All B/R update speculation. [Archive] - Page 30

Lemnear

03-18-2014, 02:58 AM

I mean, the meta sure seems reasonably healthy at the moment. It's true that True-Name Nemesis didn't implode the world. Decks like Jund seem to be popping back up. Like Zilla said, it still doesn't make TNN an enjoyable card to play against. I'd still think that an errata is the best option (the lack of a trigger seems like a big design oversight), but a ban seems premature or even unnecessary.

I disagree. We never had less top performers since the mid 2000's which were Goblins, RUG and Landstill. According to Patricks recent DtB analysis you have to play Miracles, SFM and/or DRS if you want to compete. As mentioned before in this thread, TNN is annoying die to it's lack of interactivity, but the card that is stifling the development of the Legacy metagame is SFM which is in every control and Aggro deck atm (even in Miracles). Pretty much like Tarmogoyf a few years back, but it was clear that people here rather rant about blue cards instead of realizing that there is an issue with hyperefficient, easy splashable threats

Dzra

03-18-2014, 03:20 AM

I'll agree that there are a whole lot of SFMs around these days... It's basically a better (but slower) Tarmogoyf that's in White. I'm not sure how much of a problem that is exactly, especially since it makes Death and Taxes a deck.

I would say that more than anything, the increase in SFMs is due to the increase in TNN hate (Terminus, Liliana, Show and Tell, etc). Sure SFM works well with TNN, however, if you happen to be trying to beat the decks that beat TNN then SFM is highly resilient to both sweepers as well as Liliana. Like Tarmogoyf its a solid clock against the combo decks that try to go over TNN... but unlike Tarmogoyf, a Batterskull won't fold to a sweeper.

Problem...? I wouldn't say so yet, but possibly something to watch.

Echelon

03-18-2014, 03:54 AM

I'll agree that there are a whole lot of SFMs around these days... It's basically a better (but slower) Tarmogoyf that's in White. I'm not sure how much of a problem that is exactly, especially since it makes Death and Taxes a deck.

D&T just got booted out of the DtB-section, so there goes that point.

I say ban Brainstorm, Daze & FoW. It leaves blue-based combo decks nice and open to all kinds of silly hate and also forces everything running TNN/SFM (yes, yes, except for D&T and perhaps Maverick) to get creative. I'd honestly be curious as to what that would do to our metagame. I can't imagine banning the 3 most played blue cards to not have a massive impact.

Dice_Box

03-18-2014, 05:39 AM

Ban Force? Have you lost your mind?

Echelon

03-18-2014, 05:39 AM

Shock and awe!

Dice_Box

03-18-2014, 05:43 AM

Um, no. It's foolish. Beltcher and Oops become royal pains that are almost impossible to stop, half the leading decks in the format implode and we really gain nothing for it. Daze also, no reason to ban it.

Brainstorm is the one card you have mentioned that the format can move along without. I do not want it gone, but it would not be the death of Legacy if it was.

But Force, I am a Red player, and if Force was banned, I would pack up and sell that weekend.

Echelon

03-18-2014, 06:36 AM

The meta'll find a solution against every dominant strategy. If it doesn't, more bans can ensue.

Combodecks with consistent turn 1 kills run amok? Just ban some more cards key to those decks. Problem solved!

Don't forget that the banning of any card doesn't mean no other card will ever get banned again.

Dice_Box

03-18-2014, 06:47 AM

Zombie

03-18-2014, 06:49 AM

It's funny how a stupidly uninteractive design gets printed, metagame goes haywire, and somehow SFM is the culprit? When it was perfectly reasonable before and can be dealt with/mitigated in all manner of ways both standard and more creative.

And yeah, it's not about TNN being in every deck, it's the shitty games and how interesting archetypes get shoved out because you have to deal with the fish. The ground-based game is practically gone. Everything flies, or wins via combo. Or plays the goddamn fish.

re: Suggestion to ban force, add me to the "sell and bail" crowd.

So from the last SCG, we have:

Blue (10):
4 UWr Miracles (natural predator)
2 Sneak and Show (ignore)
1 American Delver (TNN)
1 ANT (ignore)
1 BUG Delver (ignore/TNN)
1 Esper Deathblade (TNN)

NonBlue (6):
2 Jund
1 Death and Taxes (ignore)
1 Deadguy Ale
1 Elves (ignore)
1 Goblins

Numbers of good anti-TNN cards are also on the rise and could account for the lack of TNN, with 16 Lilianas and 14 Terminus present.

We have a grand total of 4 decks that do not fit the mold of playTNN/ignoreTNN are 2 Jund, 1 Deadguy and 1 Goblins. Let's see the lists:
Deadguy: 4 Lilianas MAIN in addition to a Gatekeeper with 3 TNN hate cards, 2 ETutors and a Manriki-Gusari in the side.
Goblins is surprisingly normal. 3 Tin Street Hooligans main, 2 KGrips in the side.
Jund: 4 Lilianas in the main, again. Chainer's Edict in one, Golgari Charm in the other. 2 EPlagues in the side for both.

Business as usual, TNN is fine, move along folks. Nonblue decks just have to start with 4 Liliana now, it's fine. The format can deal with it.

Echelon

03-18-2014, 06:54 AM

But that's unnecessary. Force is a fine card that polices the format well enough on its own. Also it allows for decks like Beltcher to exist. There is no reason to take out Force and then go "Well shit, now we have to cut out Beltcher, Opps, TES, Kobolds...."

Force of Will is a service to the format. It's more than a card. I am head and shoulders against shooting the policeman and then asking for Lynch Law to take its place.

What you're saying is that FoW single-handedly determines what can and cannot exist in the format. Without cards like Fow/Daze (and, to similar degree, Brainstorm) I reckon any Uxy-Delver deck (i.e. over 50% of the current meta, including anything running TNN) pretty much kicks the bucket, other decks (Reanimator/Storm) would have to adapt and a number of new decks would get a chance to see the light of day. A card having such an effect on a meta - isn't that exactly what should be banned?

Or perhaps ban fetchland to make it harder for people to run 3 color good stuff decks? Fetch as a whole also appears in pretty much every deck played.

Higgs

03-18-2014, 06:59 AM

Dude, I see where you are coming from but I think your question is at a philosophical level. From a practical point of view I think your reasoning is bs. No offense intended.

Echelon

03-18-2014, 07:01 AM

None taken :smile:.

I like to get people to think outside of their comfort zones. Too bad people prefer to go "Meh, BS" and be done with it.

Will_L

03-18-2014, 07:05 AM

None taken :smile:.

I like to get people to think outside of their comfort zones.

You're not breaking new frontiers here.

This has been suggested or considered before and has pretty much universally been decided that it would really bad. You either ban Force of Will and then ban A TON of other cards, getting rid of tons of deck or you ban Force of Will and fast combo becomes tier 0.

Higgs

03-18-2014, 07:05 AM

No I think it is a fair point really but I don't have the brain power today to crunch on the idea and figure out why it is OK for some cards to fundementally shape the format and others not :)

Sloshthedark

03-18-2014, 07:09 AM

I disagree. We never had less top performers since the mid 2000's which were Goblins, RUG and Landstill. According to Patricks recent DtB analysis you have to play Miracles, SFM and/or DRS if you want to compete. As mentioned before in this thread, TNN is annoying die to it's lack of interactivity, but the card that is stifling the development of the Legacy metagame is SFM which is in every control and Aggro deck atm (even in Miracles). Pretty much like Tarmogoyf a few years back, but it was clear that people here rather rant about blue cards instead of realizing that there is an issue with hyperefficient, easy splashable threats

SFM - that's Survival-Vengevine argument... if so the problem is SFM-Batterskull - stupidly overpowered and efficient, otherwise equipment fetching seems fun and interesting (not that I'd ever do so), on the other hand I'd like to see multiple equipment deck again Sea Stompy style...

why banning BS is end of legacy is obv. you significantly cripple both combo and tempo

strict performance related (un)ban like in modern will just result into drop of interest and attendance in legacy

Dice_Box

03-18-2014, 07:12 AM

I guess that depends on the role of the card in question. If a card shapes the format but let's many interesting and complex decks exist because of it, that's good. If a card singlehandedly pushes out many interesting and complex decks then it's bad.

Echelon

03-18-2014, 07:21 AM

You're not breaking new frontiers here.

This has been suggested or considered before and has pretty much universally been decided that it would really bad. You either ban Force of Will and then ban A TON of other cards, getting rid of tons of deck or you ban Force of Will and fast combo becomes tier 0.

I would have been surprised to be the first to bring it up and I'm pretty sure other people'll bring it up some time after I do. Without people stating the world was round every now and again, we might still have believed it to be flat. To be honest, I know it's possible I'm calling the world a cube or pyramid by saying a number of cards should be banned but admit, all of this is purely theoretical anyway. For all we know the next dominant deck in a world without Brainstorm/Daze/FoW is the deck running 56 Plains and 4 Squires.

The only way to find out what would really happen is to actually go and do it. Until then the world of MtG Legacy might indeed already be the sphere we think to perceive it to be but at the same time it could be a cube or pyramid for all that matters.

Anyways, enough philosophical stuff for now.

Edit:

I guess that depends on the role of the card in question. If a card shapes the format but let's many interesting and complex decks exist because of it, that's good. If a card singlehandedly pushes out many interesting and complex decks then it's bad.

Thank you for that wonderful reaction :smile:

Edit 2:

Thinking about my own post, I had the following idea - WotC should introduce some sort of Future League (similar to the ones they run during set/block development) where they test bannings and their effects on the meta as discussed on forums like this to determine whether a ban would or would not be beneficial to the format. That way, the ideas uttered here can be given backing by a form of empyrical evidence and may even eventually be put into effect for actual sanctioned tournaments.

Dice_Box

03-18-2014, 07:53 AM

That's a fine idea, but it's more likely that magic online would be fixed before money is spent on that. Now ask online players what the likelihood of the first point happening is.

Echelon

03-18-2014, 08:00 AM

I know :)

mishima_kazuya

03-18-2014, 08:53 AM

Business as usual, TNN is fine, move along folks. Nonblue decks just have to start with 4 Liliana now, it's fine. The format can deal with it.

How is asking for decks like Maverick, Goblins, etc to play 4 Liliana fine? If you have reasons that go beyond what ideas I can muster then feel free to explain.

Echelon

03-18-2014, 08:57 AM

How is asking for decks like Maverick, Goblins, etc to play 4 Liliana fine? If you have reasons that go beyond what ideas I can muster then feel free to explain.

I take it you're not familiar with sarcasm..?

catmint

03-18-2014, 09:13 AM

Or maybe it's just not the Legacy ending card a lot of people scream it is. It's almost as if the metagame has adjusted to it, is that even possible!?

Looks like. I was one of the guys thinking it would warp the format in a very negative way, but it seems that I was wrong. It did change legacy by making Canadian not the best deck (about time) and turning shardles BUG into BUG Delver. The good thing is, decks running TNN are imo not among the top 3 decks of the format. Mostly Jund and Miracles keep it in check. As for now I think the format is very diverse and fun to play with the downside of TNN being very often a blowout/unfun card (I still don't like TNN).

If I could make changes to the B/R list I would unban a bunch of stuff, but according to my standards no bannings are necessary.

Megadeus

03-18-2014, 09:39 AM

Dragonslayer_90

03-18-2014, 09:43 AM

Looks like. I was one of the guys thinking it would warp the format in a very negative way, but it seems that I was wrong. It did change legacy by making Canadian not the best deck (about time) and turning shardles BUG into BUG Delver. The good thing is, decks running TNN are imo not among the top 3 decks of the format. Mostly Jund and Miracles keep it in check. As for now I think the format is very diverse and fun to play with the downside of TNN being very often a blowout/unfun card (I still don't like TNN).

If I could make changes to the B/R list I would unban a bunch of stuff, but according to my standards no bannings are necessary.

I think it is has warped the format in a negative way still but not as bad as people thought it would. My argument for how it has warped the format negatively is that Death and Taxes and Elves have been under performing since that card came out. I never played those decks, but it was nice having a decent amount of Tier one non-blue options in a blue dominated format. They are still good decks but more like Tier 1.5 at this point. I'm of the mind currently where I would be happy to see TNN go but I wouldn't be pissed if it stayed either. The format is still skill intensive and fun to play.

Dice_Box

03-18-2014, 09:47 AM

I'm sorry, but where in my post did I ever say that force of will should be banned?

Sorry mate. I am on my phone and I was trying to answer Echelon. I must have hit the wrong post to quote. My apologies.

Echelon

03-18-2014, 09:49 AM

My argument for how it has warped the format negatively is that Death and Taxes and Elves have been under performing since that card came out.

I love this kind of reasoning! If it's bad for Elves, ban it! Power to the little green men! :laugh:

Gheizen64

03-18-2014, 09:50 AM

None taken :smile:.

I like to get people to think outside of their comfort zones. Too bad people prefer to go "Meh, BS" and be done with it.

That would be interesting if only it wasn't debated to hell and back by Dr. Jones and pretty much everyone understood that it would be the worst thing ever to happen to legacy. You'd basically get a Modern-long ban list for no reason if not to reduce interactivity because apparently interactivity is bad and everyone should just play creatures, even better if you can't interact with them, thx shitzard.

mishima_kazuya

03-18-2014, 09:56 AM

I take it you're not familiar with sarcasm..?

How embarrassing, I just reread his post and now it makes sense. But in my defense I had just woken up. :tongue:

Arsenal

03-18-2014, 09:57 AM

I don't understand why people are looking at a single Top 8 and declaring anything. Sure, SCG Seattle only had 1 copy of TNN in the Top 8, but what of SCG St. Louis (2-23-14)? That Top 8 featured 11 copies of TNN maindeck, with 3 more copies in the sideboard. So what does that tell you? Absolutely NOTHING as it's silly to try to draw conclusions and form opinions based off a single Top 8... talk about high variance due to small sample size, jeesh.

Also, as Zilla stated, it's always been far less about the statistics than it is about the "unfun" factor, but since nobody in the "Would You Like To See TNN Go Away" thread wanted to use the "unfun" factor, even though it's been used by Wizards before as reason to ban something, we are left with using statistics only. I have the adjusted Jan-Oct 2013 data for what the true Legacy meta looked like pre-TNN, does anyone have Nov 2013-current adjusted data so that we can compare?

Echelon

03-18-2014, 09:59 AM

You'd basically get a Modern-long ban list for no reason if not to reduce interactivity because apparently interactivity is bad and everyone should just play creatures, even better if you can't interact with them, thx shitzard.

So... 0 CC counterspells are the only interactive cards in the entirety of MtG..? Lol.

I think we've got the problem right there, thank you for pointing it out :smile:

Megadeus

03-18-2014, 09:59 AM

Sorry mate. I am on my phone and I was trying to answer Echelon. I must have hit the wrong post to quote. My apologies.

Fair. I'm not saying in my post about counterspells becoming the most generic answer that anything should be banned necessarily. I'm simply stating that blue becoming so heavily played could be because counterspells are the best generic answer to all of the different threats that the format can throw at you.

If Force is banned I would be disappointed. There are non force answers to fast combo, but non are as elegant and simple as force of will. Without that you have to turn to narrow things like Leylines. Or Mindbreak Trap.

Dice_Box

03-18-2014, 10:01 AM

Echelon

03-18-2014, 10:06 AM

There are non force answers to fast combo, but non are as elegant and simple as force of will. Without that you have to turn to narrow things like Leylines. Or Mindbreak Trap.

Exactly! You're pretty much saying the same thing as Gheizen :).

I say bring it on and accept that your 75 can't have the answer to everything. Variance is a female dog!

Arsenal

03-18-2014, 10:06 AM

Because we have attention spans of a goldfish and that's the latest point of data? Maybe it's because it reinforces some people's views therefore it's the most important point of data? Not sure all I know is that I am lucky I have a good att... Oh a butterfly, Brb.

I just find it lolworthy that when SCG St. Louis was over, none of the anti-TNN posters said anything in here as I thought it was understood by all that ONE Top 8 does not make the format. But when SCG Seattle is over? All of the TNN fanboys start talking about how well the format has "adjusted" to TNN and how ONE Top 8 = format forever.

Barook

03-18-2014, 10:06 AM

D&T just got booted out of the DtB-section, so there goes that point.
I blame the sample size due to the low number of tournaments. D&T placed 2nd in the latest SCG Open and thrives on MODO (http://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/legacy).

why banning BS is end of legacy is obv. you significantly cripple both combo and tempo
Miracles might have some trouble, but otherwise, "crippling" is an overstatement - most decks would just happen to run other cantrips. Blue players would lose their 4 copies of "get free out of jail" card, because that's exactly what Brainstorm is most of the time.

I think it's an interesting topic - how much more appropriate would Brainstorm have been if it had been a sorcery instead of an instant?

Echelon

03-18-2014, 10:10 AM

I think it's an interesting topic - how much more appropriate would Brainstorm have been if it had been a sorcery instead of an instant?

It's an irrelevant topic. Fact of the matter is that Brainstorm always has been and forever will be an instant.

Dragonslayer_90

03-18-2014, 10:12 AM

I love this kind of reasoning! If it's bad for Elves, ban it! Power to the little green men! :laugh:

I love these kind of straw man arguments. If you're trying to be funny I'm not entertained. If you actually read my post I was merely pointing out an example of the negative warping TNN has caused. Whether that's a reason to consider TNN for banning, I don't know, probably not. There would need to be more to be taken into account than merely some decks becoming bad in the meta (if Death and Taxes and Elves are bad in the meta that is).

Dice_Box

03-18-2014, 10:14 AM

Echelon

03-18-2014, 10:15 AM

I love these kind of straw man arguments. If you're trying to be funny I'm not entertained. If you actually read my post I was merely pointing out an example of the negative warping TNN has caused. Whether that's a reason to consider TNN for banning, I don't know, probably not. There would need to be more to be taken into account than merely some decks becoming bad in the meta (if Death and Taxes and Elves are bad in the meta that is).

Don't be offended :smile:, I'm an Elves-man, your post made me smile.

Dragonslayer_90

03-18-2014, 10:19 AM

Don't be offended :smile:, I'm an Elves-man, your post made me smile.

Oh okay lol. Glad to know my post was appreciated from one of the peoples of the forest :laugh:

Higgs

03-18-2014, 10:38 AM

Brainstorm as a Sorcery? Give it its own thread if you want that debate. Let's try and kill Brainstorm as a topic in this one. It never goes anywhere and no ones opinions on the subject are going to change.

Oh I've seen people make complete u-turns on this as they begin to understand the format for what it is or their collections grow :)

Zombie

03-18-2014, 10:39 AM

Looks like. I was one of the guys thinking it would warp the format in a very negative way, but it seems that I was wrong. It did change legacy by making Canadian not the best deck (about time) and turning shardles BUG into BUG Delver. The good thing is, decks running TNN are imo not among the top 3 decks of the format. Mostly Jund and Miracles keep it in check. As for now I think the format is very diverse and fun to play with the downside of TNN being very often a blowout/unfun card (I still don't like TNN).

If I could make changes to the B/R list I would unban a bunch of stuff, but according to my standards no bannings are necessary.

Uh, the format still looks an awful lot like "traditional ground game is dead, play TNN, ignore it or lose". It was never about TNN being in every deck. It was simply games becoming worse because TNN takes over gamestates for minimal investment and is hard to hate out. Other decks deal with it by becoming more uninteractive.

slave

03-18-2014, 12:24 PM

I'm amazed to see so many people voting for Lion's Eye Diamond.
It's a niche choice, it's the shell's you see this card are in, that people hate, not this card I think.

TNN has done damage to the format > but not in any way different to DRS, SFM, Bob or any of the other cards worthy of the legacy staple tag. I don't see it being ban worthy.
I don't play the card myself btw, just against it. So yeah, I completely get the hate around this card.
TNN loves SFM. But here's plenty of cards that work well with SFM..... but why is no-one suggesting SFM? If SFM wasn't around, I doubt TNN would even be considered for a ban by anyone.
But banning SFM isn't necessary, is it? I don't think TNN is format fracturing > it's just better than Geist of St.Traft. and gives Stoneblade a serious finisher.
Just sayin.

HSCK

03-18-2014, 12:26 PM

Uh, the format still looks an awful lot like "traditional ground game is dead, play TNN, ignore it or lose". It was never about TNN being in every deck. It was simply games becoming worse because TNN takes over gamestates for minimal investment and is hard to hate out. Other decks deal with it by becoming more uninteractive.

What traditional ground game? Those strategies aren't even that good in Modern, and Legacy is a much bigger step up in terms of power.

Higgs

03-18-2014, 12:33 PM

Lemnear

03-18-2014, 12:36 PM

Catmint's post reminds me, I don't get why Shardless BUG turned into Team America after the introduction of TNN. I think Shardless has better game against StP decks and still buries any SFM based aggro-control deck in card advantage.

Because cascading Shardless Agent into Tarmogoyf gets a laugh from an opponent with SFM and TNN. There is no way tarmogoyf can get past TNN+Jitte+Batterskull ... not even the cardadvantage can make up for that hopeless ground battle. Tombstalker and Delver fly over Skull and TNN ... easy as that

Zilla

03-18-2014, 12:36 PM

Catmint's post reminds me, I don't get why Shardless BUG turned into Team America after the introduction of TNN. I think Shardless has better game against StP decks and still buries any SFM based aggro-control deck in card advantage.
Tombstalker > TNN, is the biggest reason. TA also has a stronger game against the decks that do well against TNN/SFM decks than Shardless does.

Higgs

03-18-2014, 01:15 PM

Still, with 3-4 maindeck Lilianas and turning into an even more controllish deck post board with Charms and Deluge I think Shardless is still a good choice to fight fair grindy matches. Anyways, sorry for the derail.

HSCK

03-18-2014, 01:17 PM

I just find it lolworthy that when SCG St. Louis was over, none of the anti-TNN posters said anything in here as I thought it was understood by all that ONE Top 8 does not make the format. But when SCG Seattle is over? All of the TNN fanboys start talking about how well the format has "adjusted" to TNN and how ONE Top 8 = format forever.

February's analysis doesn't really put TNN in as some sort of format dominating monster either.

Arsenal

03-18-2014, 01:25 PM

February's analysis doesn't really put TNN in as some sort of format dominating monster either.

Again, too small of a sample size. I mean, if I wanted to cherry pick a single month out of my ten month sample to proclaim, "Deck X is the worst deck! July 2013's data says so! SEE!", I could, but it wouldn't really do anything other than illustrate how not to use statistics. My sample size is Jan-Oct 2013. What it yours?

Megadeus

03-18-2014, 01:31 PM

To be fair though, to not include February and March, since now the format has adapted a bit more, would feel wrong

Arsenal

03-18-2014, 01:34 PM

To be fair though, to not include February and March, since now the format has adapted a bit more, would feel wrong

Right, I wanted to show what Legacy looked like pre-TNN, so I used Jan-Oct 2013. Nov 2013-current (August 2014 would be 10 months with TNN in the format) is the next sample set to use, then we can compare and contrast. Cherry picking a single Top 8 or even a single month doesn't do anything.

btm10

03-18-2014, 01:53 PM

Right, I wanted to show what Legacy looked like pre-TNN, so I used Jan-Oct 2013. Nov 2013-current (August 2014 would be 10 months with TNN in the format) is the next sample set to use, then we can compare and contrast. Cherry picking a single Top 8 or even a single month doesn't do anything.

While I totally respect what you're doing (and the rigor with which you're doing it) despite not feeling like TNN should be banned, I've lost track of what exactly you're trying to show. I think that you're arguing that TNN killed diversity, right?

Lemnear

03-18-2014, 02:15 PM

While I totally respect what you're doing (and the rigor with which you're doing it) despite not feeling like TNN should be banned, I've lost track of what exactly you're trying to show. I think that you're arguing that TNN killed diversity, right?

SFM kills more diversity than TNN ever did. People just hate on the blue card primary, because SFM is also played in non-blue decks. A flawed logic overall, if you ask me.

Arsenal

03-18-2014, 02:32 PM

In case anyone cares, this is what the adjusted Legacy meta looked liked from Jan-Oct 2013. I used 6+ round tourney data, only Top 8 (no #9-32 decks used), and no SCG Invitational data used (too skewed due to being linked with Standard).

1. RUG Delver
2. Jund
3. Blade Control
4. Miracles
5. Sneak & Show
6. Team America
7. Death and Taxes
8. Shardless BUG
9. Maverick
10. Elves

I was actually wrong about Jund and Maverick as my raw data put Jund at #3 and Maverick at #7, but after looking at the refined data (basically accounting for additional decimals), Jund moved up to #2 while Maverick dropped down to #9. That meta looks incredibly diverse, balanced, has slight-moderate overlap, and "fun".

I don't have Nov 2013-current data compiled or adjusted, but I'd wager that Nov 2013-current looks nowhere near as diverse and represented as before. That's my next project.

Esper3k

03-18-2014, 03:16 PM

SFM kills more diversity than TNN ever did. People just hate on the blue card primary, because SFM is also played in non-blue decks. A flawed logic overall, if you ask me.

This. TNN is much less scary if he didn't have his girlfriend SFM to do the real heavy lifting for him. Don't get me wrong, I love SFM, but I think that card has had a much greater impact on Legacy than TNN has.

HSCK

03-18-2014, 03:54 PM

Again, too small of a sample size. I mean, if I wanted to cherry pick a single month out of my ten month sample to proclaim, "Deck X is the worst deck! July 2013's data says so! SEE!", I could, but it wouldn't really do anything other than illustrate how not to use statistics. My sample size is Jan-Oct 2013. What it yours?

I have December-January-February.

468 decks surveyed:

Team America- 46 top 8s
Miracles- 32
Deathblade- 31
UWR- 30
Blade Control- 28
Sneak and Show- 28
Elves- 27
Jund- 23
RUG-20
Death and Taxes-17
ANT- 17
Shardless BUG- 17

Arsenal

03-18-2014, 04:03 PM

I have December-January-February.

468 decks surveyed:

Team America- 46 top 8s
Miracles- 32
Deathblade- 31
UWR- 30
Blade Control- 28
Sneak and Show- 28
Elves- 27
Jund- 23
RUG-20
Death and Taxes-17
ANT- 17

If you include November 2013, then I think we should be up to date. But just going off the Dec 2013-Feb 2014 data you've compiled (using my parameters I think), you can clearly see a difference in the two metas; I mean, 3 of the top 5 decks in your meta are on the SFM-TNN plan. Also, decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves (RUG, Jund, Shardless BUG, Maverick), moved way down/completely off the list from where they were previously positioned. This would suggest that the meta of "play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose" isn't as far fetched as you made it seem.

swoop

03-18-2014, 06:00 PM

Ban SFM

HSCK

03-18-2014, 08:12 PM

If you include November 2013, then I think we should be up to date. But just going off the Dec 2013-Feb 2014 data you've compiled (using my parameters I think), you can clearly see a difference in the two metas; I mean, 3 of the top 5 decks in your meta are on the SFM-TNN plan. Also, decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves (RUG, Jund, Shardless BUG, Maverick), moved way down/completely off the list from where they were previously positioned. This would suggest that the meta of "play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose" isn't as far fetched as you made it seem.

The meta seems to be evasive creatures, combo, or sweepers. That seems to be like what normal magic is anyway, especially at this power level.

Esper3k

03-18-2014, 10:43 PM

I'd be curious to see the numbers on UWR delver in the few months before TNN was printed. It wouldn't surprise me to see it doing well, but not on the Jan-Oct list simply because it was a fairly new deck.

One can also see by the Jan-Oct data that Maverick was already low on the list and very possibly just on the way out. Sure TNN didn't help it, but it wasn't like it was a highly successful deck anymore to begin with.

Arsenal

03-19-2014, 09:57 AM

The meta seems to be evasive creatures, combo, or sweepers. That seems to be like what normal magic is anyway, especially at this power level.

The difference between this (Jan-Oct 2013):

1.) RUG Delver
2.) Jund
3.) Blade Control
4.) Miracles
5.) Sneak & Show
6.) Team America
7.) Death and Taxes
8.) Shardless BUG
9.) Maverick
10.) Elves
11.) Patriot

and this (Dec 2013-Feb 2014):

1.) Team America
2.) Miracles
3.) Deathblade
4.) Patriot
5.) Blade Control
6.) Sneak & Show
7.) Elves
8.) Jund
9.) RUG Delver
10.) Death and Taxes
11.) Ad Nauseam Tendrils

is quite pronounced and I'm not sure why you're trying to trivialize it now that we have both sets of adjusted data. All along I've said that TNN likely reduced diversity and the meta had become "play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose". You claim that the meta doesn't appear to be any different now than from before, but I'd ask that you look closer at the data. See any differences? I do.

1.) The decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves, have performed significantly worse post-TNN. RUG Delver, Jund, Death and Taxes, Shardless BUG and Maverick all saw a pronounced drop in positioning or just fell out of the meta completely. RUG Delver goes from #1 to #9, Jund from #2 to #8, Death and Taxes from #7 to #10, Shardless BUG from #8 to uncharted, Maverick from #9 to uncharted.

2.) The decks that don't care about TNN saw a significant increase in performance. Elves moved up from #10 to #7, Ad Nauseam moved up from uncharted to #11, Miracles moved up from #4 to #2, Team America moved up from #6 to #1. Only Sneak & Show saw a decrease in performance from #5 to #6.

3.) 3 of the top 5 decks in your data are on the SFM-TNN plan. Deathblade goes from uncharted to #3, Patriot from #11 to #4, Blade Control dips from #3 to #5. This trio of TNN cousins certainly has reduced strategic diversity while pushing out the unique, non-TNN decks that once occupied those meta slots.

The data clearly shows that the meta has drastically changed, for what believe to be for the worse. "Play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose". This is what the data is showing. How are you coming to a different conclusion?

I'd be curious to see the numbers on UWR delver in the few months before TNN was printed. It wouldn't surprise me to see it doing well, but not on the Jan-Oct list simply because it was a fairly new deck.

One can also see by the Jan-Oct data that Maverick was already low on the list and very possibly just on the way out. Sure TNN didn't help it, but it wasn't like it was a highly successful deck anymore to begin with.

I've always stated that Maverick was a #7-9 deck. Always (12-19-13 post from the now-locked "TNN Go Away" thread: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27102-Would-you-like-to-see-True-Name-Nemesis-gone&p=775644&viewfull=1#post775644). You and others were the ones claiming that Maverick was completely dead before TNN and that Maverick didn't matter at all. The data just confirms that Maverick was in fact a #9 deck pre-TNN, this isn't even up for debate anymore. Also, I never claimed it was a "highly successful deck", so that strawman can be put out. In fact, I think I referred to Maverick as a "fringe Top 10 deck"... which is exactly what it was from Jan-Oct 2013.

Also, I included Patriot's positioning from Jan-Oct 2013 for you. It was the #11 deck in the meta, but only charted in 3 of the 10 month sample (July, Sept, Oct). It averaged a 7.3 place finish during that 3 month sample.

HSCK

03-19-2014, 10:27 AM

Arsenal

03-19-2014, 11:04 AM

I appreciate your work, but I don't really understand what a list of 10 without qualifiers are? Is there a percentage of top 8 finishes so we can better look at diversity, because otherwise it's just ANT and Maverick tagging out.

I used the same parameters as you did, but if you'd like specific numbers on anything, let me know what you want.

HSCK

03-19-2014, 11:27 AM

Is it possible to use the same numbering system I did, like:

Team America 46 top 8s out of 468 decks surveyed.

That allows use to see percentage of meta which I suspect is what you're talking about when you refer to diversity?

Lemnear

03-19-2014, 11:32 AM

The difference between this (Jan-Oct 2013):

1.) RUG Delver Delver
2.) Jund DRS
3.) Blade Control SFM
4.) Miracles
5.) Sneak & Show
6.) Team America Delver + DRS
7.) Death and Taxes SFM
8.) Shardless BUG DRS
9.) Maverick SFM
10.) Elves DRS
11.) Patriot Delver + SFM

4x SDM
4x DRS
3x Delver

and this (Dec 2013-Feb 2014):

1.) Team America Delver + DRS
2.) Miracles now with SFM
3.) Deathblade DRS + SFM
4.) Patriot Delver + SFM
5.) Blade Control SFM
6.) Sneak & Show
7.) Elves DRS
8.) Jund DRS
9.) RUG Delver Delver
10.) Death and Taxes SFM
11.) Ad Nauseam Tendrils

5x SFM
4x DRS
3x Delver

Honestly, I don't see much of a difference in regards to the defining creatures. "Blade control" is a bit undefined. That can be everything from Esper-Delver, to Lingering Souls, to UW-Delver with certain overlaps to Deathblade and Patriot.

The only thing you can say is that non-blue midrange dropped, but that can have various reasons like the pure hype around SFM+TNN. As recent SCG results showed is that TNN is on a decline again, thanks to massive counteractions in form of Golgari Charm and Liliana out of BGx decks like Team America or Jund.

If you don't mind that the metagame is totally defined by those 3 creatures and SFM is in every fucking aggro AND control AND midrange deck, then yeah ... the meta is fine

btm10

03-19-2014, 11:46 AM

The difference between this (Jan-Oct 2013):

1.) RUG Delver
2.) Jund
3.) Blade Control
4.) Miracles
5.) Sneak & Show
6.) Team America
7.) Death and Taxes
8.) Shardless BUG
9.) Maverick
10.) Elves
11.) Patriot

and this (Dec 2013-Feb 2014):

1.) Team America
2.) Miracles
3.) Deathblade
4.) Patriot
5.) Blade Control
6.) Sneak & Show
7.) Elves
8.) Jund
9.) RUG Delver
10.) Death and Taxes
11.) Ad Nauseam Tendrils

is quite pronounced and I'm not sure why you're trying to trivialize it now that we have both sets of adjusted data. All along I've said that TNN likely reduced diversity and the meta had become "play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose". You claim that the meta doesn't appear to be any different now than from before, but I'd ask that you look closer at the data. See any differences? I do.

1.) The decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves, have performed significantly worse post-TNN. RUG Delver, Jund, Death and Taxes, Shardless BUG and Maverick all saw a pronounced drop in positioning or just fell out of the meta completely. RUG Delver goes from #1 to #9, Jund from #2 to #8, Death and Taxes from #7 to #10, Shardless BUG from #8 to uncharted, Maverick from #9 to uncharted.

3.) 3 of the top 5 decks in your data are on the SFM-TNN plan. Deathblade goes from uncharted to #3, Patriot from #11 to #4, Blade Control dips from #3 to #5. This trio of TNN cousins certainly has reduced strategic diversity while pushing out the unique, non-TNN decks that once occupied those meta slots.

Also, I included Patriot's positioning from Jan-Oct 2013 for you. It was the #11 deck in the meta, but only charted in 3 of the 10 month sample (July, Sept, Oct). It averaged a 7.3 place finish during that 3 month sample.

I think that the points you make here are correct, but might be overstating the TNN effect slightly in some ways, while understating it in others. I'm particularly thinking about the BUG Delver/Team America tempo decks, which occupy a pretty large design space between all-in, RUG-style tempo and something that looks and plays an almost-midrange strategy like Shardless BUG but with (soft) counterspells and Bobs over Shardless Agent + lots of discard + Ancestral Vision alongside the general Delver+Goyf plan. Looking at the card choice discussions (and looking at how my own BUG deck has changed since I dropped Enchantress), you see the things like Liliana and Sylvan Library being discussed and cards like Stifle being removed, which is a distinct move away from the tempo plan. UWR Delver is similar in that it can either play like a tempo deck with Delvers and soft permission but has the option of trying to play in the fast-midrange space with TNN/SFM + equipment (or just SFM+Batterskull) when that plan is stronger or the tempo strategy doesn't work. So in some ways the decrease in the styles you see masks that those styles occupy a lot more potential design space than those that were top performers earlier.

On the other hand, you can absolutely say that TNN has resulted in a general slowing of the meta and the "midrange-ification" of tempo decks, with super aggressive strategies like RUG losing ground to creature decks that have better midgames, while hatebear plans like D&T and Maverick have given/are giving way to different midrange and control decks that rely less on X/1 dudes that get hit by TNN-hate and that are more resilient to sweepers like Terminus and Supreme Verdict that come along with the rise of Blade variants and Miracles. I'm not sure if "shades of midrange, pure control, and combo" is a healthy metagame (I'm legitimately on the fence), but that seems to be the real effect of TNN.

Arsenal

03-19-2014, 11:48 AM

Maverick rarely ran SFM. Same with Miracles. I think it's a bit of a stretch to classify Maverick and Miracles as a SFM deck when most builds ran 0 copies in their respective 75.

Lemnear

03-19-2014, 11:55 AM

Maverick rarely ran SFM. Same with Miracles. I think it's a bit of a stretch to classify Maverick and Miracles as a SFM deck when most builds ran 0 copies in their respective 75.

Then feel free to remove those ... doesn't matter to my point as numbers remain equal before and after TNN in regards to those three named creatures and their part of the metagame.

The only difference between pre- & lost-TNN is that the use of SFM expanded even more

Arsenal

03-19-2014, 11:57 AM

Of course SFM saw an uptick in play post-TNN. I mean, why would you want to play with just TNN when you can play with TNN + tutorable Equipment in allied colors?

HSCK -

I took the average # of top 8s, then ranked the decks accordingly. The average had to be used as not all decks charted in all 10 months. Did you do the same for yours?

HSCK

03-19-2014, 12:58 PM

Yeah, but I think what gives a better look at the meta is percentage? So the last few months TA is about 10% of all top 8s, while ANT is around 3%. I think when you say the pre-TNN meta is more diverse it makes more sense to point to percentages of top 8s and if there's a better spread it supports it better right?

Most popular decks per top 8 share percentage:

TA: 10%
Miracles: 6.8%
Deatblade: 6.6%
UWR: 6.4%
Sneak and Show: 5.9%
Blade Control: 5.9%
Elves: 5.7%
Jund: 4.9%
RUG: 4.2%
DnT: 3.6%
ANT: 3.6%

Total: 63.6% of all top 8 decks were these decks from Dec-Feb.

Esper3k

03-19-2014, 01:08 PM

The difference between this (Jan-Oct 2013):
1.) Team America
2.) Miracles
3.) Deathblade
4.) Patriot
5.) Blade Control
6.) Sneak & Show
7.) Elves
8.) Jund
9.) RUG Delver
10.) Death and Taxes
11.) Ad Nauseam Tendrils

Just a small nitpick, but HSCK's data had Blade Control and Sneak & Show both at 28 points over that time period, so they should really both be occupying the same 5/6 slot.

I've always stated that Maverick was a #7-9 deck. Always (12-19-13 post from the now-locked "TNN Go Away" thread: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27102-Would-you-like-to-see-True-Name-Nemesis-gone&p=775644&viewfull=1#post775644). You and others were the ones claiming that Maverick was completely dead before TNN and that Maverick didn't matter at all. The data just confirms that Maverick was in fact a #9 deck pre-TNN, this isn't even up for debate anymore. Also, I never claimed it was a "highly successful deck", so that strawman can be put out. In fact, I think I referred to Maverick as a "fringe Top 10 deck"... which is exactly what it was from Jan-Oct 2013.

Also, I included Patriot's positioning from Jan-Oct 2013 for you. It was the #11 deck in the meta, but only charted in 3 of the 10 month sample (July, Sept, Oct). It averaged a 7.3 place finish during that 3 month sample.

I think you're misreading my post as some sort of attack on you. I'm not saying that you made a claim that Maverick was highly successful. My point was that it seems that Maverick was already on a downward trend and that while TNN certainly didn't help it any, TNN isn't the only factor to blame for Maverick's decline (ie, it was already on the decline before TNN came in). I'd be curious to see a month by month breakdown of Maverick's performance pre-TNN to see if that theory holds true.

Thanks for adding in Patriot into the Jan-Oct 2013 list. This is an example of where I think we can see that a new deck popped up and started trending upwards. Even in the short time it was on the Jan-Oct 2013 list, we can see it starting to put up good results and gain in popularity. It doing well in the Dec - Feb time period doesn't surprise me and while it was helped by TNN, I don't see TNN as the only factor of its success (ie, it was already climbing the rankings).

Maverick rarely ran SFM. Same with Miracles. I think it's a bit of a stretch to classify Maverick and Miracles as a SFM deck when most builds ran 0 copies in their respective 75.

I was always under the impression that at least the American versions of Maverick tended to run 2-4 SFM? Miracles less so, but I can recall a time period when you'd see those Miracles lists that ran SFM in the main (and now you're starting to see some lists running it in the sideboard).

Esper3k

03-19-2014, 01:12 PM

4x SDM
4x DRS
3x Delver

5x SFM
4x DRS
3x Delver

Honestly, I don't see much of a difference in regards to the defining creatures. "Blade control" is a bit undefined. That can be everything from Esper-Delver, to Lingering Souls, to UW-Delver with certain overlaps to Deathblade and Patriot.

The only thing you can say is that non-blue midrange dropped, but that can have various reasons like the pure hype around SFM+TNN. As recent SCG results showed is that TNN is on a decline again, thanks to massive counteractions in form of Golgari Charm and Liliana out of BGx decks like Team America or Jund.

If you don't mind that the metagame is totally defined by those 3 creatures and SFM is in every fucking aggro AND control AND midrange deck, then yeah ... the meta is fine

Poor Tarmogoyf and StP get no love? :)

We won't even bring up Brainstorm, hah.

Lemnear

03-19-2014, 01:40 PM

Poor Tarmogoyf and StP get no love? :)

We won't even bring up Brainstorm, hah.

Not a problem at all. The number of decks running blue, tarmogoyf or StoP in these 2 statistics didn't vary that much between pre- and post-TNN.

I call bullshit on the whole "TNN is to blame for the vanishing of Goblins, Maverick, Jund and other non-blue decks" which was present in this thread as well as the idea that TNN is to blame for a mysterious lack of diversity in the format which is obviously also not the case. The format is as blue as ever according to the presented statistic. Without actual percentages, we can't discuss the point in detail atm

The only thing we can clearly see is that blue is a better support-color for SFM than green (Maverick) and more people gave up on tarmogoyf in favor of SFM+StoP

Arsenal

03-19-2014, 01:57 PM

HSCK -

I understand you now. I'll crunch the numbers and post in a bit.

Barook

03-19-2014, 02:30 PM

The format is as blue as ever according to the presented statistic. Without actual percentages, we can't discuss the point in detail atm
The format went from ~60+% average of blue decks to ~65+% average decks ever since the release of TNN.

There was definitely an increase in blue decks, although not as drastic as the one that Delver caused.

Sadly, quoting mtgtop8.com is worthless now as far as current data is concerned since they went full retarded and started including ALL MODO daily events, even those with 16-18 players, into the results, despite a vastly different tournament structure compared to bigger events.

Arsenal

03-19-2014, 02:48 PM

So this is interesting. I focused more on the rankings and placement of decks (just like tcdecks.net does using their "Tier Decks" tool). Essentially, I did not care about what % of the Top 8 a particular deck accounted for, only what the average finish of that deck was. This goes back to my personal belief of caring less about field penetration, and more about the results/win/finish (obviously, high penetration + high win rate is paramount).

If you care only about average place finishes, then this is what the ranking would look like:

1. RUG Delver = 1.9
2. Jund = 3.0
3. Blade Control = 4.4
4. Miracles = 4.6
5. Sneak & Show = 5.0
6. Team America = 5.4
7. Death and Taxes = 5.8
8. BUG Control = 5.8
9. Maverick = 6.0
10. Elves = 7.1
11. Patriot = 7.3

However, if you want to know what % those decks were accounting for in the Top 8 (1,012 total decks), this is what you get:

1. RUG Delver = 16.4%
2. Jund = 12.9%
3. Sneak & Show = 9.5%
4. Shardless BUG = 9.2%
5. Miracles = 8.9%
6. Blade Control = 7.1%
7. Maverick = 6.1%
8. Team America = 5.8%
9. Elves = 4.6%
10. Death and Taxes = 3.8%
11. Patriot = 2.0%

These two sets of data are important as I believe it can give a much more accurate picture of what the meta looked like and how the decks were performing. For example, it is quite easy to see that RUG Delver was an absolute MONSTER. It averaged a 1.9 place finish (tops) while accounting for 16.4% penetration in the Top 8; it not only was showing up, it was winning too. Same thing with Jund. After that though, it gets interesting.

Blade Control had a relatively small showing at 7.1%, but finished at a respectable 4.4 average place. This would suggest that although Blade Control didn't have high penetration in the top 8, it finished well when it was in there. Sneak & Show had a super strong showing at 9.5% in the Top 8, but could only muster an 5.0 average finish; for a deck to have such high penetration, I would've hoped it performed better.

But to the actual point of contention, you can see that Jund went from 12.9% to 4.9% Top 8 penetration. Patriot went from 2.0% to 6.4%. Deathblade went from uncharted to a respectable 6.6%. Blade Control dropped from 7.1% to 5.9%, although I believe that Patriot and Deathblade's positioning had a great deal to do with Blade's decrease in Top penetration. Elves saw a minor uptick from 4.6% to 5.7%. Ad Nauseam went from uncharted to 3.6%. Maverick went from 6.1% Top 8 penetration to uncharted; major dropoff here. Shardless BUG went from a robust 9.2% Top 8 penetration to uncharted; this dropoff is also incredible.

HSCK, so that we can fully compare on all fronts, would you be able to crunch the numbers to show the average place finish of each deck, regardless of Top 8 % penetration? Just comparing the Top 8 % penetration, you definitely can see trends that support my theory. I'm interested in knowing if those decks that are seeing less Top 8 penetration are retaining their winning ability or if they're also placing worse now.

catmint

03-19-2014, 04:10 PM

Sneak & Show had a super strong showing at 9.5% in the Top 8, but could only muster an 5.0 average finish; for a deck to have such high penetration, I would've hoped it performed better.

It is much easier to win with Sneak if the opponents don't know what they are up against. If this G1 advantage is removed many decks can increase their G1 percentage significantly, hence playing Sneak in a small local tourney or wining in a top8 is harder than getting to Top8 in a large "anonymous" tournament.

To the point of the meta being worse or better than before I don't see clear evidence in the statistics and percentages that diversity was hurt. From the trends we've seen in the data since TNN as well as my personal experience and observation there are a couple of factors which are "pro post TNN" (not pro as a card/design, but pro in the sense of the format is good):

1) It is tough to make a call for "the best deck". Pre TNN it was clearly Canadian imo. Post TNN I had my money on miracles as the best deck, however that deck is like 10x harder to play than BUG delver which is also very strong. But there are still enough people out there who believe UWr or Esper is the best deck. My point is if we would have made a poll on what the best deck is post TNN a big majority would have voted Canadian.. Now I am guessing things would be more spread out.

2) The "rock, paper, scissor" effect is still valid.
Each of the top decks has some seriously bad matchups. Miracles has issues with Esper, Esper with Jund, Jund with Storm(sneak), storm with UWR, UWR with Miracles, BUG delver with Elves, Sneak with DnT, ... As long as every deck has a somehow fair share of weak matchups it feels like the one with the best tuning/testing/gameplay will have the best chance to win.

3) As the meta is shifting you can be ahead of the curve and do some damage. For example: Lejay made a great meta call and a good finish with a blood moon/painter deck in Paris which preys on BUG. There was and is still room to innovate and surprise.

4) So far TNN has not been proven good enough on its own. It has a strong tie to SFM and there are only 2,5 decks out there able to abuse this synergy.

The important point is that it is not clear that a SFM+TNN deck is "the best" deck and you either play it or hate it. The argument "play it or ignore it" is not true imo. Jund and Miracles don't ignore it but have just very different built in ways to deal with TNN. And other decks "ignoring" it like Team America, Elves or Sneak ignore it for very different reasons.

Besides the old "unfun argument" you can also argue that SFM+TNN is the nail in the coffin for every midrange that is not Jund, but it is not like there were many other midrange archetypes before TNN.

Arsenal

03-19-2014, 04:35 PM

I don't think that I ever argued that there was a best deck post-TNN, just that diversity has been reduced and that the meta had warped itself around TNN, in both direct and indirect ways.

Jund most certainly doesn't ignore it and has been gameplanning around SFM-TNN decks since November 2013. In fact, many current Jund sideboards have been overloading on TNN hate (6-7 cards isn't out of the question). Miracles most certainly does ignore TNN with Terminus x Supreme Verdict; replace TNN with any vanilla creature and Miracles simply ignores it and proceeds to cast a 1cc Wrath at Instant speed.

Again, the loss of % shares for the decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves, is there. The increase in % shares for the decks that don't care about TNN at all is also there. It slowly is becoming "play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose". The numbers don't lie. The only thing we don't know is how the Jan-Oct 2013 decks performed (actual finishes, not just Top 8 penetration) post-TNN, which I hope HSCK will be able to provide data for as I have.

For clarity:

Jund - 12.9% to 4.9% (-8.0%)
RUG Delver - 16.4% to 4.2% (-12.2%)
Shardless BUG - 9.2% to 0% (-9.2%)
Maverick - 6.1% to 0% (-6.1%)
Miracles - 8.9% to 6.8% (-2.1%)
Death and Taxes - 3.8% to 3.6% (-0.2%)
Blade Control - 7.1% to 5.9% (-1.2%)

Patriot - 2.0% to 6.4% (+4.4%)
Deathblade - 0% to 6.6% (+6.6%)
Elves - 4.6% to 5.7% (+1.1%)
Ad Nauseam - 0% to 3.6% (+3.6%)
Team America - 5.8% to 10% (+4.2%)

I've bolded the decks that best illustrate what I'm talking about and I hope that it's pretty obvious to all the the decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves, have seen a significant dropoff; the decks running TNN have seen a significant upward swing; and the decks not caring about TNN have also seen an upward swing.

HSCK

03-19-2014, 04:56 PM

Lemnear

03-19-2014, 05:38 PM

I didn't keep track of specific placements, and I might have to hand that off to some one else to crunch as I don't have the time to do it. However, I would posit the last few months have more diversity as the top 10 decks have only 64% of the top 8 share, whereas your data set the top 10 has 84%. I'm sure over time there will be some consolidation, but that means there are a lot more decks making it to the elimination rounds more often doesn't it?

That is a result of flawed math once more. Claiming that decks started and fell from/to 0% is laughable. Just because a shitload of decks didn't make it into the T8 statistics presented here doesn't mean they are 0% of the worldwide metagame and we can make analysis based on that nonsense

catmint

03-19-2014, 05:39 PM

I see your point of how the meta warps around TNN and had similar thoughts about it Arsenal. I don't like the argument of "play TNN, ignore it or lose", because that sounds exaggerated. At the moment it looks like TNN did not "kill the format". It just killed midrange except for Jund. Since the number of viable midrange archetypes was very limited pre TNN it is just not such a big deal for the format. Overall the format is still diverse - some decks got better - some got worse and things keep moving.

Esper3k

03-19-2014, 05:41 PM

The thing is, the whole "X card forced the meta to deal with it" argument can be applied to any number of cards we've seen. Deathrite Shaman, Delver of Secrets, Stoneforge Mystic, even Tarmogoyf all had that effect upon the meta. We occasionally get powerful cards that pop up and shake up the format, which I'm personally fine with. It's when those cards become overly dominating (such as Mental Misstep, for example) that I would believe is the bigger problem. I don't believe we've reached anywhere near that sort of dominance for TNN to be banned on those grounds at least.

The "unfun" argument, of course, is more nebulous and more open to debate.

Esper3k

03-19-2014, 05:45 PM

That is a result of flawed math once more. Claiming that decks started and fell from/to 0% is laughable. Just because a shitload of decks didn't make it into the T8 statistics presented here doesn't mean they are 0% of the worldwide metagame and we can make analysis based on that nonsense

I think one thing to also keep in mind is that we're all working with very likely extremely flawed data as there's no way we can get the results of every tournament. Even where we draw the line at what is "major" and what is not is a fairly arbitrary judgment.

Legacy metas are also notoriously known for being fickle based upon location as well, so while certain decks may be performing better at large tournaments, your local meta will very likely not reflect that of the overall meta.

HSCK

03-19-2014, 05:46 PM

Arsenal

03-19-2014, 05:47 PM

thecrav

03-19-2014, 05:53 PM

HSCK

03-19-2014, 05:55 PM

I honestly give up. I started with the "unfun" argument but was quickly yelled at and told that I needed to provide statistics and data. I then provide statistics and data that very clearly supports my position, and now it's not good enough for reasons completely unknown to me. Okay.

Wait, I'm confused, I don't think I said that about your data? I just said that the last few months have shown an increase in other decks top 8'ing, or are you referring to another poster?

Lemnear

03-19-2014, 06:37 PM

What are you talking about? I didn't say that at all? 36% of decks hitting top 8s in the last 3 months of play have been outside the top 10 decks. The trend from Jan-Oct 2013 was 16%, I'm not sure what else to say except look at the decks too.

I'm talking about Arsenal's statistic obviously and explained why suddenly the top 10 decks make suddenly 84% of decks in the metagame. The reason for that is that Arsenal's statistic treats any deck outside of the top 10's as 0% which is plain nonsense by calculating every deck that enters and leaves the top 10 with 0% per flawed definition.

I honestly give up. I started with the "unfun" argument but was quickly yelled at and told that I needed to provide statistics and data. I then provide statistics and data that very clearly supports my position, and now it's not good enough for reasons completely unknown to me. Okay.

Data are nice. I wish you would have worked with them more careful to have a point about TNN driving out non-blue decks, but if all non-blue decks that don't make it into your top 10 equal 0% in your calculation of the metagame distribution, you create an artificial top-heavy statistic especially if people try to compare data like HSCK. Maverick didn't drop to 0%. Neither was Ad Nauseam 0% unplayed prior to TNN. Period

Arsenal

03-19-2014, 06:59 PM

You do realize that the % HSCK and I have been discussing are the Top 8 penetration %, and NOT the entire Legacy meta as you keep on insisting, right?

Esper3k

03-19-2014, 09:57 PM

Just curious, but have there actually been 0 T8's by Shardless BUG and Maverick in the Dec-Feb tournaments (that we can mine data from of course).

@Arsenal: looking at the data from that post you did comparing the changes (posting from my phone so copy/paste sucks, sorry), how does the drop in Miracles (a deck you say is in the Ignore TNN category) and relatively small change to D&T (a deck that cares about TNN, but does not run it) fit into the overall picture? Ie, by the theory, shouldn't have Miracles also experienced an increase while D&T also should have suffered massive decrease (I'm actually surprised that it hasn't given all the horror stories we hear about it being killed by TNN). This isn't an attack, btw, I just am wondering about your thoughts on those two points.

HSCK

03-19-2014, 10:08 PM

Megadeus

03-20-2014, 12:54 AM

I dont remember any Maverick deck in particular off hand, but I do remember seeing a few Shardless BUG decks.

Tylert

03-20-2014, 08:18 AM

Nielsie

03-20-2014, 08:52 AM

Well, D&T can mostly ignore TNN because it can fly other it and race it or take care of the equipement.
I'm more surprised that D&T is still there because of the additional hate vs TNN that affects D&T a lot.
This. TNN in a vacuum isn't that much of a concern to DnT because we race it in the air and have plenty of tools to destroy equipment. More concerning to DnT is the increase in TNN-hate in the form of sweepers and -x/-x effects. We realy have to be carefull not to overextend into those. I fear Team America much more than Patriot Delver when playing DnT.

I also don't understand the hate on SFM. There is a lot more you can do against SFM than TNN. What I hate the most about TNN is that no matter your own boardstate, out of nowhere for 3 mana your opponent can change all of that or create somekind of a nobody-do-anything-kind-of-phase. This is especialy true for decks like Goblins, previously over-powering boardstates now mean nothing. But I have also experienced it even with a deck like MUD, you cast a fatty they cast TNN, you go some rounds of draw and go from both sides untill you or your opponent finds an answer (like the double bolt + TNN attack in my case :cry: ). I don't know but those games just feel stupid.

Esper3k

03-20-2014, 09:09 AM

Well, D&T can mostly ignore TNN because it can fly other it and race it or take care of the equipement.
I'm more surprised that D&T is still there because of the additional hate vs TNN that affects D&T a lot.

But if you're going to use that same reasoning, Jund and Maverick can ignore TNN or be put into the "can deal with equipment" camp. Both of those decks especially deal with equipment much better than D&T does (Jund packing Abrupt Decays, Ancient Grudge, etc. Maverick having GSZ for Qasali Pridemage on top of other hate if they want it.

Jund is also in GB, which is particularly well suited for dealing with TNN and Maverick now has access to Thespian Stage / Dark Depths to go way over the top if they want to.

Again, I posit that Maverick was already on the decline before TNN and that the surge of people playing TNN drew people away from Maverick and Jund. I also think we'll see Jund slowly climb back up, although likely not to the numbers we previously saw.

However, as 1) Legacy metas are usually slow to shift 2) we haven't really had that much time post-TNN yet, so all we can do is watch and see what happens.

This. TNN in a vacuum isn't that much of a concern to DnT because we race it in the air and have plenty of tools to destroy equipment. More concerning to DnT is the increase in TNN-hate in the form of sweepers and -x/-x effects. We realy have to be carefull not to overextend into those. I fear Team America much more than Patriot Delver when playing DnT.

I also don't understand the hate on SFM. There is a lot more you can do against SFM than TNN. What I hate the most about TNN is that no matter your own boardstate, out of nowhere for 3 mana your opponent can change all of that or create somekind of a nobody-do-anything-kind-of-phase. This is especialy true for decks like Goblins, previously over-powering boardstates now mean nothing. But I have also experienced it even with a deck like MUD, you cast a fatty they cast TNN, you go some rounds of draw and go from both sides untill you or your opponent finds an answer (like the double bolt + TNN attack in my case :cry: ). I don't know but those games just feel stupid.

If Goblins has an overpowering board state, a 3/X wall for 3 isn't really going to do much to them. On top of that, they even have a nasty Protection from Blue guy to push through. TNN isn't great when your opponent has an overwhelmingly strong board state. TNN is best when you're ahead or need to break parity.

It's not that people hate SFM (at least I don't). I just recognize that it's more powerful than TNN. Sure, you can "deal" with it more easily, but it'll cost you 2 cards and one lesser played type of card (artifact removal vs creature removal) to deal with both. Combine that with it being an easily splashable 2-drop that can create a recurring Serra Angel (Batterskull), wipe your opponent's board in a few turns (Jitte), or deal +4 Damage while drawing you a card every turn (SoFI), one can see that it's always been SFM that's been the powerhouse in these decks. There's a reason why you often see 4x SFM, but rarely even see 3x TNN. It's not that SFM complements TNN, it's the other way around - TNN complements SFM.

Arsenal

03-20-2014, 09:19 AM

Esper3k

03-20-2014, 09:54 AM

Esper3k -

Some time ago, I asked that very same question re: Miracles decrease in play; I believe this was back in mid January. I was told by virtually everyone on these boards that Miracles is a tough deck to play through 6+ Swiss rounds plus a Top 8, inexperienced players were likely picking up Esper/Patriot over Miracles if deciding to play a UWx deck, TNN was the new toy that people wanted to play with, etc. All of these reasons sound plausible, but I don't have any hard data to theorize one way or the other. I suppose Miracles' players anecdotal "evidence" will have to suffice?

I have no idea why D&T has remained virtually unchanged in Top 8 penetration %. I'm not familiar enough with D&T vs. SFM-TNN decks to theorize anything. Perhaps D&T has a much better plan against SFM-TNN than it appears? Perhaps D&T is taking advantage of peripheral effects happening in the meta? I don't know. Maybe Miracles and D&T are the statistical outliers?

Given the recent performance of Miracles at GP Paris, I would assume we'll see an uptick in Miracles being played (and thus T8ing) over the next few months. We saw a resurgence of D&T after GP Strasbourg as well as a surge of UWR Delver after GP DC. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't see the same after Paris (we're already seeing an upsurge of Team America).

At least for me (feel free to disagree), the performance of Miracles & D&T is not so much outliers, but more of a sign that TNN isn't as invulnerable and homewrecking to the format that many (not saying you have) claimed.

I think it's more plausible that people jumped ship to TNN decks due to all the hype and controversy and now the meta is adapting / people are discovering it isn't an auto-win, so people can feel like they don't have to play TNN anymore.

D&T still doing well doesn't surprise me as much as it continuing to maintain numbers. I believe D&T has a much greater "true believer" following than Maverick or Jund do. From what I've seen, you don't really get many players going "oh man, I love Maverick / Jund", but you -do- have a lot of avid fans of D&T. I think many of those players kept playing it and learned to deal with TNN, but I'm still also somewhat surprised that it hasn't dropped some in the T8 percentages due to getting hurt by TNN splash hate (although as TNN declines in play, TNN hate becomes less important).

This is all just brainstorm / theorizing, of course. We'll have to see over the next year or so how the numbers on things continue to pan out.

Arsenal

03-20-2014, 10:00 AM

Esper3k

03-20-2014, 11:05 AM

I never said it was invulnerable (TNN decks can be beaten... by other TNN decks or by decks designed to bypass TNN altogether, the statistics show this to be true), but it certainly has warped the meta, or at least the winner's meta. And if Miracles does see an uptick, which is likely for all the reasons you stated, then that will just further strengthen my argument as that'll be yet another "don't care about TNN" deck gaining % shares.

I never said you said it was invulnerable (in fact, in my previous post - I actually said "not saying you have" claimed it!), but there have been wails and gnashing of teeth from many who have made claims such as "any fair deck with creatures automatically loses to it" and such.

If Miracles makes the climb back to its former percentages, I would say that it's not doing so because of TNN. It's doing so because the same factors that made it good pre-TNN are still the same post-TNN. The number of sweepers it has just makes it generally good against creatures. TNN doesn't change that. Creature decks are still being played and Miracles will always be great vs those as long as they're around.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that the meta wouldn't change because of TNN. I believe the crux of the argument is whether or not it shifted enough to be considered a bad thing. We still see greater numbers of SFM, Delvers, and DRS being played than TNNs. I would make the claim that those cards have shifted the meta much more than TNN has done, but I believe most people would still rather have them in the format than without.

btm10

03-20-2014, 12:01 PM

I don't think anyone ever claimed that the meta wouldn't change because of TNN. I believe the crux of the argument is whether or not it shifted enough to be considered a bad thing. We still see greater numbers of SFM, Delvers, and DRS being played than TNNs. I would make the claim that those cards have shifted the meta much more than TNN has done, but I believe most people would still rather have them in the format than without.

I definitely think this is closest statement made yet to reality, and ultimately why I don't think banning is necessary. As the D&T players have pointed out, that deck's fall-off in success has less to do with TNN itself and more to do with the fact that their creatures get hit by a lot of the TNN answers, especially -X/-X effects and straight up sweepers like Terminus and Supreme Verdict (which are obviously the things that make Miracles powerful). The one-for-one TNN answers like Innocent Blood and Diabolic Edict, or the slow grindy answers like Liliana are actually much worse against dedicated creature decks than targeted removal like Abrupt Decay and Bolt, but D&T is vulnerable to the sweepers because it relies on a critical mass of dorks that die to the sweepers. I'm sure this also accelerated the decline of Maverick that may or may not have been underway in November, and the more recent decline in Elves.

That being said, I do think that TNN has had more of an effect than Deathrite Shaman on the best decks right now because DRS doesn't put design constraints on decks in the way that TNN dictates the type of removal that you have to have access to. Interestingly, another major factor I've considered when designing sideboards recently has been whether I have enough/good enough artifact removal. It's not uncommon to see decks capable of running 6+ ways of killing artifacts postboard in my meta, which really speaks to the power of equipment at the moment.

HSCK

03-20-2014, 04:20 PM

Arsenal

03-20-2014, 04:40 PM

Meh, I think for integrity's sake, you include November 2013 in the sample. Whether it supports your position or not, it's valid data that falls within our parameters. It needs to be analyzed.

Btw, does anyone remember what was happening around June and July 2013? Those two months saw very few 6+ round tournaments that I could mine Top 8's from.

Bed Decks Palyer

03-21-2014, 04:42 AM

Btw, does anyone remember what was happening around June and July 2013? Those two months saw very few 6+ round tournaments that I could mine Top 8's from.

Holiday/vacation/swimming? Look up the previous years if you'll find the same pattern. But I guess Aug would be the same then.

HSCK

03-21-2014, 09:54 AM

Working on November and starting March this weekend. Shardless BUG should be tied with ANT and DnT over the three month span with 17 top 8s of the 468 decks surveyed.

EDIT: Finished November, some interesting points:

Maverick was a monster which bucked its downward trend and what it would produce in later months, not sure what about November made it so popular, but it had 15 top 8s in the 248 deck sample size. RUG and ANT were the only ones better with UWR and Miracles also at 15.

From the data I've looked at, November was the last month where there was a tremendous consolidation of decks as more and more rogue decks creeped in during the Dec/Jan/Feb window.

Zombie

03-23-2014, 01:51 PM

This DTB shrinkage thing seems fun. Top 5: Miracles, playpastTNN.dec x2, TNN.dec x2.

We asked an expert for his opinion on the new DTB:

So interaction, such diverse, wow.

Shawon

03-23-2014, 02:11 PM

This DTB shrinkage thing seems fun. Top 5: Miracles, playpastTNN.dec x2, TNN.dec x2.

We asked an expert for his opinion on the new DTB:

Damn, I just looked at the DTB Section. Holy shit. Elves no longer a DTB? I wish that was true where I live!

Barook

03-23-2014, 03:52 PM

The DTB section is smaller because the required percentage was increased.

Zombie

03-23-2014, 04:12 PM

The DTB section is smaller because the required percentage was increased.

But it was increased the last update already, no?

HSCK

03-23-2014, 04:29 PM

They're also using way more results than they should, so much data is coming from small tournaments on TC. Elves, Blade Control, RUG, and ANT are all on the same level as Jund.

As a matter of health, if we are seeing larger spreads of decks in top 8s but smaller amounts of deck passing the threshold for being in DtB isn't that a good thing? That means there are more decks performing well instead of just a few that eat up large shares like RUG and Jund.

Megadeus

03-30-2014, 09:09 PM

FWIW the Top 8 of the Charlotte open just had a nice 32/32 sweep of Brainstorm in T8.

KobeBryan

03-30-2014, 10:24 PM

No Way...you mean TNN isn't warping the meta?

HSCK

03-30-2014, 10:30 PM

The 7-1+ category looked a bit more diverse, 4 TA, 2 Deathblade, Elves, Miracles, MUD, Depths, Painter, Nic Fit, and Infect. March's trend so far has he top 10 decks at about 55% of the top 8 meta, that seems more healthy?

ESG

03-30-2014, 11:52 PM

TNN was in the winning deck in Seattle. TNN was also in the winning deck in Los Angeles. TNN was also in the winning deck at the Invitational. Now we're on to the finals in Charlotte, where we'll see if TNN can take down the only deck in the format with one-mana Wraths. I hope those of you keeping track of the tally are recording this.

HSCK

03-31-2014, 12:15 AM

TNN was a one-of in the Seattle winning list, that was a Team America Delver deck. UWR Delver is in the finals of Charlotte too. It's pretty misleading to classify both as TNN decks.

Only 2 of the 7-1+ Legacy decks (13 total) at the Invitational were TNN decks as well. Right now I have 7 Deathblade decks, 3 Blade Control decks, and 2 TNN BUG Control decks having top 8s in March out of 133 decks in top 8s with 6+ rounds. TA alone is 17 decks while Miracles is a 19. 57% of all top performing decks belong to the top 10 decks in the meta, if this trend continues it'll be the lowest in the last 18 months or so in terms of consolidation. I'll keep that in mind a bit more when it comes to looking at the meta and health.

ESG

03-31-2014, 12:39 AM

Well, that one-of won the tournament. It was the key play. You can go back and watch the coverage if you didn't see it happen. TNN's existence swings games. It's not at all misleading to declare them TNN decks. TNN is a free win against a lot of decks. If TNN is in a list, it needs to be categorized as a TNN deck; otherwise, why keep track of anything? Many of us object to TNN being a card due to how it take the fun out of the game, whether you're playing it or playing against it, due to it reducing decisions and voiding the rest of the game once it resolves. The small contingent of TNN supporters claimed it wasn't overbearing, but it's not a coincidence that we're seeing many of these victorious decks running TNN. It's an edge against the format. Some of us realized this long ago, and we shouted about it. And despite a few minor twists, everything has come out like we said. TNN's power level is too high, and there are not enough acceptable answers that people can play that are also good against other things, leading to ever more focus on blue being the only real strategy for a big event. I hope you have data on blue vs. non-blue success, because I can already tell you that non-blue is really middling.

JPoJohnson

03-31-2014, 01:08 AM

I remember mid last year when there was the exact same posts, but about Sneak N' Show. I haven't heard a Sneak Attack or Show N' Tell complaint in quite a while at this point once popularity shifted as it does. I think 3-4 months isn't really a long enough time period since if that's all it took Show N' Tell would have been banned last fall.

ESG

03-31-2014, 01:33 AM

True-Name clinches Game 3, so TNN beats one-mana Wraths to claim another trophy. Streak is now up to four.

KobeBryan

03-31-2014, 01:46 AM

True-Name clinches Game 3, so TNN beats one-mana Wraths to claim another trophy. Streak is now up to four.

TNN did not win that match, it was a very tight game with the resolution of batterskull and a sword of feast and famine.

Dice_Box

03-31-2014, 02:04 AM

Meh. If Miracles did not fuck game one, that would have all been far more interesting.

All that did was:

A) Show that TNN is as much a bitch when its on the table as we all knew it was (game 2)
B) Prove Top is a great card
C) Give Brainstorm haters more of a reason to bitch

Nothing changed here, move on.

ESG

03-31-2014, 02:29 AM

TNN did not win that match, it was a very tight game with the resolution of batterskull and a sword of feast and famine.

Most Magic games at that level of play are tight games. TNN was crucial in winning that match. Rewatch the coverage. Game 1 Phillip Braverman had Top + Counterbalance and Jace on board, which would be overwhelming advantage in a pre-TNN world. Instead, Michael Majors assembles TNN + Jitte and Braverman's board goes to hell. He loses his V. Clique and Snapcaster, then Jace, and is facing down lethal after repeated attempts to find Terminus when he punts and gets a game loss for accidentally drawing a card. So he went from overwhelming advantage to the familiar scramble of Terminus or bust.

In Game 3, Braverman has the advantage all the way, with Majors bricking turn after turn on flipping Delver of Secrets. They get into a racing situation with Braverman's solo angel token trying to seal the game up, and Majors gets TNN online. Braverman's last draw was a Stoneforge Mystic. Again, watch the coverage. If TNN was any other creature, that Stoneforge would have mattered, so in fact the game went to Majors precisely because it was TNN.

Barook

03-31-2014, 08:32 AM

Before starting my weekly rant: I'm suprised that MUD placed twice this weekend - interesting.

After two weeks of somewhat healthy-looking Top 8s, we're right back in blue hell, deeper than ever before. Great... :rolleyes:

81,25% of the Top 16 and 100% of the Top 8 were blue this time.

Looking at the data of the Top 16 and the Invitational top performers, aside from the two MUD decks and two RUG decks, literally every other deck was a TNN deck, combo deck to ignore TNN or decks specialized in dealing with TNN (Miracles and shitloads of BUG variants). And TNN still took the cake - twice. It boogles my mind that there are still so many people left who oppose a ban.

TNN is neither fun nor healthy for the format.

I remember mid last year when there was the exact same posts, but about Sneak N' Show. I haven't heard a Sneak Attack or Show N' Tell complaint in quite a while at this point once popularity shifted as it does. I think 3-4 months isn't really a long enough time period since if that's all it took Show N' Tell would have been banned last fall.
Sneak & Show devotes its entire strategy to become brainless monkey while with TNN, your core strategy doesn't change aside from getting a similiar 3 mana "I-Win"-button. D&T would absolutely slaugher S&S decks if they became a thing again. Too bad D&T doesn't run Brainstorm, hence it's rather less stellar performance in longer tournaments since random will screw you over while having to fight off TNN and splash hate, too. D&T thrives on MODO where a 3-1 or 4-0 is much more likely than having a Top 8-worthy streak.

btm10

03-31-2014, 09:35 AM

The complaints about blue decks are getting pretty old. There wasn't a single complaint last week about the absurd SCG Top 8, ostensibly because it was a wacky anomoly and everyone knew and recognized it. This top 8 is probably slightly biased toward blue decks due to Invitational players who stuck around, and the known preference of top players for blue decks.

If D&T were actually dead, I'd be the first to dance on its grave; unfortunately, it isn't. The MUD finishes are interesting, though.

HSCK

03-31-2014, 10:31 AM

This is the 5th month of data I've compiled and not once has a TNN-centric deck been in the top 2. Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 DRS/1 TNN a TNN deck is ridiculous. Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 SFM/2 TNN a TNN deck is also pretty wrong.

No deck is taking up more than 16% of the top 8 performances and every single month more and more decks are placing at the cost of the top 10 decks. That means more decks are doing well in the last 5 months than before TNN. TNN decks suppressed numbers for certain decks like RUG and Jund, but Jund's also on the uptick and has parity with Deathblade for March so far. Furthermore, TNN decks didn't eat up those percentages, but other decks filled up those percentage points. Isn't that what diversity is supposed to be? More decks making the elimination rounds? I'm no longer sure what goalpost people are using for the TNN is destroying the meta argument.

Arsenal

03-31-2014, 11:07 AM

btm10

03-31-2014, 11:16 AM

Arsenal - I'm still not sure that "not caring about card X" is indicative of card X being a problem. My impression of this classification is that you don't care if the not caring arises from not interacting with card X and winning before card X matters (the Sneak and Show/ANT route) or having answers to card X (the BUG/Miracles/possibly Jund route). Decks of the former type are part of a healthy metagame (I think even the most ardent combo-haters acknowledge that it's an archetype that should be allowed to exist), while decks with answers to a potentially problematic card are exactly what is meant by the metagame adapting. So I fail to see how "not caring" is somehow detrimental. Maverick and D&T are the two decks that keep coming up as the main 'victims' of a post-TNN meta, but they weren't driven out by TNN, they were driven out by the fact that they rely on a critical mass of hatebears and are therefore susceptible to sweepers, especially cheap -1/-1 effects. If you want a blue example, the same susceptibility is probably what stops a lot of people from playing Grixis Delver.

EDIT: I neglected to mention RUG Delver among the TNN victims. Although since its spot was taken by two similar decks, I'm not sure if anyone can be too upset about a loss of diversity.

HSCK

03-31-2014, 11:21 AM

I strongly disagree with your assessment. If you examine the pre/post-TNN data I compared a few pages back, you can clearly see that the decks that (a.) care about TNN, but (b.) don't run it themselves saw a steep decline in Top 8 penetration while the TNN decks & decks designed not to care about TNN took up those percentage shares left vacant.

So how do you explain the larger uptick in rogue strategies doing well? DnT is doing pretty well for March and has been a contender since TNN's been in the meta. RUG and Jund lost shares, but is that really a bad thing? They were a huge percentage of the meta, but now everything's between 4-10%, in terms of health why is that bad? Do you really want those two decks to be at 30+% of the top 8 meta?

Arsenal

03-31-2014, 11:37 AM

So how do you explain the larger uptick in rogue strategies doing well? DnT is doing pretty well for March and has been a contender since TNN's been in the meta. RUG and Jund lost shares, but is that really a bad thing? They were a huge percentage of the meta, but now everything's between 4-10%, in terms of health why is that bad? Do you really want those two decks to be at 30+% of the top 8 meta?

Maverick lost shares too. Shardless BUG lost shares too. RUG Delver, Jund, Maverick, and Shardless BUG all saw a significant decline in Top 8 penetration and those shares were effectively replaced with TNN decks (Deathblade most notably) and combo decks. That's 4 interactive decks being replaced by largely uninteractive decks; Team America being the most notable exception.

RE: RUG Delver and Jund's dominance... I honestly don't know. I'm actually conflicted on that as statistically, I don't think RUG's dominance was healthy for soooo long with no contender ever able to knock it off it's throne. On the other anecdotal hand, it was a completely fair deck that you could interact with on every level, same thing goes for Jund. That's a good question that I honestly don't have a good answer to.

Also, I've been guilty of this in the past, but I've really tried hard not to use a single month or single Top 8 or single whatever to illustrate a point. I think it'll make more sense to revisit the TNN issue in August as that will be 10 months of Legacy with TNN in the format. We can then compare and contrast the 10 months pre-TNN to the 10 months post-TNN and see what TNN did.

HSCK

03-31-2014, 12:41 PM

I think Deatblade and TA are both pretty interactive. A lot of the lost percentage shares have gone into the "other category" as well. As I pointed out earlier as well, the top 10 has gone from 85%-65% of the top 8 meta, a trend that seems to be continuing. Every month since TNN has been in has been a trend of more and more decks popping up. Maybe it's time for another thread to discuss that though.

Barook

03-31-2014, 01:02 PM

I think Deatblade and TA are both pretty interactive.
TNN decks in general are pretty interactive as long as TNN isn't involved. It's like two different games whether or not TNN is in play.

Sadly, since Wizards starts now to put out Commander boxes with 2 guaranteed Mind Seize boxes, I doubt TNN is going to see a ban anytime soon. Gotta milk that cash cow.

ESG

03-31-2014, 02:02 PM

This is the 5th month of data I've compiled and not once has a TNN-centric deck been in the top 2. Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 DRS/1 TNN a TNN deck is ridiculous. Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 SFM/2 TNN a TNN deck is also pretty wrong.

Then your numbers are meaningless, because TNN is the reason these close games are coming down to the player with the TNN on the field. Again, watch the coverage. If you aren't including all decks playing TNN, then you are skewing the data.

The facts:
*Decks with TNN in them have been consistent performers, taking down large tournaments since TNN's debut. This shows the card isn't a fad or a "new toy." Consistent results are consistent results.
* Four consecutive big tournaments have now been won by decks playing TNN. How many need to be won before people start to connect the dots?
* TNN is a card that swings matchups against "fair" decks, needing an immediate answer or the game ends. See the finals coverage from last night or watch Game 3 of the SCG Seattle finals. Saying that these matches somehow don't count toward your data points because there weren't four TNNs involved is absurd.

Barook

03-31-2014, 02:22 PM

Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 DRS/1 TNN a TNN deck is ridiculous. Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 SFM/2 TNN a TNN deck is also pretty wrong.
That those 1-2 copies of TNN are easily found with a crapton of cantrips, though. So the actual chance of one hitting play is way higher than in non-blue decks running 1-2 copies of one card.

Cantrips significantly lower the amount of certain cards you need and still get the job done. Otherwise, RUG decks wouldn't get away with running 18-19 lands while normal decks run have to run 22-25 lands otherwise.

If it runs TNN, it's blue. If it's blue, it runs cantrips to find those TNN in a reasonable timeframe. And since TNN are a game-deciding factor quite a few times, they are TNN decks. Numbers are semantics as soon as cantrips are involved. They run TNN and win with it, among other things. If TNN wasn't important, they wouldn't run it, but as it stands, it steals games.

Arsenal

03-31-2014, 02:29 PM

btm10

03-31-2014, 03:08 PM

I've never understood the "but it doesn't run 4 maindeck!" argument. I mean, Jund doesn't run 4 maindeck Bloodbraid Elf, the various Jace decks don't run 4 maindeck Jace, AnT doesn't run 4 maindeck Past in Flames or 4 maindeck Ad Nauseam, Miracles doesn't run 4 maindeck Entreat the Angels, Aggro Loam doesn't run 4 maindeck Life from the Loam, etc. There are dozens of decks that do not run 4 of a specific card, yet that card is integral to the success of the deck.

In the case of (Death/stone)blade, I think it's fair to say that TNN has had a major impact on the decks' success. But the 1-of TNN in the BUG Delver list? It's hard to call that a TNN deck when there isn't really a consensus that the card is even optimal. That particular list had opted to trade consistency for the ability to have flexible closing options and hoped (reasonably) to cantrip into the right closer at the right time, but that's definitely not the way that many other successful BUG Delver lists have chosen to operate.

Arsenal

03-31-2014, 03:13 PM

And Patriot? It went from 2.0% Top 8 penetration from Jan-Oct 2013 to 6.4% Top 8 penetration from Dec 2013-Feb 2014; that's a 4.4% gain, vaulting it from 11th to 4th. I'd certainly classify it as a TNN deck and state that TNN has everything to do with it's post-Nov 2013 success, even though it runs "only" 2 copies maindeck (often times with a 3rd copy in the board).

I wouldn't classify the SCG Seattle TA list as a TNN deck in the same way I would classify Patriot, Deathblade, and Blade Control as TNN decks, this much I agree with you on.

btm10

03-31-2014, 04:03 PM

Patriot is also a TNN deck. Absolutely. But it's also true that it (along with TA) is what took RUG's place, so I'm not sure how exactly the interplay between the rise of the 3 mentioned TNN decks (Blade variants + Patriot) and the decline of RUG, Jund, and Shardless BUG (among others) has worked out. TNN may have started the dominoes, but I'm not sure that the meta we have (TNN largely, though indirectly dictating the creature and removal packages that work) is worse than the meta it replaced in which a deck's ability to fend off or ignore RUG Delver's early attack determined whether it was viable.

Barook

03-31-2014, 04:47 PM

TNN may have started the dominoes, but I'm not sure that the meta we have (TNN largely, though indirectly dictating the creature and removal packages that work) is worse than the meta it replaced in which a deck's ability to fend off or ignore RUG Delver's early attack determined whether it was viable.
Sure, RUG definitely has some god draws that are unstoppable, especially when they're on the play. Other than that, it's still a pretty interactive deck.

But TNN certainly caused the meta to become less interactive, be it due to combo decks ignoring TNN or TNN giving you the finger. Since Magic is a game of interaction, I would definitely say the meta is worse than before, even if it isn't fully reflected in meta variety (yet).

btm10

03-31-2014, 06:36 PM

mishima_kazuya

03-31-2014, 10:26 PM

I think you're neglecting TNN's supporting cast of disruption (soft counters, Force, discard, removal), long term card advantage (Jace, Liliana, Sylvan Library), and the 10 or so other creatures that usually come along with it. The meta has cracked the TNN code and can now interact with it, it just requires a few slots main or SB to answer it and you move along building and playing your deck. Sure, sometimes you don't draw your narrow TNN answer when you need it, but the same can be said of Blood Moon or Counterbalance.

I believe it is a lot easier to beat Blood Moon or Counterbalance without drawing or even resorting to narrow cards.
Unlike Counterbalance, you can't just go over the top of TNN by overloading on 3 drops or 4 drops. Decks that rely on ground offenses (usually non-blue fair decks like Goblins or Maverick) get slowed down too easily by TNN. Basically, the meta has reacted to TNN, but at the cost of a few archetypes and sub-archetypes.

At this rate, I would bet at least $20 USD that TNN gets banned by Journey to Nix and I would be surprised if it was not.

davelin

03-31-2014, 10:37 PM

btm10

03-31-2014, 11:42 PM

I believe it is a lot easier to beat Blood Moon or Counterbalance without drawing or even resorting to narrow cards.
Unlike Counterbalance, you can't just go over the top of TNN by overloading on 3 drops or 4 drops. Decks that rely on ground offenses (usually non-blue fair decks like Goblins or Maverick) get slowed down too easily by TNN. Basically, the meta has reacted to TNN, but at the cost of a few archetypes and sub-archetypes.

At this rate, I would bet at least $20 USD that TNN gets banned by Journey to Nix and I would be surprised if it was not.

I would take that action all dày. So old archetypes have been replaced by new ones. It's not objectively a bad thing. The weakening of ground-pounder aggro is probably good in that it at least somewhat mitigates the recent increase in the power of creatures relative to spells.

Dice_Box

04-01-2014, 12:04 AM

I would bet at least $20 USD that TNN gets banned by Journey to Nix and I would be surprised if it was not.

The commander set of 5 boxes are now packaged with 2x Mind Sieze. I bet it will not be banned. If it was going to be, why would they print extra that would become worthless stock once the card was not worth money.

Barook

04-01-2014, 12:06 AM

I would take that action all dày. So old archetypes have been replaced by new ones. It's not objectively a bad thing. The weakening of ground-pounder aggro is probably good in that it at least somewhat mitigates the recent increase in the power of creatures relative to spells.
I fail to see how fighting power creep with even more power creep is a good thing.

Lord Seth

04-01-2014, 01:47 AM

The commander set of 5 boxes are now packaged with 2x Mind Sieze. I bet it will not be banned. If it was going to be, why would they print extra that would become worthless stock once the card was not worth money.Probably to satisfy the players who complained about how hard it was to find the Mind Seize deck because of True-Name Nemesis. Want the deck because you actually want to play that deck? Well, thanks to True-Name Nemesis--which isn't even that great in EDH from what I've been told--you'll find it much harder to find a copy, and it'll be way more expensive than the other decks to boot. Wizards of the Coast even--kind of--admitted they screwed up on that:

"One thing that didn't go exactly as planned with these latest Commander decks is the imbalance in availability caused by the presence of a highly sought-after Legacy card—True-Name Nemesis—in one of them." Source (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/281)

Nielsie

04-01-2014, 04:11 AM

Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 SFM/2 TNN a TNN deck is also pretty wrong.
Patriot Delver? For me that is a TNN deck. Keep in mind they have enough library manipulation to dig for the 2 TNNs. My losses against this deck all come from a timely TNN that would start out in defense mode untill the boardstate would swing in TNN's favor, if it had been a Geist I would have won those matches without problem.

Barook

04-01-2014, 07:05 AM

Probably to satisfy the players who complained about how hard it was to find the Mind Seize deck because of True-Name Nemesis. Want the deck because you actually want to play that deck? Well, thanks to True-Name Nemesis--which isn't even that great in EDH from what I've been told--you'll find it much harder to find a copy, and it'll be way more expensive than the other decks to boot. Wizards of the Coast even--kind of--admitted they screwed up on that:

"One thing that didn't go exactly as planned with these latest Commander decks is the imbalance in availability caused by the presence of a highly sought-after Legacy card—True-Name Nemesis—in one of them." Source (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/281)
It does make sense to meet the demand of Mind Seize - aside from pissing off people, if stores can't move the rest of the product, they aren't going to order other batches of the Commander precons.

Maybe it's a move to cash in on the TNN hype before they ban it, but I'm rather seeing it as confirmation that TNN is going to stay around at least until the next ban announcement.

btm10

04-01-2014, 09:02 AM

It does make sense to meet the demand of Mind Seize - aside from pissing off people, if stores can't move the rest of the product, they aren't going to order other batches of the Commander precons.

Maybe it's a move to cash in on the TNN hype before they ban it, but I'm rather seeing it as confirmation that TNN is going to stay around at least until the next ban announcement.

At least there's that.

I fail to see how fighting power creep with even more power creep is a good thing.

Wizards have made it clear that their marketing says 'keep doing what you're doing'. My issue isn't with power creep per se, but with power creep among creatures that outpaces power creep among noncreature spells. So I think that if they're going to be printing stronger and stronger creatures, some of them should at least be capable of serving as answers to the other overpowered creatures.

Arsenal

04-01-2014, 09:04 AM

So old archetypes have been replaced by new ones. It's not objectively a bad thing.

But Maverick, Shardless BUG, RUG Delver and Jund are all distinctly different from each other in both color and available strategies. Patriot, Deathblade and Blade Control share a large amount of color/card/strategy overlap. That most certainly is a bad thing for the meta.

Esper3k

04-01-2014, 10:05 AM

See the finals coverage from last night or watch Game 3 of the SCG Seattle finals. Saying that these matches somehow don't count toward your data points because there weren't four TNNs involved is absurd.

I just rewatched the G3 of the SCG Seattle finals and I don't see the same thing you did. TNN didn't even show up until Mitchell's second to last turn where Bauman was at 1 life and Mitchell had a commanding board position. Even then, any removal spell (immediately lethal) or pretty much any creature would have had the same effect. If they had remembered the Flickerwisp'd Delver coming back when it was supposed to, they wouldn't have even gotten to the turn where Mitchell drew the TNN. Game 3 had pretty much nothing to do with TNN...

http://www.twitch.tv/scglive/b/511630246 Game 3 starts at around 16:08:30.

But Maverick, Shardless BUG, RUG Delver and Jund are all distinctly different from each other in both color and available strategies. Patriot, Deathblade and Blade Control share a large amount of color/card/strategy overlap. That most certainly is a bad thing for the meta.

If you're going by HSCK's data, RUG and Jund aren't dead though, just down to more normal numbers and no longer dominating the format, so I wouldn't say that they've been replaced, but had decks added to the top meta. Maverick was already on a downward trend so we can only say that we only really see Shardless BUG dropping out of the meta (of course now we're starting to see non-Delver BUG control starting to make a name for itself).

Patriot, I would say plays significantly differently from Deathblade/Blade Control (which I would agree have much more overlap in the way they play out). Between the three decks though, I would actually say the biggest defining overlap is actually SFM, not TNN.

btm10

04-01-2014, 10:07 AM

But Maverick, Shardless BUG, RUG Delver and Jund are all distinctly different from each other in both color and available strategies. Patriot, Deathblade and Blade Control share a large amount of color/card/strategy overlap. That most certainly is a bad thing for the me

I think it's safe to say that RUG and Maverick were killed off by TNN. I'm pretty surprised that Shardless and Jund disappeared, though. Both are perfectly capable of answering TNN without doing anything awful to their maindecks or sideboards (Golgari Charm is pretty flexible), even though TNN blanks their ground game. I can say from experience that the Shardless/Blade matchup is pretty favorable for Shardless even after Shardless opens slots for additional evasive threats like Clique.

I can't speak to Jund's plan B against TNN (where plan A is 'kill it with Golgari Charm/Toxic Deluge/Liliana'), so maybe the fact that it blocks Goyf all day really is the reason. I do suspect that the decline in Shardless is due to shifting preferences rather than "can't beat TNN decks", though.

Barook

04-01-2014, 10:54 AM

My issue isn't with power creep per se, but with power creep among creatures that outpaces power creep among noncreature spells. So I think that if they're going to be printing stronger and stronger creatures, some of them should at least be capable of serving as answers to the other overpowered creatures.
The thing you're describing would be a Sulfur Elemental for blue creatures since it would clean up alot of overpowered crap right of the bat.

The problem with TNN is that it doesn't only invalidate tons of creatures, but also every removal spell that isn't a non-damage-based sweeper. TNN outpaces both creature- AND noncreature spells by a large margin. That's the problem here.

Edit: RUG, Jund, and Shardless suffered from TNN. Maverick was in tons of trouble even before TNN since it struggled against lots of decks in the format. TNN was just the final coffin for an already dead deck.

Arsenal

04-01-2014, 11:27 AM

Esper3k

04-01-2014, 11:35 AM

I don't know. From Jan-Oct 2013, Maverick was #9 for average finish and #7 for Top 8 penetration, and HSCK said that it was an absolute monster in November 2013. That doesn't sound like a dead deck to me (pre-TNN). Certainly not a top tier killer like RUG/Jund was, but definitely a deck that you'd want to test in your gauntlet back then. A dead deck is something Walking Dead, Dragon Stompy, Enchantress, etc.

You guys should start a thread like "meta game data thread" and have the top posts be ones that you are constantly updating with the data you're collecting just so lazy people like me don't have to keep digging for old posts :)

Plus, it might be a better place for this discussion?

Arsenal

04-01-2014, 11:41 AM

Zilla

04-01-2014, 12:40 PM

Maybe. When I talked about the subjective "fun" factor of TNN much eariler, I was yelled at by virtually everyone and was told in no uncertain terms that only data/facts/figures are to be used when discussing a ban/unban. Thus, why I've been using only data in my posts and have limited my anecdotal experiences to a minimum.
Disagree with this sentiment. In the case of TNN, it's very much about the fun factor. I know you know this, but it bears repeating: TNN isn't banworthy because it's unbeatable, it's banworthy because it makes every game in which it's played less for for both players and anyone watching.

That's an incredibly difficult metric to measure, which is why it should almost never be used, but in this case, even people who don't favor a ban tend to agree TNN makes for shitty games of Magic.

Arsenal

04-01-2014, 12:57 PM

Oh don't get me wrong, TNN is about the fun factor, but I was told not to use that in my argument against it, so I really haven't mentioned it since.

Make no mistake, TNN is a miserable card to play with and play against.

HammerAndSickled

04-01-2014, 01:15 PM

If Legacy players had control over format decisions, "fun" would absolutely be a factor worth considering. TNN and Show and Tell/Emrakul would be the first to be hit by such a banning philosophy, I think. But Wizards is the one controlling the banned list, and because of that TNN has no shot of ever getting banned. Regardless of ancillary reasons like the fact that they can sell and reprint it as they please, it's not unfair in any sense and it pushes the agenda that Wizards has to make all formats more creature-centric. Someone once said that over time as creature-based decks get better and better the blur between Modern and Legacy will continue to disappear, as we've already seen with Jund and Death and Taxes-style decks.

If GP Paris had been won by TES/ANT or High Tide or some other spell-based combo deck, we'd have reason to be afraid for those decks because Wizards has shown that they just don't like that kind of thing being dominant. They let them exist in the metagame because it really doesn't matter long-term how many combo decks exist, just that they take down big tournaments infrequently. If TNN/Delver/Stoneforge/etc. decks comprise 40%+ of the metagame, that's fine and no bannings will be seen or even expected. But if a new combo deck shows up and gets a market share, even if it's comparatively smaller (>20%?), I'd still be afraid for that deck. Show and Tell bucks the trend I think precisely because it wins with a big creature and that's somehow more fun or fair or exciting than a Tendrils for X. If any creature-based deck is dominating a metagame, even if the percentage is high and unhealthy by our measure, I think Wizards is more inclined to let it slide. The only exception to this rule I've ever seen has been the Survival meta.

Arsenal

04-01-2014, 01:21 PM

But TNN isn't a creature in the traditional sense. It doesn't promote interaction of any kind between players' non-creature spells or players' opposing creatures and it virtually bypasses the combat step. I can't imagine that TNN is the model that they want their creature-based dreamland to be based off of.

Dice_Box

04-01-2014, 01:35 PM

What I don't get is how this was not seen a mile away. I get that Wizards does not test for Legacy, but we all knew the value of the card the moment it was spoiled. It did not take long to see the card come to power.

It's not an Edh card, it's a legacy card. Right down to the Merfolk creature type it's a legacy card. But it's a Hexproof 2.0 card that was always going to be a pest. I mean Hex was hated, this one was never going to be liked.

The worst part in my mind is that it does not trigger as it comes into play. I mean I would still hate it if it did, but then at lest you would get a moment where Bolt, Decay, Swords, Stifle. Ect. Could have interacted with it.

Arsenal

04-01-2014, 01:38 PM

Yep, that what-if trigger has been brought up by myself and others before. Would've been nice, but Mark Rosewater has gone on record stating that "errata isn't used for that". We're stuck with TNN as-is. Fun.

HSCK

04-01-2014, 02:00 PM

I don't know. From Jan-Oct 2013, Maverick was #9 for average finish and #7 for Top 8 penetration, and HSCK said that it was an absolute monster in November 2013. That doesn't sound like a dead deck to me (pre-TNN). Certainly not a top tier killer like RUG/Jund was, but definitely a deck that you'd want to test in your gauntlet back then. A dead deck is something Walking Dead, Dragon Stompy, Enchantress, etc.

I'd be up for uploading my raw data to another thread if people want to discuss data points, March should be done in a couple weeks.

Barook

04-01-2014, 02:15 PM

That's an incredibly difficult metric to measure, which is why it should almost never be used, but in this case, even people who don't favor a ban tend to agree TNN makes for shitty games of Magic.
They sure were able to measure "fun" as a metric when Mystic Tutor was involved. Or at least the pretended to do so.

I can't imagine that TNN is the model that they want their creature-based dreamland to be based off of.
I don't know what went wrong, but Wizards' design decisions are pretty questionable to downright shitty lately. They say X and do the exact opposite.

"We want regeneration to matter more". - "lol, Terminus"
"Invisible Stalker was hated because it was so uninteractive. Hexproof + evasion is bad design." - "Okay, let's make even something worse."
etc.

I still hope that the Theros block as a whole bombs to get them down back to Earth because lately, they can design shit in whatever way they want and get away with it due to massive sales thanks to a still growing player base.

btm10

04-01-2014, 03:38 PM

I still hope that the Theros block as a whole bombs to get them down back to Earth because lately, they can design shit in whatever way they want and get away with it due to massive sales thanks to a still growing player base.

I think this is a deeply wrong attitude to take about the format. Wizard's behavior/development strategy not going to change, and the drafters I've talked to (who represent the most important segment of their competitive player base since they directly buy packs) seem to love Theros block, at least compared to the other draft formats right now. As a general rule, it seems that if Vintage and/or Legacy players are happy with a set, everyone else is pretty upset, especially limited players (for the record, I loved Mirrodin and Time Spiral is a Vintage/Legacy player, and enjoyed Urza/Tempest Standard, so my sensibilities are sort of bent). They're going to cater to the majority of the player base, which sort of leaves us in the cold.

Oh don't get me wrong, TNN is about the fun factor, but I was told not to use that in my argument against it, so I really haven't mentioned it since.

Make no mistake, TNN is a miserable card to play with and play against.

I'd actually rate Emrakul higher than TNN on the pain scale. Show and Tell decks can keep Griselbrand and be fine, but Emrakul is almost as hard to answer as TNN and in my experience leads to far more random, undeserved blowout wins than TNN does. At least 3 damage/turn allows you time to dig for the answer.

Arsenal

04-01-2014, 03:50 PM

The following is my personal belief not associated with any data or statistics:

I agree that Emrakul is just as uninteractive as TNN, although this sting is somewhat mitigated in knowing that you have to construct your entire deck around cheating Emrakul into play, which allows me to attack specific stress points associated with that narrow, albeit powerful, construction.

With TNN, there is virtually no design limitations other than being able to have access to 1UU when you draw him. He's just as uninteractive as Emrakul (technically moreso as Pro Player > Pro Colored Spells), but able to be played (and is) in far more decks across all spectrums of blue (tempo Delver to controllish Jace). The "un"fun factor + the ubiquity of TNN gives it the edge over Emrakul for the "retarded creatures that shouldn't have been printed" award. Again, this is my personal belief and not based on anything more than anecdotal experience. YMMV.

ESG

04-01-2014, 04:20 PM

I just rewatched the G3 of the SCG Seattle finals and I don't see the same thing you did. TNN didn't even show up until Mitchell's second to last turn where Bauman was at 1 life and Mitchell had a commanding board position. Even then, any removal spell (immediately lethal) or pretty much any creature would have had the same effect. If they had remembered the Flickerwisp'd Delver coming back when it was supposed to, they wouldn't have even gotten to the turn where Mitchell drew the TNN. Game 3 had pretty much nothing to do with TNN...

http://www.twitch.tv/scglive/b/511630246 Game 3 starts at around 16:08:30.

I wouldn't say Mitchell's board was commanding. If True-Name Nemesis had been a different creature, Bauman could have attacked, killed Delver with the Sword of Fire and Ice, drawn a Swords to Plowshares or any creature in his deck to block the Tarmogoyf and won on the next turn. But True-Name Nemesis took the suspense out it -- leading Patrick Chapin to ad-lib, "Wah woh wohh" -- because everybody knew Bauman had no way to remove the Nemesis and had effectively lost the game. Chapin's ad-lib is telling because it reflects a situation that has played out on camera a lot: One player resolves a True-Name Nemesis and the rest of the game doesn't really matter.

I agree that if the players had caught the Delver earlier that things would have been different.

Barook

04-01-2014, 04:36 PM

I think this is a deeply wrong attitude to take about the format. Wizard's behavior/development strategy not going to change, and the drafters I've talked to (who represent the most important segment of their competitive player base since they directly buy packs) seem to love Theros block, at least compared to the other draft formats right now. As a general rule, it seems that if Vintage and/or Legacy players are happy with a set, everyone else is pretty upset, especially limited players (for the record, I loved Mirrodin and Time Spiral is a Vintage/Legacy player, and enjoyed Urza/Tempest Standard, so my sensibilities are sort of bent). They're going to cater to the majority of the player base, which sort of leaves us in the cold.
Wizards can't realistically make sets with lots of Eternal goodies since the powerlevel of that set would be absurd.

I'm complaining about shitty design like taking old, popular cards, literally double every value and calling it a day. Or uninspiring, boring mechanic recycling.

You can make a good set and an interesting Limited environment. Gatecrash, Dragon's Maze, Theros and Born of the Gods are not good examples for this.

HSCK

04-01-2014, 04:37 PM

If you can attack and kill a Delver using SoFaI then TNN isn't really stopping you is it?

ESG

04-01-2014, 07:05 PM

If you can attack and kill a Delver using SoFaI then TNN isn't really stopping you is it?

Did you watch the match? The situation wasn't that TNN was a brick wall. It was that TNN was going to be unblockable and untargetable, making Bauman's draws dead. Are you really going to try to tell me that TNN doesn't matter much against Death and Taxes?

The situation was similar in the finals match on Sunday. Braverman's last draw was a Stoneforge Mystic. This would ordinarily have been a good draw, because he could have played it, found Batterskull and played that, which would have blunted Majors' next attack and given Braverman more time. He had seven lands on the battlefield, so returning and recasting Batterskull becomes a real play, and I think pilots of Miracles would be OK with their odds to take back control of that game. Because Majors had TNN, though, it invalidated the Stoneforge as a blocker and the Batterskull as a blocker.

Megadeus

04-01-2014, 07:57 PM

If you can attack and kill a Delver using SoFaI then TNN isn't really stopping you is it?

Sure, but in a tempo deck where their 1 drop can periodically deal you 9-12 damage, them having an unstoppable man who you are literally unable to interact with can mean they simply deal the last 3 points of damage that was left over. SoFaI takes 3 to cast (tough with waste and daze) and then 2 to equip (to a man whom they have many 1 mana answers to tempo you out with. And by the time you can stick a man, cast and stick the SoFaI and equip it to a man, they have simply played their 1 drop and 3 drop and raced you.

Esper3k

04-01-2014, 07:59 PM

I wouldn't say Mitchell's board was commanding. If True-Name Nemesis had been a different creature, Bauman could have attacked, killed Delver with the Sword of Fire and Ice, drawn a Swords to Plowshares or any creature in his deck to block the Tarmogoyf and won on the next turn. But True-Name Nemesis took the suspense out it -- leading Patrick Chapin to ad-lib, "Wah woh wohh" -- because everybody knew Bauman had no way to remove the Nemesis and had effectively lost the game. Chapin's ad-lib is telling because it reflects a situation that has played out on camera a lot: One player resolves a True-Name Nemesis and the rest of the game doesn't really matter.

I agree that if the players had caught the Delver earlier that things would have been different.

I'd say it was commanding. Any removal spell he drew instead of TNN wins the game. Any creature wins the game if it's not blue (since any nonblue creature would just block the Revoker and make it a moot point). If it is blue, Bauman still dies even if he draws a StP or creature since he's still left with 1 card to deal with 2 creatures. Brainstorm / Ponder likely also mean Bauman is dead as well.

In short, Mitchell had a large amount of cards he could draw to kill Bauman, thus I'd call that a commanding board position.

I took the "wah wah wah" as a sarcastic one since TNN came down at a time where it really didn't matter since any creature or removal spell would have ended the game.

TNN is great vs D&T, no doubt, but the Game 3 of Seattle was not about TNN.

Esper3k

04-01-2014, 08:02 PM

Sure, but in a tempo deck where their 1 drop can periodically deal you 9-12 damage, them having an unstoppable man who you are literally unable to interact with can mean they simply deal the last 3 points of damage that was left over. SoFaI takes 3 to cast (tough with waste and daze) and then 2 to equip (to a man whom they have many 1 mana answers to tempo you out with. And by the time you can stick a man, cast and stick the SoFaI and equip it to a man, they have simply played their 1 drop and 3 drop and raced you.

I don't think that he was talking about SoFI vs TNN in general, but at the idea that TNN was the primary reason Mitchell won G3 at SCG Seattle.

Megadeus

04-01-2014, 08:11 PM

I don't think that he was talking about SoFI vs TNN in general, but at the idea that TNN was the primary reason Mitchell won G3 at SCG Seattle.

Ah. I mean yeah Greg was in a solid position regardless. He hadn't completely locked the game, but TNN did essentially seal the deal though. I mean, like you said, any man essentially locks the game up. TNN certainly meant that his outs were literally 0 however. D&T can always play the card that gives all Non White men -0-1.

Barook

04-01-2014, 10:42 PM

D&T can always play the card that gives all Non White men -0-1.
Nobody plays that anymore because it sucks. D&T would rather run stuff like Celestial Flare which has broader applications.

ESG

04-01-2014, 11:27 PM

D&T can always play the card that gives all Non White men -0-1.

You're thinking of Holy Light. I don't see how that card is playable in a deck that wants Thalia on the board whenever possible.

Megadeus

04-01-2014, 11:55 PM

It's a sweeper vs Elves, Gobs, kills TNN. Not saying it is amazing, but it is a thing. I know one guy at our local played 2 in his deck.

Barook

04-02-2014, 05:43 AM

It's a sweeper vs Elves, Gobs, kills TNN. Not saying it is amazing, but it is a thing. I know one guy at our local played 2 in his deck.
Against Goblins, I would rather have equipment. And against Elves, it's pretty slow at 3 mana. Flare can also get rid of stuff like Progenitus, Delver, etc which Holy Light can't hit. Still not an optimal solution against TNN, but better than nothing.

Fatal

04-02-2014, 06:16 PM

Celestian < Wing Shards IMO still cluncky but works vs counters and can be and edge vs elves - if he overcome before NO its gamebreaking.

Esper3k

04-05-2014, 01:57 AM

Dia_Bot

04-05-2014, 02:44 AM

Just a funny blast from the past link that I saw in someone's signature - the t32 at Legacy Champs 2007: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/bd295a.

An interesting look at what diversity was back then compared to nowadays.

Seeing those lists again sure take you back.
It makes me wonder what the meta would look like if emrakul, grizelbrand, batterskull, TNN and delver of secrets were never printed.

[SLAYER]chaos

04-05-2014, 03:04 AM

That Hunted deck actually looks pretty sweet.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

04-05-2014, 05:03 AM

I'm not sure if that's supposed to be more or less diverse. The state of Legacy now is probably more nominally diverse in terms of numbers of decks, that in turn look a lot more like one another, with a much more modular approach to deckbuilding. Thresh is differentiated from aggro-control now because you couldn't just put Werebear in every deck.

Man I miss Truffle Shuffle though.

Erdvermampfa

04-05-2014, 06:27 AM

Seeing those lists again sure take you back.
It makes me wonder what the meta would look like if emrakul, grizelbrand, batterskull, TNN and delver of secrets were never printed.

People seem to forget Terminus on the list of format-defining cards. It basically made aggro decks that are light on disruption unplayable.

Man I miss Truffle Shuffle though.

The list seems actually quite playable right now. Sacrifice- and Wrath-effects are of highest value right now due to TNN and the prevalence of Tempodecks. Of course you would have to exchange the janky and dated stuff like Loxodon Hierarch with some good stuff like Grave Titan, but I wouldn't necessarily refuse to play such a deck currently.

Dia_Bot

04-05-2014, 06:55 AM

People seem to forget Terminus on the list of format-defining cards. It basically made aggro decks that are light on disruption unplayable.

Yeah, I didn't think about terminus but you might be right there.

HammerAndSickled

04-05-2014, 10:26 AM

Terminus has a perceived higher impact because it's the first legacy-playable wrath in a long time, but at the end of the day it's just in one deck and therefore can never really take that much of a metagame share, percentage-wise. SFM/Batterskull, Delver, TNN, and the various hyperfatties have given rise to entirely new archetypes: the "blade" deck, the "delver" deck (basically becoming the face of legacy tempo and shunting Merfolk aside) and the decks that cheat stuff into play existed in some form but went from tier-2.5 at best to tier 1 in a year's time. Even Craterhoof Behemoth changed Elves and the NO shell completely. Terminus is just a defining card of one deck under a larger archetype, UW control decks usually featuring CounterTop.

Michael Keller

04-05-2014, 11:35 AM

You're thinking of Holy Light. I don't see how that card is playable in a deck that wants Thalia on the board whenever possible.

Holy Light doesn't hit Thalia.

Megadeus

04-05-2014, 11:39 AM

Holy Light doesn't hit Thalia.

Unfortunately Thalia makes it cost 4. Which is pretty damn expensive for an extremely weak infest

Barook

04-06-2014, 10:59 PM

Yet another lovely Top 8 with 7 Brainstorm decks, entirely consisting of TNN decks, Anti-TNN (minus the 4-color Delver deck - maybe) and combo decks that don't give a damn about TNN - lovely.

At least the Top 16 is diverse.

Dice_Box

04-06-2014, 11:16 PM

Looks like an advantage day in the park. Well save for manaless. Seeing that in the top 8 is sweet.

nedleeds

04-07-2014, 04:39 PM

Why? It's a miserable uninteractive deck that isn't the least bit interesting game one.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

04-07-2014, 06:47 PM

People seem to forget Terminus on the list of format-defining cards. It basically made aggro decks that are light on disruption unplayable.

The list seems actually quite playable right now. Sacrifice- and Wrath-effects are of highest value right now due to TNN and the prevalence of Tempodecks. Of course you would have to exchange the janky and dated stuff like Loxodon Hierarch with some good stuff like Grave Titan, but I wouldn't necessarily refuse to play such a deck currently.

You'd probably just run planeswalkers. I always sideboarded the Hierarchs. Matt Abold's list here (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Events.aspx?x=mtgevent/legacy06/welcome) is closer to what I ran at the time.

Man I remember bugging the shit out of him on the phone during that top 8 too, holy shit that was obnoxious.

Although I remember from my foray last year into BUGStill thinking that the Obstinate Baloths out of the board were amazing in probably 50% of my matchups and arguably maindeckable. Fantastic against all the RUG and BUG decks. Nuts to your Liliana.

Dice_Box

04-07-2014, 06:49 PM

Why? It's a miserable uninteractive deck that isn't the least bit interesting game one.

Because it's different.

Megadeus

04-21-2014, 06:41 PM

Another week, another 28/32 Brainstorms in the top 8. Also 4 weeks in a row of a delver deck winning

Barook

04-21-2014, 06:53 PM

Another week, another 28/32 Brainstorms in the top 8. Also 4 weeks in a row of a delver deck winning
And Wizards doesn't care in the slightest. I expect no format changes, maybe some Modern changes, just because they love to mess with ban list.

nedleeds

04-21-2014, 06:55 PM

A top 8 with half delvers, blue is the best beatdown ... yay color pie!

Megadeus

04-21-2014, 08:34 PM

A top 8 with half delvers, blue is the best beatdown ... yay color pie!

At least red has the best counter spell!

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=202447&type=card

shrubs

04-21-2014, 09:32 PM

At least red has the best counter spell!

..which is used best in blue decks! :confused:

Michael Keller

04-21-2014, 10:31 PM

Why? It's a miserable uninteractive deck that isn't the least bit interesting game one.

That's entirely subjective - and depends on who's playing it.

Fuck the stack.

FTW

04-28-2014, 07:05 PM

Another week, another 28/32 Brainstorms in the top 8. Also 4 weeks in a row of a delver deck winning

Another week, lands in 8/8 of the top 8. What ever happened to Manaless Dredge, Recross the Paths Belcher and Oops all Spells? The format is whack.

Megadeus

04-28-2014, 07:06 PM

Another week, lands in 8/8 of the top 8. What ever happened to Manaless Dredge, Recross the Paths Belcher and Oops all Spells? The format is whack.

Bad comparison is bad.

FTW

04-28-2014, 07:07 PM

At least red has the best counter spell!

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=202447&type=card

Seriously, more people need to play Imperial Painter. Blood Moon wrecks a lot of decks and REB/Pyroblast counter about 40% of spells that see play, by volume. Also kills Delvers.

Anen

04-28-2014, 07:26 PM

Another week, lands in 8/8 of the top 8. What ever happened to Manaless Dredge, Recross the Paths Belcher and Oops all Spells? The format is whack.

Another week with 8/8 decks of the top 8 that are playing a 15 cards sideboard. We need more people playing with a 0 card sideboard. Please ban sideboards.

bakofried

04-28-2014, 07:40 PM

While I understand the meta-humor going on here, I also don't like the dismissal of requests for bans. While the meta should be given time to adapt, I've had time to quit for a year or two, come back, and find Delver is still oppressive.

Tyrio

04-28-2014, 09:09 PM

Another week, lands in 8/8 of the top 8. What ever happened to Manaless Dredge, Recross the Paths Belcher and Oops all Spells? The format is whack.

So 30 different land cards in a top 8, as opposed to Brainstorm (one card) making up 77% of the decks?

Mr. Froggy

04-28-2014, 09:40 PM

Why? It's a miserable uninteractive deck that isn't the least bit interesting game one.

Depends on people.

Nuke is Good

04-28-2014, 10:23 PM

Seriously, more people need to play Imperial Painter. Blood Moon wrecks a lot of decks and REB/Pyroblast counter about 40% of spells that see play, by volume. Also kills Delvers.

I think it's price tag and that it doesn't fit in many other decks scares people off on Imperial Painter. I use it on MTGO with great results.

Rush80

05-14-2014, 06:44 PM

Quasim0ff

05-14-2014, 06:56 PM

I feel a some legacy cards can be unbanned, yet the stay on the list.

I wonder if you can prove to us, a la Caleb ( by providing a 60 card deck list), that the below are worth to stay banned in Legacy:
black vise
Mind twist
Mind's desire
Yawgmoth's bargain

Let's avoid generic statements and focus on the deck lists.

Mind Twist will most likely be completely broken a burning wish deck. That's at least, what I'd build for it.

Mind's Desire and Yawgmoths Bargain should never come off. The thing about Minds Desire is that, legacy doesn't have a restricted list, which means that you can play 4 of them. That means you can desire into desire, which means you actually get to play your entire deck, as soon as you go off.

Zombie

05-14-2014, 07:48 PM

black vise

Two scenarios:
1. The card does nothing
2. The amount of horrible games increases

Why bother? The card would never actually contribute positively to the format's health or increase the number of actually fun games.

Megadeus

05-15-2014, 12:00 AM

Mind Twist will most likely be completely broken a burning wish deck. That's at least, what I'd build for it.

Mind's Desire and Yawgmoths Bargain should never come off. The thing about Minds Desire is that, legacy doesn't have a restricted list, which means that you can play 4 of them. That means you can desire into desire, which means you actually get to play your entire deck, as soon as you go off.

Minds Desire I agree with. Bargain I disagree with, Mind Twist would be pretty dope as a wish target in like a Burning Wish Loam deck or something like that I agree. I really miss playing Burning Wish...

Dzra

05-15-2014, 12:33 AM

Secretly.A.Bee

05-15-2014, 12:48 AM

I think that unbanning SotF would cause a re-establishment of TNN.dec within the format. Either that or just continue to be a broken card. It's disgusting how good it truly is. I would go back to miracles and maindeck RIP and helm + E. Tutor again.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Lemnear

05-15-2014, 01:55 AM

Minds Desire I agree with. Bargain I disagree with, Mind Twist would be pretty dope as a wish target in like a Burning Wish Loam deck or something like that I agree. I really miss playing Burning Wish...

You can play Deathcloud in Burning Wish Loam which is a lot more devastating than Mind Twist in turn 4+.

Desire and Bargain are insanly powerful because, unlike Ad Nauseam, you actually can and want to play 4. Even if those two are less retarded than Necro, I do not see them coming off. Would be still interresting to see them unbanned after the bazillion of hate-cards printed against storm.

Phoenix Ignition

05-15-2014, 03:01 AM

I would legitimately play legacy again if they unban survival of the fittest. As is it's just too boring of a format for me. I like blue, I just don't want to have to marry it.

Quasim0ff

05-15-2014, 03:09 AM

You can play Deathcloud in Burning Wish Loam which is a lot more devastating than Mind Twist in turn 4+.

Desire and Bargain are insanly powerful because, unlike Ad Nauseam, you actually can and want to play 4. Even if those two are less retarded than Necro, I do not see them coming off. Would be still interresting to see them unbanned after the bazillion of hate-cards printed against storm.

Bargain >>> Necro, however.

leegoo

05-15-2014, 09:55 AM

no way bargain > necro.
3 mana instead of 6 is a world of difference, even with necro's drawback.

Esper3k

05-15-2014, 10:25 AM

Especially when the BBB cost of Necropotence fits so nicely with T1, Dark Ritual, Necropotence.

btm10

05-15-2014, 10:31 AM

There's a lot that could be unbanned. The only thing I can think of that might actually be worth unbanning is Survival of the Fittest. Assuming it doesn't break the format (which I don't think it will), it is probably one of the few cards on the list that might add something positive (ie fun and/or diversity) to the format.

I'd actually add Black Vise to the "might be worth it" list. Burn has been just a hair too slow for years, and while I don't think it's the deck I'd choose first to make top tier, I think more actually viable decks is good no matter what. I'm not sure that Vise will push it over the edge, but it might. At worst it does nothing, at best it's multiple Bolts. If Burn becomes a real thing, then we can maybe (maybe!) talk about Necro or Bargain since Burn makes them less problematic.

Mind's Desire as a 4-of would make High Tide insane at the very least and would very likely span a new horrendously degenerate storm deck.

Obviously, I'm on board with unbanning Survival as well for the reasons that I and others have already stated.

Rush80

05-15-2014, 11:03 AM

Thank You for your comments...

Nevertheless, I am looking for a 60-card decklist which includes one of the card above and beats an average a Legacy DTB.

:smile:

kusumoto

05-15-2014, 12:03 PM

Every time I see the word Survival in this thread I stop and move on to the next post. It makes it so much more bearable.

carefulmug

05-15-2014, 01:54 PM

Mind Twist would be pretty dope as a wish target in like a Burning Wish Loam deck or something like that I agree.

I agree with the more recent notion that Twist would lose efficacy as the game went on (turns 4+).

Of the current decks, the one deck I see abusing Mind Twist (ie, it being better than a Hymn) would be a Non-Pod version of Nic Fit.

I would love to play that.

btm10

05-15-2014, 02:11 PM

Thank You for your comments...

Nevertheless, I am looking for a 60-card decklist which includes one of the card above and beats an average a Legacy DTB.

:smile:

Beats with what consistency? Beats what deck? There's a lot in the DTB forum right now. Pretty much any Storm deck you can brew that isn't awful will beat Jund 2-out-of-3 games (so in a match) greater than 50% of the time, and that's probably true of the same deck beating Shardless BUG. Furthermore, just giving a decklist that uses banned card X and beats an arbitrary "deck to beat" at a good clip doesn't say anything about the way in which the rest of the decks in a given meta are affected, how many people decide to play a given deck or card, and most importantly, whether the list proposed is even optimal or close to optimal.

Speculative discussions based on a card's past performance, analogies to other formats, and the current shape of the meta are the best tools to assess a card's potential for unbanning because they're the nearest thing we have to natural experiments. Asking for a specific decklist to justify a B/R change suggestion is like asking candidates for political office for specific policy details: it gives the appearance of wanting a more serious discussion while ignoring the fact that such a discussion requires information that isn't available and cannot be obtained and is meaningless as a result.

I think this thread has the potential to not degenerate into name-calling and pointless rehashing of the same complaints, so I'm all about raising the level of debate here. I think Arsenal and HSCK have done an admirable job in doing that regarding True-Name Nemesis. The same thing cannot be achieved with the cards you mentioned because they have been banned for so long, but calmer, more rational discussion is the answer, not demanding decklists created in a vacuum to support a point.

nedleeds

05-15-2014, 02:30 PM

Two scenarios:
1. The card does nothing
2. The amount of horrible games increases

Why bother? The card would never actually contribute positively to the format's health or increase the number of actually fun games.

Same could be said of Delver. I'll take being on the draw vs. Vise rather than delver, at least if they pressure me into Daze my hand size decreases and Vise eventually becomes Bone Flute. Also if I mulligan it gets shitty, where as mulliganing vs. Internet.Delver.75.dec on the draw is an almost certain loss.

I would think a burn deck wouldn't even play Vise. There are more than enough bolts to fill your stupid deck and it's a god awful top deck. The vise would be be used in non chalice prison decks ... of which we currently see almost none.

btm10

05-15-2014, 02:39 PM

I would think a burn deck wouldn't even play Vise. There are more than enough bolts to fill your stupid deck and it's a god awful top deck. The vise would be be used in non chalice prison decks ... of which we currently see almost none.

Both good points. I don't know if Vise would make a non-Chalice prison deck good enough, but it would be worth testing if Vise were unbanned. As for Burn, I think there are a couple of flex slots where Vise might be worth testing. It's not an auto-include, but it might be better than Searing Blood, or something. Clearly, I don't play Burn.

nedleeds

05-15-2014, 02:57 PM

Flex slots.

btm10

05-15-2014, 03:04 PM

Yes?

Ellomdian

05-15-2014, 03:30 PM

Every time I see the word Survival in this thread I stop and move on to the next post. It makes it so much more bearable.

Maybe we can convince the forum admins to implement a filter view. I'm happy to discuss SotF, in much the same way as I like to talk about Balance - you know, the deadpan delivery followed by giggling.

Gheizen64

05-15-2014, 03:51 PM

Vise wouldn't be played except 2 decks:

stasis, which would still sucks
and affinity + spheres which would still be hated out easily, but it would be actually an interesting deck (think affinity shell, 4 spheres, 4 thorns, 4 lodestone, maybe 4 thalias)

Mind Twist wouldn't be played except as a burning wish target in hypotetical control mirrors, but even then, a planeswalker is usually a much better mirror breaker.

Dragon = draw games, fix the rule interaction or keep it banned.

Earthcraft = tier 3 combo. Enchantress could be a good deck, but there's so many card that completely kill it i don't ever see it becoming too good.

Survival. This card is insanely strong, however, it also create a definitely non-blue archetype. So, just to see a G (probably GBW) deck get more presence in the format, i'd like it to get unbanned. Keeping DRS untapped make the card so much weaker compared to the old since a lot of decks play T1 hate for Vengevines.

Desire and YWBargain. With more and more storm hate getting printed (latest being the extremely subpar eidolon of great revel, the other being Spirit of the Labyrinth), i honestly think those two cards could get off and create an interesting dinamic for the format, basically slow controllish creatures like SFM would get much less viable, and in turn TNN , cause they apply too little pressure on combo .

Clamp would make Elves! probably the best deck, and by far. Playing it on a board with 2 X/1 is basically a one-sided Time Twister. Too broken. Ironically, if clamp were to give +1+0, it would be a perfectly fine card, probably not even playable except in decks with sacrifice outlets.

Recruiter ruin games cause it waste too much time. It's sherazad 2.0

Alexandria and Academy are probably not even overpowered by today standards (Academy without jewerly would be a very good card and make artifact decks much stronger, but artifact decks would still have 2 problems: extremely strong and cheap hate card against them, and the inability to actually lock out your opponent in the earlier turns, unlike vintage where you have workshop, since Academy on average give 1 mana in an hypotetical legacy list), but they have cost issues. Alexandria is broken on T1 on the draw, really good on T1 on the play, and nothing spectacular every other turn when you consider how much pressure legacy decks can apply and how much you can NOT afford to keep your hand full and not actually play cards. It's extremely anti-tempo. It would be interesting to see decks trying to abuse it, but the card is unbannable due to cost. Which is sad, especially for academy, because there are so many interesting decks it could power.

Mana Vault is "i play ad nauseam T2 consistently". I've tested the card a bit, and if we wanted to get an artifact deck viable, Academy would be a much better unban, if not for the fact it cost a fucking billion dollars.

Jar seems safe. With so many draw 7 at 4 and 5 mana around, and no one being played, i can't see Jar being much better, albeit colorless. No workshop, no jewerly, no academy + jewerly, no Vault (that was crucial for T2 Jar), Welder unplayable, etc...

Mana Drain is another card that would be interesting to see, if control ever needed help. It doesn't, right now.

Fastbond was tested, card is completely nuts. Same goes for Hermit Druid. MM is a mixed bag, but i wouldn't mind trying to put it into the format again to see if it can change something for the better. Most other cards weren't even tested because they were considered too good to be worth actual time to test (jewerly, necro, twister/wheel, will, tinker etc...)

Ace/Homebrew

05-15-2014, 04:08 PM

Recruiter ruin games cause it waste too much time. It's sherazad 2.0
Huh?

How does Recruiter take more time than Doomsday? When you cast the card you *should* already know what pile you are making.
Also, if you win the turn you cast him, how is that worse than High Tide?

nedleeds

05-15-2014, 04:50 PM

Academy in a format where LED and Petal are 4 of's would be fucking miserable.

PirateKing

05-15-2014, 05:00 PM

Academy would motivate me to build some UG cheeri0s/high tide Glimpse of Nature & Blue Sun's Zenith combo deck. Makes me twitch just thinking of using Candelabra to untap both Cradle and Academy.

nedleeds

05-15-2014, 05:03 PM

Pretty sure Mind Over Matter goes in a Flex Slot.

Bed Decks Palyer

05-16-2014, 01:37 AM

Lemnear

05-16-2014, 02:42 AM

Huh?

How does Recruiter take more time than Doomsday? When you cast the card you *should* already know what pile you are making.
Also, if you win the turn you cast him, how is that worse than High Tide?

At least you only stack 5 cards ONCE and not 30+ in like EVERY TURN

thecrav

05-16-2014, 03:07 AM

Bed Decks Palyer

05-16-2014, 03:12 AM

lolwut

talk in freedom dollars or sean and i won't understand you.

What are freedom dolars? Canadian money?
No matter what I still got no idea why price should be a factor when considering the unbanning of Tolarian Academy. The trouble with Academy is in its power, not price.

Gheizen64

05-16-2014, 03:57 AM

How come Academy costsbillion? Unless something happend to dollar, I see it for 600 crowns in our lgs. Yep, it's not the cheapest cheap-ass land ever, but we're discussing Legacy, where your usual opening of blue fetch, blue dual, Ponder cost something like 300 bucks.

That is cause Academy is currently a 1-of in a unplayed format. 4-of in popular format? Easily 200$ card right there. Same as cradle, probably worse cause it's U-based mana and slightly less narrow.

I guess you could play like 16 thopter, 4 gaeas+ 4 tolarian + glimpse + the UG glimpse and have fun. CotV for 0 you lose. FoW on glimpse you lose. Every other hand being a mull. Probably better than belcher but uuuh.
Playing it in AnT would make the deck much better i think. 4 led + 4 petal +2 chrome mox +2 SdT +4 chromatic star + 4 academy, remove some fetches, maybe lower total of lands by 1 , remove a card here and there... yeah probably broken.

EDIT: not it actually is broken:

4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
2 Chrome Mox
2 Sensei's Divining Top
3 Chromatic Star
4 Dark Ritual
4 Tolarian Academy
3 Underground Sea
2 Ad Nauseam
4 Brainstorm
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Infernal Tutor
2 Duress
2 Cabal Therapy
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Past in Flames
3 Ponder
4 Polluted Delta
1 Volcanic Island
1 Island
1 Swamp

Fixed academy to give colorless please. Then i can play brown decks in my legacy.

Bed Decks Palyer

05-16-2014, 04:18 AM

That is cause Academy is currently a 1-of in a unplayed format. 4-of in popular format? Easily 200$ card right there. Same as cradle, probably worse cause it's U-based mana and slightly less narrow.

Um... I swear I knew this argument will show up.

A dude above wrote that Academy costs billion. It does not. In fact (and contrary to the Mask of Nobody Plays The Card), it's banned because of its power, not because of its price, something something causal nexus.
Would it be expensive if they'd unban it? Definitely. Gaea's Cradle.
But it'll remain banned. Because of its power. Not price.

Ace/Homebrew

05-16-2014, 08:36 AM

At least you only stack 5 cards ONCE and not 30+ in like EVERY TURN

What 30 cards do you need to stack every turn?

Assuming Goblin Recruiter and Food Chain are on the board already:
Goblin Ringleader, Goblin Warchief (2), Goblin Piledriver (7), Goblin Piledriver (7), Goblin Piledriver (7).
I count 5 cards and 23 damage... Did I win yet? :tongue:

Dice_Box

05-16-2014, 09:05 AM

You know you have to Sac some of them for mana right?

Ace/Homebrew

05-16-2014, 09:16 AM

Assuming Recruiter and Chain are on the field, plus the 3 lands you needed to cast Chain...
Recruiter gets you :r::r::r:
Add another and you cast Ringleader drawing your 4 goblins.
Ringleader gets you :r::r::r::r::r:
Add another and you can cast all 4 you drew.
Swing FTW!

Lemnear

05-16-2014, 09:17 AM

What 30 cards do you need to stack every turn?

Assuming Goblin Recruiter and Food Chain are on the board already:
Goblin Ringleader, Goblin Warchief (2), Goblin Piledriver (7), Goblin Piledriver (7), Goblin Piledriver (7).
I count 5 cards and 23 damage... Did I win yet? :tongue:

You didn't get any of the arguments we presented here over the last pages, did you? It's totally wayne that you can execute this auto-pilot pile with a goldfish as opponent and with Recruiter and Foodchain already on the table as it is well-known tech. The point was using the fact that you are allowed to stack your whole deck for several minutes with each Recruiter cast.

Imagine a game 2 against a control deck (BUG Walker or Miracles for example) where you managed to win game 1 and in this game two your opponent slammed a Moat on the field! Now you can stack your Recruiters to cast them every fucking turn (or two) and drag out the game for a 1:0 victory which is basically the same gameplan Sheherazade.dec had: Aggro rush game 1 and/or 2, then stall game 2 or 3 into a 1:0 or 1:1

Dice_Box

05-16-2014, 09:38 AM

No, if Moat hits the table you stack a Kiki, Lighting and Prospector pile and shoot them down. Another way is to drop a Sharpshooter, Prospector and Siege, then for every 3 goblins you sac you deal 5 damage.

Ace/Homebrew

05-16-2014, 09:40 AM

Imagine a game 2 against a control deck (BUG Walker or Miracles for example) where you managed to win game 1 and in this game two your opponent slammed a Moat on the field! Now you can stack your Recruiters to cast them every fucking turn (or two) and drag out the game for a 1:0 victory which is basically the same gameplan Sheherazade.dec had: Aggro rush game 1 and/or 2, then stall game 2 or 3 into a 1:0 or 1:1

Imagine a Food Chain Goblin deck sculpted by such a meta. By adding 1 Kiki-Jiki, Mirror breaker and 1 Lightning Crafter you can just win past a moat... Again a very simple pile that a pilot with 1+ game against the decks you mentioned would know about.

Assuming Food Chain and Moat are on the board, you cast Recruiter and stack:

Goblin Ringleader, Goblin Warchief, Goblin Matron, Lightning Crafter, Kiki-Jiki, Mirror breaker

Recruiter gives you RRR
Adding :r: from your 3 lands lets you cast Ringleader and draw your 4 other goblins.
Ringleader gives you RRRRR
Cast Warchief, cast Matron -> search for Matron
Matron gives you RRRR
Adding :r: from your 2 remaining lands lets you cast Kiki
Warchief gives you RRRR
Cast Crafter, Champion trigger on the stack, combo out with Kiki.

No 30 card pile or stalling needed.

"It's totally wayne" - I'm unfamiliar with this phrase. What does it mean? Context implies it means "It's well known that".

Sisyphos

05-16-2014, 11:00 AM

"It's totally wayne" - I'm unfamiliar with this phrase. What does it mean?

"Wayne" is a colloquialism used in Germany meaning somthing doesn't matter or is irrelevant. Don't know if it is used in this context elsewhere. Just read the sentence as: "It doesn't matter that you can execute this auto-pilot..." and you will get what he was trying to say. It's basically how cool kids talk these days, just like using the word "cool" itself a generation ago.

Richard Cheese

05-16-2014, 11:05 AM

What's all this nonsense about delay of game and stalling? Just cast recruiter the turn after you cast Charbelcher.

nedleeds

05-16-2014, 11:14 AM

lolwut

talk in freedom dollars or sean and i won't understand you.

or

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-FFRgLYvrWf0/U3YrOwVxLnI/AAAAAAAADV8/E2orlpwhJNI/w639-h109-no/ignore.png

Lemnear

05-16-2014, 11:22 AM

"Wayne" is a colloquialism used in Germany meaning somthing doesn't matter or is irrelevant. Don't know if it is used in this context elsewhere. Just read the sentence as: "It doesn't matter that you can execute this auto-pilot..." and you will get what he was trying to say. It's basically how cool kids talk these days, just like using the word "cool" itself a generation ago.

I apologize. I'm too old for this slang in general and it has no place here either. :/

Anyways, looks like the example for stalling against Moat wasn't well-picked. You still got the idea here. Feel free to pick your own scenario ;)

P.S.: what's the issue about currency?

Ellomdian

05-22-2014, 03:53 PM

...
Dragon = draw games, fix the rule interaction or keep it banned.
...
Survival. This card is insanely strong, however, it also create a definitely non-blue archetype. So, just to see a G (probably GBW) deck get more presence in the format, i'd like it to get unbanned. Keeping DRS untapped make the card so much weaker compared to the old since a lot of decks play T1 hate for Vengevines.
...
Desire and YWBargain. With more and more storm hate getting printed (latest being the extremely subpar eidolon of great revel, the other being Spirit of the Labyrinth), i honestly think those two cards could get off and create an interesting dinamic for the format, basically slow controllish creatures like SFM would get much less viable, and in turn TNN , cause they apply too little pressure on combo .
...
Recruiter ruin games cause it waste too much time. It's sherazad 2.0
...
Alexandria and Academy are probably not even overpowered by today standards... It would be interesting to see decks trying to abuse it, but the card is unbannable due to cost. Which is sad, especially for academy, because there are so many interesting decks it could power... Academy would be a much better unban, if not for the fact it cost a fucking billion dollars.
...
Jar seems safe.

Just some selected quotes from this post. I was going to comment on the "Academy is a billion dollars" thing, where 1,000,000,000 = $27.16 (mtgprice), and parry the inevitable "But it will go up if it's unbanned, look at Cradle" arguments (you know, because Cradle has been a casual staple for a decade and a half, played in EDH as much as it is played in Legacy, whereas Academy is a card that will start fights depending how long your friends have been playing.) But after reading the rest of the suggestions, ie "Jar seems safe" I figured the post could stand on it's own :)

Academy in a format where LED and Petal are 4 of's would be fucking miserable.

Eh, I think you overrate the power of academy versus rituals. I think it's probably realistic to assume the Academy is going to tap for >1 mana ~50% of the time, but on the other hand, it's going to be so very slow and dead in most storm builds the same percentage. As for the Eggs/Turbo-Academy-esque shell posted; yes, if Academy was unbanned, people would probably build around it. But I am genuinely curious to know if it would suddenly be that much stronger than fast combo is today, or even stronger than Tide for that matter.

I would also be super interested to see some thought exercises with Library, except that even rumors of it getting unbanned probably drive the real-market price north of $350.