I'm not sure why we can't adjust to TNN. It's not like there aren't a huge number of cards that kill it. Sure, the cards previously determined to be the most efficient (Bolt, Swords, Pyroclasm) fall short. I hear Smallpox and Liliana of the Veil do a good job. If you're upset because you have to change your decklist or even the deck you are playing to combat a new threat, I think you are playing the wrong game. I hear decklists in Go have been stable for quite awhile. No new threats in Chess lately either. Great article Carsten, and I agree. If it's broken, don't fix it!
Which are just alternate ways of saying "I don't like the deck." Which seems a very poor reason for a ban in my view.Originally Posted by davelin
No, reducing the card pool is a metric that we can more or less track. It's objective, not subjective. For example, Befoul is not considered a playable card in this format. Even though it's Legacy-legal, you won't play against it, so it basically doesn't exist. I suppose some people would welcome a format with fewer playable cards. In general, I'm opposed to cards that demand interaction on the stack because that pushes more decks into a blue shell (essentially always with Brainstorm and Force of Will), which significantly reduces choice in deck building. Force of Will requires 20-some blue cards, so a lot of your decisions are already predetermined. Your choice is blue or ... blue. Get it? I'm not saying we're there now, but that is the path WOTC is pointing the format toward. And, honestly, some posters on these boards would love that format, but that's not the way the format has always been, and so it's important to note that this is a deviation.
This is how it breaks down:
1) WOTC prints a card that is most effectively combated on the stack or prints yet another game-ending card that can be cheated into play via a spell (Show and Tell, Reanimate, etc.).
2) More people play Force of Will because it is the cheapest (free) and most flexible (counters anything) answer that isn't dead in other matchups.
3) More decks are forced into homogenous blue shells in order to support Force of Will (and by extension Brainstorm).
4) WOTC looks at the format and declares that the new card is safe because it's kept in check by Force of Will.
5) Repeat Step 1.
As I said, some people don't think this is a problem. They would be delighted if the format was 300 playable cards or less.
Instead of bans, WOTC could get around this issue by giving other colors countermagic or conditionally cheap or free answers that answer a variety of threats. Mindbreak Trap was a well-designed card. The Trap template could be tweaked further, or WOTC could come up with something else.
Shush, you!
Playing "other" cards to deal with new threats... that's just crazy and unfun.
Easier to just complain than adapt.
I await this list promising "a huge number of cards that kill it." I will be impressed if anyone covers ground I have not. I will be even more impressed if these are actually playable against other top-tier decks. Esper3k, since you compared True-Name Nemesis to lowly Norin the Wary, you must be pretty confident. Why don't you start us off?
The format has for example all the counters, sweepers and combos . What in particular you want to hear? Sure, it's an unblockable 7 turn clock that is immune to spot removal. Definitely sounds like something the format can't handle.
Some of my friends sell records,
some of my friends sell drugs.
+1 for both posts lol
By the way Carsten great article as always
Its not really about the clock, it's more about the function it has on some match ups, which just fucks over other match ups because TNN is so insanely powerful.
Best article you have written. I really like how your analysis goes beyond the paradigms.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
"Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."
Thanks for the props and comments everybody, sorry about getting back to you so belatedly. Real life is being a bitch right now.
@ESG: Very well thought out post, as you've seen in the follow up article, I with most things you said. The whole "If it's broken don't fix it" was addressed to players (as in, if your deck's broken, you're doing it right). I just couldn't resist playing with the expression :p
@wcm8: You got the idea of the article very well. I disagree with lumping SDT and S&T in the same boat as far as format disrupting cards are concerned, though. Top is good and eats some time but it doesn't just random you out like S&T->Grisel does. Even CB-Top is more beatable than it has ever been, so I really don't see the huge problem with the child's toy that could.
@Barook: Just one comment towards "control is an outdated archetype anyway" (seeing as I'm part of that "hardcore control crowd" ;) ). I don't see how "this viable archetype is outdated in my opinion so we might as well ban things to make it not viable again as we aren't losing anything anyway" is a valid argument. SDT and Miracles aren't oppressive in the slightest as long as people are ready for them and the number of archetypes truly pushed out by it existing is actually fairly small (all decks push out some others). Fast combo decks are special in that regard as they have a tendency to Force blue into decks (excuse the pun) as long as there aren't truly effective hatebears out there. There are a number of other cards leaving the format that would do more to open it up than getting rid of SDT would. I think there're some old scars involved here ;)
@Finn: Thanks for the praise. I know you won't hold back criticism when you think it's deserved so I particularly appreciate getting praise from your side!
I'll stay out of any other B/R related arguments as there is a thread for those already - thanks again for reading and all the interest to everybody!
I don't have low self-esteem, I have low esteem for everyone else. -Daria
Proud member of Team CAB
High Priest of the Church of BLA
CAB JaceTM
My articles
Tnn sucks for sure, but its stoneforge that makes it" unfair". Never liked mystic or felt like cramming four of her into a deck surrounded with counter spells......boring. I blame stoneforge for the lack of viable creature decks in magic today, she's like the white demonic tutor against "fair" creature based decks.
Dear Carsten,
Let me start off by letting you know I quite enjoy your articles and often consider them a much better read then the premium articles on SCG (which often seem to contain a lot of I-I-I-me-me-me). Be that as it may, I tend to disagree with the premise that anything played in Legacy can be considered unfair, enough so to make my first posting here on The Source. This mostly because the cardpool in Legacy is big enough to deal with anything unfair thrown at it. I think you have to consider what's fair or unfair in the context of it's respective meta. I mean, of course, anything we do in Legacy might be unfair when compared with the Standard or even Modern meta, yet seems underwhelming when compared to Vintage's meta. I tend to gravitate more towards the opinion that everything is fair game in Legacy, given that an answer to any unfair thing played can be found in the giant cardpool available to us. If you really want to beat something, you can, and therefor makes the thing you aim to beat a fair thing to play. We've seen it happen with Sneak & Show and it'll happen to TNN :)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote