...and I just got Cockatrice, so I can test there too.

Planned build: Akoum Battlesinger, Corrupted Zendikon, Skinshifter.

Champion of the Parish seems really good cuz turn 2 3/3 and 1/1 and 2/2 then next turn 6/6 5/5 4/4 3/3 2/2 1/1

that why it is almost banned

nighthawk101 i'll test with you

What about Preeminent Captain

Ban Peacekeeper cuz he's just mot fun

Peacekeeper also doesn't win. Stalling strategies can only win on the play.

nighthawk101 I appreciate your enthusiasm. I'd be happy to playtest on cockatrice with you. I do have some things to say about your comments though.

• Manlands aren't allowed because the only lands allowed to be used are basic lands, and your "one man show" card must be a nonland card.
• I don't think there is a competitive counterspell deck, and if there is, I'm not sure that I'm okay with that.
• Flame Burst is banned because the banlist includes functional reprints.
• Quash, indeed, should be banned. I'll make that clarification

Yeah manlands would be a bad idea anyways. Those genju and zendikon things would be fine though.

Spark Elemental?

Slumbering Dragon seems baller in this format!!!!!

JoeBobTheGreat, Slumbering Dragon loses on the draw. Once your opponent realizes your playing the dragon, they just sit there and stall out, your dragon won't gain counters and therefore can't attack.

to use against all of those decks that win half the time through stalling, Obstinate Familiar/Fasting

Let me just say that "winning half the time" isn't winning.

Quick reminder of the rules and why this is true.

• You have a stockpile of 3 decks.
• When neither player can win on the draw, after 2 rounds, there is not a 3rd round to determine the winner.
• Instead, both decks are knocked out and each player has to choose a new deck from their stockpile.

There is a problem with this though. What I want to avoid is everyone playing one stall strategy within their stockpile to pit against what looks like an unbeatable deck. Doing so would knockout both decks with certainty. I feel like it ruins the spirit of the game, and I think that instead of suggesting new deck ideas, we should discuss possible solutions to this issue. Do you feel that this isn't an issue? If so, please state your argument. Thank you.

You think Assault/Battery could maybe do things in this format?

You could treat it like 3-card blind and such: instead of having decks get "knocked out", stage a round robin in which A1 plays a two-game series against each of B1, B2, and B3, with each deck going first for one of the games in each matchup. A match that's a win on both ends is 6 points to the winner, and so on. If a player wants to have one deck that can't hope for anything better than stalling out a 3-3 split, then at best their deck is dead weight in the matchup, and the other decks still get a chance to stand or fall by their own merits. The objective would then be to find a set of decks that all covering for each other's weaknesses, knowing full well that every matchup will be played out.

If you allow players to treat the decks as public knowledge from the get-go, attempted lockdown matchups get more complex, since one or both decks might want to take an intentional mulligan to 6, or even all the way down to 0, just to put more cards in the starting library. Depending on the particular matchups, certain decks may or may not be able to get away with that on the play or on the draw, so maybe it won't be as monotonous as straight 3-3s after all.

I'll play 12 Islands, 12 Plains, 36 Meddling Mage. If I'm on the draw, I'll win every time.

Piyh: Biggest problem with that strat is that variants on "name a card" are banned. Including Meddling Mage. So, um.

erabel Hehe looks interesting.

SadisticMystic So you're suggesting A1 plays B1, B2, and B3, and then A2 plays B1, B2, and B3, and then A3 plays B1, B2, and B3? I feel like that's getting a little too complicated. The problem isn't technically solved. From this, I can make a stockpile of 3 stall decks and force an overall draw.

Also, the moment we start talking about "intentional mulligans," there's something degenerate happening.

Originally, when devising the stockpile idea, a fellow playtester and I were debating whether the decks should be public knowledge. I was voting for no, and the other person was voting for yes. As a compromise, we decided that all 3 decks are revealed at the very beginning; however, proceeding games are played without player's NOT knowing which of the three decks the opponent chooses to use. The only public knowledge is that you are aware of what is possible for your opponent to play. This allows cockatrice games to be played fairly, as your opponent can't change their stockpile after one round. Your opponent knows your stockpile, so you can't cheat.

I'm looking for an elegant solution with minimal changes to the current system that makes stalling strategies not worthwhile.

Perhaps a built-in alternate win-condition that doesn't favor stalling strategies. For example, perhaps if a player's total power among creatures he or she controls is at least 40 more than his or her opponent's total power among creatures he or she controls, then the opponent takes a forced concession to power. Thoughts? Would this make lord decks too powerful because the creature size grows exponentially? Not sure if it really puts them over the top, because I think they're still winning and losing the same matchups against fair decks. Provide an example of a fair non-stalling matchup with Lord of Atlantis VS something else in which the "something else" normally wins, but this alternative win-con gives Lord of Atlantis the ability to win instead. If you can do that, or otherwise prove by example that this doesn't work, then I will forget this idea completely.

As for now, I'd like to strongly consider it.

If you play 3 stalls, a draw is your best possible result. If even one of their three decks has a breakthrough against any of your lines of defense, they take a 30-24 lead at least. For instance, Slitherhead shuts down both Doom Blade and Ultimate Price no matter how well they draw, Steel Overseer blocks Ultimate Price and Go for the Throat, and burn laughs at any type of creature destruction except other burn. Even land destruction falls against 1-drops or decks that don't need mana, such as Vine Dryad or Soul Spike.

There are a good number of matchups in which it's obvious who the winner will be without have to play any cards, and that can cut down on a lot of the busywork of having to play through all 18 games.

18 games is my main issue with your idea.

I already think that the current 6 games is on the upper end of what I'm comfortable with.

As for matchups where the 40-power rule would give a bad result, the aforementioned Slumbering Dragon comes to mind. Obviously, that deck doesn't work because the opponent can and will avoid attacking. But if it's going against a deck full of 1/1s or 2/2s, suddenly it can force through superiority in numbers, and eventually build a 40-point lead, despite never being able to attack with that extra power. Meanwhile, the opponent doesn't have enough damage to force a win in their four safe attacks, and using them is even counterproductive, because it turns existing Dragons into 4/4s, 5/5s, and so on, pulling them even further ahead in the race.

Akrasan Squire can hit hard enough to beat the Dragons regardless, since it only needs 3 attacks on turns 3, 4, and 5, but it's close enough that if the Squires' draw is far enough from optimal, the Dragons could win by the 40-power rule in response to the exalted triggers that would pump the attacking Squire big enough to administer a lethal blow.

if you get lucky, i think Mayor of Avabruck  ^Flip could be potent. now i may be dumb but these may work: Scute Mob, Noble Hierarch, Fire/Ice, Predator Ooze, Ethersworn Canonist, Spellstutter Sprite, Nettle Sentinel, Figure of Destiny, Tidehollow Sculler, Nantuko Shade, Order of the Ebon Hand, Predatory Sliver, Bloodsoaked Champion

SadisticMystic I think that all you've proven was that Slumbering Dragon becomes playable, but it still loses to lords and champion of the parish strategies, which are popular. In fact, it loses to any strategy that can have a creature with 5 or more power. Also loses to burn AND mill! Slumbering Dragon on the play against a non-creature deck wouldn't win with the 40-power concession rule until turn... ELEVEN. I think it's playable, but not game-breaking. It punishes hyper aggro strategies like Burning-Tree Emissary, and I actually think that's healthy.

Do you intend for decks like Hysterical Blindness, Cumber Stone, or Chant of the Skifsang to be able to win by a count of 0 to -40? Obviously those are all thwartable by not playing a single creature to the board, but only if the opponent knows what you're up to.

Good point. Even Hysterical Blindness wouldn't even be able to win until your opponent has 10 creatures in play.

Chant of the Skifsang can't win until turn 6.

Is there one that can win earlier? If not, then it's fine by me lol. Funny way to win there.