand constructed events midway through Sunday due to demand. all of the contracted scheduled side events for Saturday and Sunday went on sale on Friday and sold out so unfortunately even dropping round 1 of day 1 wouldn't have helped anyone get into those events.
also dont need to ban stuff yet everyone wanted to ban awnw and be prepared every cycle will have a good deck
No, it is not time for ban lists. It is time to stop whining about ban lists until some card has a strangle hold on the top 64 decks. That is not the case at the moment.
I think LorcanaBro has them backwards. I would ban Fishbone and keep Hiram. As the game moves on it would become harder and harder to balance uninkables if Sapphire has a way to pitch them and ramp at the same time.
Same with banning Bucky. It limits the types of Floodborns they can print going forward. It's like what vVonderland said about Birthing Pod in MTG. Now whenever they print a good card they have to keep in mind that there is this insane artifact that can find it at will. Diablo is really good but he's not impossible to deal with, strong cards are fun to play. Bucky can really only be dealt with in 2 colors, and every option is bad.
The 3 cost Ursula in a way limits the power of 3 ink songs but she is leaps and bounds more fair than Bucky is based entirely on the fact you can at least interact with her.
This games problem is there are no draw engines outside of a few cards. Purple has more consistency which is why it was so strong for so long. Blue has faversham, tala, and some crap items, , green has diablo and john, red has crap items, steel only has awnw, irange has rapunzel and madrigal…..
Wonderland that might have been Alberto Garcia he plays Red Purple and made top 8 in both.
If there is going to be a ban list, it should be "equal": one card from each color. Amber - ???, Amethyst - Fox, Emerald - Bucky, Ruby - Maui, Saphire - Flaversham, Steel - AWNW.
Derek - getting so close will make it that much sweeter when you actually make it into a Top 8. In the mean time, get better at hate drafting TMP in those side events.
Doesn't sound like the judge was being sneaky. Sounds like they were following the rules and should have handed out DQs based on the "Gentlemen's Agreement" that was described.
Directly from the Tournament Rules Document -- "Players can’t ask their opponents to concede a game. Players can’t implicitly or explicitly offer or accept any reward or
consideration in exchange for a concession. Players provided such an offer are required to call a judge and report the offer."
The way it was described didn’t violate the rule. He said that HE offered to concede if HE lost, and his opponent then said the same to reciprocate - no one asked an opponent to concede, and the rule says nothing about conceding yourself without being asked. And there was no consideration exchange, which contemplates a player offering money, things, or an interest in future winnings. I think he handled it perfectly by the book.
He specifically said in the video "I was told by a judge at my table during round nine that you are allowed to ASK for a concession one-time". He never said that he "offered to concede if he lost". He ASKED for a concession from his opponent if he won game 1 and agreed to do the same if they won. Unfortunately, the judge was wrong, he was wrong, and you are wrong. -- "Players can’t ask their opponents to concede a game."
There had been multiple questions between events about this, and the consensus from the higher judges was that it is legal to state "I will concede game 2 if I lose game 1", but you MAY NOT ask them to do the same, they must offer the reciprocation of the offer of their own will, unprompted.
He described it twice. The second time he explicitly said he told his opponent he’d concede if he lost, and his opponent said he’d do the same. I agree that you can never ask for a concession, but that’s not how he described it later in the video - he was pretty clear he said what he would do, and then his opponent said he’d do the same and abided by it. Although calling it a “gentleman’s agreement” certainly makes it sound like they both agreed to a single thing that’s against the rules.
I went into round 9 at DLC Chicago with 37 points. I did not have any conversation and I really am not comfortable breaking rules even if the rules incentivize me to do so. I went 1-1 against my opponent and we submitted it that way. Being eliminated knowing we could have bent the rules to maybe make top 64 really sucks. I can't imagine what it would have felt like to be in that position multiple rounds. The only fix I can think of is to write in the rules that players have the option to randomize a 2-0 if they go 1-1. Which would be a terrible rule.
these kind of gentlemen agreements are controversial for a reason. some card games just outright disqualify you for doing anything like that. but it is part of competitive events for lorcana (unfortunately)
I think 1 drop Diablo is the issue. Gaining that hand knowledge with the ability to shift the same turn Bucky is played is the problem.
i am not sure that i agree. I dont think you should not be able to concede to a 2-0 in round 9
3:48 this whole section turned me of this channel for good. Guys painful. Listen to yourself
I think bucky is string because there are no answers for it outside of steel. If they add answers for it in other colors, then it wouldn't be that bad. Diablo is strong, but there are many answers for it, so I dont think it's should be banned. And most of the answers for Diablo people play in their deck, so they aren't putting 1 card in their deck to answer it.
I think you guys are approaching the ban conversation from the wrong direction. A big aspect of banning something is to open up design space. The issue with Bucky is that he restricts them from printing good midrange floodborns because they all have to not push Bucky further. Or you have to start printing board sweeps and ward answers into colors they don't really want to print them in because every color HAS to have a Bucky answer to have a decent meta. Can cards that are stopping you from making new cards/archetypes. Same goes for stuff like Hiram and f is quill. How do you print relevant/fair ramp or draw in blue when they're just gonna play these broken cards.
Also, I think a restricted list is an ok place to start from (though not perfect in the long term)
If you dont like buckey play blue steel
Bucky is 2 mana discard 2-3, maybe more cards. Completely uninteractable. It's a huge design mistake
I strongly disagree with bans I feel like things should be limited.
I saw many tournament results and i dont see emerald steel on 1st places every time. We have like 4 decks metagame and with 4 sets i dont think its a problem. lets talk about your thoughts.
1. Bucky Ban - its dont win you game on the spot, also its make emerald steel playable against control decks, without it emerald steel cant compete with other 3 top meta decks becasue after 6 ink all my board dies to medusa or 7 ink be prepared. without attack on my opponent hand he can easly overpower everythink i can place on the board.
2. Diablo Ban - can you imagine 30% of community rage after baning 50 dollar card that you have to play 4 of them? noone will spent money on cards in future if something like this happen. crying about 2/2 3 drop who have to wait whole turn to draw a card is absurd. ofc you can shift it but its spending 3 cards to draw 1 and eat brawl next trun. next problem is that without Diablo you cant counter Hiram in any other way.
3. Hiram- 4 drop 1/6 who draws you 2 cards every turn is absurd and its inkable. whithout this card blue decks dosent egzist. this card can enter the battlefield turn 3 and start drawing cards, its super powerfull and near diablo power lvl.
4. Medusa ban- this card makes all legendary cards with cost 5 or more with cool abilities unplayable and shifts meta around medusa.
In my opinion curret meta is healthy and no card deserves ban, because if we weaken 1 of these 4 decks, meta will crush to like 2 top decks and then ppl will cry for another ban and so on. card deserves ban when its win you game on the spot, not when you feel unconfortable playing against it or you need play answers for it.
I think they should just not ever post standings. People who play against the system instead of just playing the game and accepting outcomes are the problem. Too many people trying to figure out how many points they need and then find ways to circumvent playing the game with intentional draws or concession agreements make the game and competitive integrity worse. How many of the top 64 would've not made if they didn't take 3+ rounds of intentional draws. You have players who play the entire tournament and just barely not make it because someone who would've been worse and lost another game or two at 0-2 made it over that person because they played the system and not the game.
I just don't understand why so many people are literally just sitting here and trying to figure out how they can abuse the rule set and find loopholes for their benefit instead of just playing the actual game.
I agree with Luke. It is better to ban Diablo. People complain about Bucky but Bucky was there already and we had all the tools to use him effectively but steel emerald was not the top meta deck. That means, for me, that Bucky is not the problem. Diablo gives such a boost to the draw card ability in this deck that I dont know what the devs were thinking when creating him.
so you also ban 3c aladdin and all future 3c and 4c floodborns in bucky color combinations? bucky was turn 2 bucky turn 3 john turn 4 floodborn in earlier sets. that was already terrible gameplay and terrible to deal with for a lot of decks. with more earlier floodborns, bucky is a huge issue. the card just creates terrible game states. an inkable 2c ward that impacts the game like that is just banworthy
Bucky is not the issue you guys like your deck skills just suck in have played plenty of games at my local store and people have found a way to deal with bucky flavorsham is an issue who decided it's ok to make not a 1/6 making it almost impossible to deal with right away and the crazy draw combo that card should be banned
Intentional draws for prize support is illegal. Not knowing the point cutoff for day 2 but telling your opponent that you do is also illegal. Being wrong generally about what a draw would do for standings is also illegal. Intentionally drawing for bribes is wrong and illegal. Just deciding for funsies to ID is not illegal.
Lorcana games are becoming more and more polarizing. Going first is more and more valuable. This is due almost entirely to the "sing" mechanic making going first circumvent ink costs. The generous mulligan system allows for multiple chances to high roll. Giving an extra point for 2-0 is unconscionable.
Ban all inkable cards. Then you can't play cards that are HIGHLY opinionated to he "problematic"
I can't understand how people play to draw a game. I know it's allowed. I just can't wrap my head around it. I don't care if you place. I wouldn't do it. If someone asked me to draw. I would smell fear and defeat them. Put someone worthy to play. That's my thought.
You add a ban list an I’m out. I’m not doing this yugioh shit again.
Ban Ban Ban... In all the tournaments there are 3-4 different decks in the top 8. About 6-8 different decks in the top 64. Stop being a bad looser. We only have 4 sets out so far, not 20 years of cards like in MTG or The many years for Pokémon. The game is in a perfect state right now. Stop complaining and stop trying to ruin it a perfectly well planned game. Ravensburger did an absolutely amazing job.
Nah it's far from perfect, the meta is warped entirely around Bucky and Diablo. You play Bucky Discard or you play the two decks that can reliably handle Bucky and Diablo.
Banning bucky is just low tier thought. It can be reliably awnsered every time, honestly gg. Use king undisputed easy turn 3 or turn 4 play you lose 1 card its not that deep. We have a great 4 5 deck meta nothing needs banned at thia time.