Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone? [Archive] - Page 2

Barook

12-10-2013, 03:14 PM

Out of curiosity, what if instead of banning TNN, they ban SFM? Not advocating this, just opening a thought experiment to everyone. Since it seems the consensus is that a 3/1 for 3 is bad in legacy, but the moment you stick a Jitte on it, it turns unbeatable. So what if ax the enabler? What would that do to the whole meta-warping argument?
Now that you bring up the point, Wizards could be stupid enought to do it. I would hate to see SFM gone. Sure, it's powerful, but it adds an interesting effect to white. Plus, without SFM, TNN decks would probably just run more equipment to compensate.

If a significant portion of Legacy players (almost half) dislikes a powerful card enough that they would like to see it gone from the format, as this poll would seem to indicate, then that is an extremely rare event, if nothing else.
The poll is useless because it's spelled out wrong. There are enough people in the thread who hate TNN's guts, but still voted for waiting and not wanting it banned.

A "Who hates TNN's design with every fiber of your being?"-poll would probably be a better question.

jimmythegreek

12-10-2013, 03:23 PM

Gheizen64

12-10-2013, 03:59 PM

This. I would give my left nut to never see another batterskull cheated in during combat. We all know it's matter of time till wizards produces some equipment for like a million mana that will be as devestating as emrakul when equipped. What a beautiful format it would be without sfm. Maybe I'm bitter towards sfm because I mainly play goblins. Essentially its sfm that makes tnn broken not tnn....fact.

I'd go even further and ban every non-blue card at this point honestly. Anything that isn't blue is ruining the purity of this format.

DLifshitz

12-10-2013, 04:03 PM

Now that you bring up the point, Wizards could be stupid enought to do it.

I don't think so, historically bannings were meant to be a return to the status quo ante bellum, not a complete makeover of the format. Banning SFM today would be make about as much sense as banning Show and Tell or Brainstorm or Sylvan Library. Or any other random format staple.

Regarding TNN, I doubt that it will get banned, but I echo the sentiment that it shouldn't have been printed. We can only hope that WotC learn their lessons and never make that kind of mistake again.

menace13

12-10-2013, 04:29 PM

Essentially its sfm that makes tnn broken not tnn....fact.
It's the equipment that combos with a creature that you can't do much with.

Getting SFM out of the format just shifts TNN decks away from white. Maybe. There's still 2 other tutors for equipment. It would how ever lower the amount of Batterskulls significantly.

Koby

12-10-2013, 04:35 PM

Arsenal

12-10-2013, 04:44 PM

People seem to be in denial about TNN.

Star|Scream

12-10-2013, 05:00 PM

People seem to be in denial about TNN.

I know, right. I can't believe they think it's warping the format!

nedleeds

12-10-2013, 05:15 PM

Blah blah format defining card, blah blah skill intensive. Blah blah blah interactive. Blah blah metagame. Blah go play modern.

Tormod

12-10-2013, 05:19 PM

The poll is useless because it's spelled out wrong. There are enough people in the thread who hate TNN's guts, but still voted for waiting and not wanting it banned.

A "Who hates TNN's design with every fiber of your being?"-poll would probably be a better question.

This poll is useless to YOU because it doesnt support your "hate with every fiber of your being.". How about all the people who first voted yes, but now realize its no big deal.

There is a zealous vocal minority in this thread campaigning against TNN. The punchline is that TNN isn't going to get banned. EVER.

Now people can put their big boy pants back on and brew some lists and slam down some card board. time to move on people.

nedleeds

12-10-2013, 05:28 PM

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/c13/96.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/rtr/201.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/od/278.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/mm/15.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/be/262.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/tr/42.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/an/50.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/al/170.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/ul/51.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/lg/197.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/tp/22.jpg

mini1337s

12-10-2013, 05:32 PM

truth.jpgs
Also: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text=+[counter]+[target]+[spell]

nedleeds

12-10-2013, 05:34 PM

I had Mana Tithe in there but only 11 images ;)

Dark Ritual

12-10-2013, 05:34 PM

SFM does enable TNN a little bit, but the true power of TNN is that it is a powerful threat on its own that the opponent has to answer generally speaking except oh wait it's pretty hard to answer mini progenitus. And if it was equipment that enabled TNN to be broken then it would be pretty simple to answer the equipment/just pack artifact hate in your board.

Just to be clear, what does TNN add to the format exactly? Anything good? No? Then it should be banned. Just saying. So many people are playing TNN or combo now that it is ridiculous. Last legacy tournament I went to, so many UWR TNN decks, bant decks with TNN in them, esperblade with TNN, and then some combo decks like SnT, two people on storm counting myself, and dredge. When it came to fair decks without TNN there was a burning wish nic fit build that had a combo valakut finish and not much else that I saw. Seriously, the format is going to be TNN vs. combo decks unless TNN gets banned because the card is that good.

Wow, some bad hate cards that work against TNN. Incredible. Shrivel kills it too, just saying. Survival of the fittest had answers for it too and let's see where that got us.

Arsenal

12-10-2013, 05:34 PM

Crackdown? Magnetic Mountain? :laugh: you really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel, jeez. It's important to remember that for every 1 "answer" that you so graciously posted for us, there are probably 4 traditional creature-answers that are invalidated. Diabolic Edict works on TNN (and only when he's the sole creature on the opponent's board)? Cool beans, because Lightning Bolt, Swords to Plowshares, Dismember and Path to Exile don't.

UnderwaterGuy

12-10-2013, 05:37 PM

Also: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text=+[counter]+[target]+[spell]

Wow turns out that every spell can be answered.

I guess this means that no cards need to be banned because you can just always counter them if the opponent plays them. Non-blue decks can just play narrow hate like Mag Mountain, there's no way that the entire format is centered around a single card when cards like Magnetic Mountain are being used as a straight-faced argument.

(sarcasm aside) nedleeds, only your first row of cards are reasonable answers to TNN that are playable in current decks. I think your argument of "there are answers to TNN" is flawed though. Maybe you were trolling though, I don't know honestly. We all know that it is possible to kill TNN but that isn't the problem. In my opinion the problem is the reduction of interaction (and fun) and the centralization of all of Legacy around this one creature. It's a lot like what happened with Mental Misstep but not as bad. I still hope it is bad enough that wotc will ban it.

TNN has basically done what MM did except it did not stomp traditional combo decks out.

nedleeds

12-10-2013, 05:43 PM

I don't even know what "playable in current decks" means. I thought formats had card pools and a banned list? Are you such a fucking lemming that you actually think the format consists of decks? Comparing MM to TNN is a retarded cherry on an moron sundae. MM required no deck building constraints other than .... I am not playing Chalice of the Void on 1 and / or Trinisphere. Outside of that it was absurd not to include it ... even just to counter the other guys MM on your turn 1 play. It made most decks 56 cards. TNN isn't even in the same fucking universe.

UnderwaterGuy

12-10-2013, 05:45 PM

I don't even know what "playable in current decks" means. I thought formats had card pools and a banned list? Are you such a fucking lemming that you actually think the format consists of decks?

Are you so fucking delusional that you think a rogue deck with Magnetic Mountain and Crackdown is going to take over and be competitive?

nedleeds

12-10-2013, 05:46 PM

Are you so fucking delusional that you think a rogue deck with Magnetic Mountain and Crackdown is going to take over and be competitive?

You got me ... I definitely meant that all those above cards be shoved in a deck with 4 City of Brass and 4 Academy Rectors. Guilty as charged.

UnderwaterGuy

12-10-2013, 05:47 PM

You got me ... I definitely meant that all those above cards be shoved in a deck with 4 City of Brass and 4 Academy Rectors. Guilty as charged.

But you think that a deck with one of them will be competitive?

nedleeds

12-10-2013, 05:50 PM

UnderwaterGuy

12-10-2013, 05:53 PM

People are just crying about how the same 3-6 1cc "legacy staple" removal cards aren't good against this new creature. Find a new answer. Buy a fucking Moat. Counter it. Play a bigger man with trample. I understand he's powerful, but so is Brainstorm, so is Past in Flames, so is Stoneforge Mystic. It's legacy. Am I irritated that he's blue and a merfolk? Sure. But the people in this thread advocating a banning are really pathetic.

I'm not sure why you are so mad about this topic but if legacy players actually do what you are suggesting then the format becomes TNN vs anti TNN vs Combo.

That situation is exactly why a lot of us are saying we would like to see it banned. It's an opinion and people have a right to it. If you like TNN and want to keep it around then why not say that and present an argument? Why go directly to calling me retarded without even attempting to have a civil discussion? The thread is "Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?", it is not "Is TNN OP" or "Is it possible to kill a TNN?"

mini1337s

12-10-2013, 05:53 PM

Are you so fucking delusional that you think a rogue deck with Magnetic Mountain and Crackdown is going to take over and be competitive?
This is getting good.

It blows my mind that so many people see legacy as Storm Combo vs U/X/X midrange equipment decks. There are a fuckton of other viable archetypes that can prey on both of those strategies at the same time.

Legacy ebbs and flows with new printings, get used to it. Maverick players bitched when their deck was invalidated, and then they either moved on or stuck with their deck. If you want to be the bitter, by all means go for it, but your sky-is-falling circlejerking just doesn't stand up against the statistics from recent tournaments. People using the un-fun argument are ridiculous; Show and Tell into Griselbrand is just the absolute titties to play against too.

If people can't stand that there are powerful cards in the format, Modern and Standard are thataway...

Arsenal

12-10-2013, 05:53 PM

People are just crying about how the same 3-6 1cc "legacy staple" removal cards aren't good against this new creature. Find a new answer. Buy a fucking Moat. Counter it. Play a bigger man with trample. I understand he's powerful, but so is Brainstorm, so is Past in Flames, so is Stoneforge Mystic. It's legacy. Am I irritated that he's blue and a merfolk? Sure. But the people in this thread advocating a banning are really pathetic.

But ned, aren't creature removal cards designed to be effective against... creatures? Why is it okay that TNN circumvents a large portion of interaction with spells designed to interact with it?

EDIT: I mean, as long as Wizards keeps printing removal spells with the word "target" and/or "damage", then it isn't as simply as "find a new answer". Current answers are rather narrow and if one card is forcing players to run maindeck stuff like Magnetic Mountain, then isn't that the definition of a format-warping card?

nedleeds

12-10-2013, 05:57 PM

But you think that a deck with one of them will be competitive?

That's a really broad question since you are leaving the build of the deck as an unknown. Do I think Moat is a card that could go in a competitive legacy deck? Yes. Same for Crackdown, a G/W maverick deck with KotR and mostly white creatures could surely run it as a bullet vs. Merfolk / Threshhold / etc.. Terravore or other tramplers are under played now and make his utility as a blocker diminish. Deluge / Infest effects are absolutely competitive, they cross cut across quite a few stock list 75 SCG decks. Red Elemental blast? How can you argue that it couldn't be in a competitive deck? Bitching about the 4 format staple removal effects that don't work specifically on that one cards is shit, they generally don't work on any hexproof guys. Yes. Pyroclasm. I know. Yes he can't be blocked. I know.

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/m14/12.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/sc/25.jpg

Having some neck beard Show and Tell Griselbrand is so far and away more misery inducing than 3/1 Blue Hammer it's not even close.

Arsenal

12-10-2013, 06:01 PM

menace13

12-10-2013, 06:02 PM

I had Mana Tithe in there but only 11 images ;)
Thank god you solved it. Now we can unban every card.

UnderwaterGuy

12-10-2013, 06:03 PM

Well I give up. Turns out I'm only curious about how many times I need to say "I am not saying TNN has no answers" to try saying it twice. What's the use of talking to someone if they won't even read your full posts.

nedleeds

12-10-2013, 06:03 PM

But ned, aren't creature removal cards designed to be effective against... creatures? Why is it okay that TNN circumvents a large portion of interaction with spells designed to interact with it?

I get it ... I do. I don't like TNN. I don't like that he's blue and a merfolk. But I'm just exhausted from the same old story that started with Counterspell. I'd rather see Delver gone than TNN honestly, but neither deserves banning. Deciding whether it's 'ok' is a pointless exercise, I don't think Emrakul or Griselbrand are ok - they dumb the game down to the level where any shaved ape can pilot sneak and show to 8 wins. But the bar to ban a creature is quite high because they are vulnerable to both removal and countermagic and most don't just win the game (Hermit Druid aside).

I always side on unbannings before bannings except in absurd cases like MM where it was 56card.dec.format.

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/eve/160.jpg

He circumvents interaction with spells also. Why isn't he awesome? Because you can block him with Deathrite Shaman. TNN is 1UU. Focus on destroying the equipment, or the lords, create a faster clock if you are playing creatures. If you insist on playing mono green then maybe there are less effective answers.

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/hl/87.jpg

nedleeds

12-10-2013, 06:08 PM

ned, I'm not sure why you keep throwing up answers to TNN. I mean, you're saying the exact same thing about TNN's "answers" as people did about answering Survival; play more Spell Snare, Nature's Claim, Disenchant, etc. I don't understand how the presence of answers somehow assuages the invalidation of so many other cards.

I don't think Survival should be banned either. It's answerable on the stack, on the battlefield, and if you are trying to abuse it via the graveyard and circumventing the fact that you have to cast the thing you find then you are exposed to all the grave hate that's been printed in spades since it's banning. A new printing making Swords to Plowshares worse isn't a ban criteria. Stoneforge Mystic made STP worse, Griselbrand and Emrakul made STP worse, Geist made STP marginally worse. Making Bolt worse isn't a ban criteria. A new printing that makes some of the formats 'auto includes' slightly less useful isn't even close to a ban criteria. It's a good things if people can't lean on the magic 16 -> force, brainstorm, stp, abrupt for everything. You may actually have to try ... GASP A NEW MAGIC CARD THAT GERRY T DIDN'T BLOG ABOUT !

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/ths/162.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/ths/162.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/ths/162.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/ths/162.jpg

menace13

12-10-2013, 06:12 PM

GASP A NEW MAGIC CARD THAT GERRY T DIDN'T BLOG ABOUT !

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/ths/162.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/ths/162.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/ths/162.jpghttp://magiccards.info/scans/en/ths/162.jpg

You got all the sweet tech today:rolleyes:. Gerry must be jealous

Deadpool09

12-10-2013, 06:26 PM

It's like selling the format short if wizards banned tnn. Let the format adapt. It's a powerful card no doubt, but is it ban worthy? No. People are just riding the hysteria of the card. This is legacy, people, not modern. Trust the format, your underestimating it. Don't sell it short, the format will adapt. I'm not being biased either, I have multiple decks, some containing tnn, some not. And I don't play combos.
Btw looking at the poll, people here seems fine with it. (I know it's a small sample size, but whatever)

Koby

12-10-2013, 06:28 PM

Wizards has yet to ban the Creature that broke the format. Why would they start with TNN when there are at least 3 still waiting to get banned?

(Vengevine, Griselbrand, Deathrite Shaman)

UnderwaterGuy

12-10-2013, 06:29 PM

Wizards has yet to ban the Creature that broke the format. Why would they start with TNN when there are at least 3 still waiting to get banned?

(Vengevine, Griselbrand, Deathrite Shaman)

This is a very good point. That is why I don't expect TNN to get banned. wotc seems very adverse to banning any creatures.

Dragonslayer_90

12-10-2013, 06:44 PM

This is a very good point. That is why I don't expect TNN to get banned. wotc seems very adverse to banning any creatures.

You're probably right. This made me chuckle a little because my friend said that Wizards would never ban a manadork when talking about if Deathrite Shaman should be banned in legacy. Thus, I don't see why Wizards would ban Troll Ascetic really.

Pennywise the clown

12-10-2013, 07:06 PM

TNN is very good - no doubt about that. But looking at the decks playing it, is it really doing more damage than Brainstorm, Delver or Stoneforge mystic?
If not - then I don't really see a ban happen. To some the un-fun factor might be reason to warrant a banning but fun/un-fun is a very subjective thing. I only hope that the next big legacycard will help another archetype than bluebased midrange.

thefringthing

12-10-2013, 07:41 PM

Too soon for an informed opinion. The card is certainly miserable though. Did Legacy really need a completely uninteractive aggressive blue creature that combos with Stoneforge Mystic?

Esper3k

12-10-2013, 07:50 PM

This is a very good point. That is why I don't expect TNN to get banned. wotc seems very adverse to banning any creatures.

Given that this is Legacy and not Modern, I would hope WoTC does not ban a 3/1 for 1UU that doesn't do anything except block or attack (which it admittedly does very well).

bjholmes3

12-10-2013, 08:04 PM

nedleeds

12-10-2013, 08:12 PM

Information taken from The Council

Out of the top 8, there are 242 decks, 181 of which do not play TNN. Also, the meta looks to me the same as would be expected normally.

http://s.mcstatic.com/thumb/6128811/17584393/4/flash_player/0/1/robocop_bitches_leave.jpg?v=1

Dragonslayer_90

12-10-2013, 08:22 PM

Given that this is Legacy and not Modern, I would hope WoTC does not ban a 3/1 for 1UU that doesn't do anything except block or attack (which it admittedly does very well).

I concur. I am convinced that they should not ban True-Name on power level alone. It is damn good card, pretty stupid. But I'd rather they not set a precedent that would set Legacy on the path that Modern is already on. Let Wizards and the fans of Modern make that format as fair as they want. I could care less as long as they don't touch Legacy. I think it should only be banned if TNN decks prove too dominant, which we will have to wait and see for another month or two.

Scott

12-10-2013, 08:23 PM

Whoever copyrighted "Go play Modern" as a retort is sitting on a gold mine.

Teluin

12-10-2013, 08:56 PM

I concur. I am convinced that they should not ban True-Name on power level alone. It is damn good card, pretty stupid. But I'd rather they not set a precedent that would set Legacy on the path that Modern is already on. Let Wizards and the fans of Modern make that format as fair as they want. I could care less as long as they don't touch Legacy. I think it should only be banned if TNN decks prove too dominant, which we will have to wait and see for another month or two.

Exactly, which is why I wrote this on page 3 and stand by it.

I'm really on the fence about the whole thing. I definitely wish they hadn't printed the card but I acknowledge that banning it could set a precedence. If WotC does acknowledge the public outcry over this card, I hope their approach to banning it would be an intelligent one. Perhaps something similar to the ante cards - "TNN was designed with multiplayer in mind and thus shouldn't be played in a 1v1 format".

jimmythegreek

12-10-2013, 08:57 PM

Dafuq did I just read? SFM makes TNN broken? A permanent that is answerable is what makes the unasnwerable permanent more broken?

Huh?

TNN is still the issue, because you can barely interact with it to begin with. Focus on the issue, not the complementary strategies.

Yes the permenant is answerable as in countering it assuming one plays blue. Otherwise one can remove sfm but the equipment is still tutored and in that players hand. I dont think people fear tnn until it gets equipped, how many decks using tnn have the creature count where a tnn would be a real threat. An equipped tnn is a real nightmare for any deck that uses creature based strategies.

Teluin

12-10-2013, 08:58 PM

This thread seems to have gotten pretty repetitive.

Dragonslayer_90

12-10-2013, 09:13 PM

Exactly, which is why I wrote this on page 3 and stand by it.

Sorry to be repeating your stance.

Yes the permenant is answerable as in countering it assuming one plays blue. Otherwise one can remove sfm but the equipment is still tutored and in that players hand. I dont think people fear tnn until it gets equipped, how many decks using tnn have the creature count where a tnn would be a real threat. An equipped tnn is a real nightmare for any deck that uses creature based strategies.

True, but the equipment they tutored for will take more time to set up and/or take advantage of if the stoneforge is removed. In the time it takes to set up said equipment without a stoneforge you have some turns to find or draw into answers for their equipment or for their TNN. Playing Goblins? Matron up your artifact destruction goblin. Playing Maverick? GSZ up Qasali Pridemage. Playing DnT? Postboard bring in Manriki Gusari and tutor it up with your own mystic. The list goes on. I don't mean to argue that True-Name is a card not to enjoy playing against since there are answers to equipment that makes it pretty op, but even before TNN was around many nonblue decks were packing answers for equipment.

jimmythegreek

12-10-2013, 09:16 PM

This thread seems to have gotten pretty repetitive.

Yup. Dont like the card. Gonna stop bitching and play some magic.

jimmythegreek

12-10-2013, 09:21 PM

Sorry to be repeating your stance.

True, but the equipment they tutored for will take more time to set up and/or take advantage of if the stoneforge is removed. In the time it takes to set up said equipment without a stoneforge you have some turns to find or draw into answers for their equipment or for their TNN. Playing Goblins? Matron up your artifact destruction goblin. Playing Maverick? GSZ up Qasali Pridemage. Playing DnT? Postboard bring in Manriki Gusari and tutor it up with your own mystic. The list goes on. I don't mean to argue that True-Name is a card not to enjoy playing against since there are answers to equipment that makes it pretty op, but even before TNN was around many nonblue decks were packing answers for equipment.

Hmm. Good point. Still, I gotta have the removal have the tutor and then play the hate. Where they play sfm then equip or simply pay to put in batterskull.

Zombie

12-10-2013, 09:28 PM

Information taken from The Council

Top Decks for November:

RUG Delver, 54 tops, generally doesn't play TNN, but not counter-TNN or combo
Patriot, 33 tops, generally plays TNN
Blade Control, 28 tops, generally plays TNN
Elves, 27 tops, never plays TNN
Team America, 26 tops, generally doesn't play TNN, but not counter-TNN or combo
Death & Taxes, 25 tops, never plays TNN, but not counter-TNN or combo
Miracle Control, 25 tops, never plays TNN, but not combo
Sneak Attack, 24 tops, never plays TNN

Out of the top 8, there are 242 decks, 181 of which do not play TNN, 130 of which are not combo. About 53.72% of the decks in this top 8 are neither TNN nor combo, with a staggering 25.21% of the top 8 containing the card at all. Also, the meta looks to me the same as would be expected normally.

A heavy investment in fliers and indirect reach (DRS) seems to be pretty much the same as the combo plan - ignore, race, go over it - this time it just happens to be done literally. TA and D&T don't try to solve Nemesis.

Miracles is basically counters+sweepers, one of the few viable not-wonky actual solutions to TNN. Also, their win is combo or flying dudes, again completely ignoring TNN and/or racing it.

RUG is valid.

from Cairo

12-10-2013, 09:33 PM

If everyone's complaint is that the biggest issue with True-Name Nemesis is the issues it causes when carrying equipment, perhaps the best course of action is to care less about the 3/1 and more about Artifact destruction? The options for taking TNN off the board are fairly limited, but Artifact destruction is handily distributed among Green, White and Red; Black has the best of the -X/-X and sacrifice effects at their disposal and Blue can interact with True Name, Stoneforge and potentially Equipment on the stack.

The format maybe needs a bit more time to adapt. True-Name Nemesis wasn't a good addition to the metagame/card pool, but I don't think it's "sky is falling" either.

Dragonslayer_90

12-10-2013, 09:44 PM

Hmm. Good point. Still, I gotta have the removal have the tutor and then play the hate. Where they play sfm then equip or simply pay to put in batterskull.

Yes. It's unfortunate you have to spend more cards then they have to perform their broken stoneforge synergies, but that's legacy. I still don't think SFM is a real problem even with TNN in the format simply by the fact decks were already preparing for it. Sure, that's evidence of its format-warping nature, but what is a format without its all-stars?

bjholmes3

12-10-2013, 09:47 PM

A heavy investment in fliers and indirect reach (DRS) seems to be pretty much the same as the combo plan - ignore, race, go over it - this time it just happens to be done literally. TA and D&T don't try to solve Nemesis.

Miracles is basically counters+sweepers, one of the few viable not-wonky actual solutions to TNN. Also, their win is combo or flying dudes, again completely ignoring TNN and/or racing it.

RUG is valid.

So, you're saying the only thing that doesn't qualify as anti-TNN is Grizzly Bear. Classy. Doesn't change the fact that the meta now is VERY similar to the old meta.

Zombie

12-10-2013, 09:47 PM

Koby

12-10-2013, 09:59 PM

Yes the permenant is answerable as in countering it assuming one plays blue. Otherwise one can remove sfm but the equipment is still tutored and in that players hand. I dont think people fear tnn until it gets equipped, how many decks using tnn have the creature count where a tnn would be a real threat. An equipped tnn is a real nightmare for any deck that uses creature based strategies.

An equipped TNN is one Shatter away from being a Trained Armodon. Dafuq happened to reasoning and logic?

evanmartyr

12-11-2013, 02:51 AM

People get zoned in on their "best" answers and de riguer builds.

It's a CREATURE. It hits, in decks that could possibly give a shit about it, at earliest turn 2. On its own it is a SEVEN TURN CLOCK. It dies to nearly every played sweeper in the format, and it being more relevant than a shitty vanilla creature relies on the deck playing, resolving, equipping, and successfully attacking with equipment. Artifacts are pretty damn fragile.

Dzra

12-11-2013, 03:52 AM

My biggest problem with the card is just how they went about it. Would it still see play if it was an EtB trigger instead of the non-interactive "As it enters" thing? Would it still see play if its ability had to target the player? It's not like its wrecking anyone's home or anything; it's just what appears to be sloppy design. Anyways, maybe we'll see another Sulfur Elemental type dude in Red, except that gives +1/-1 to Blue creatures. I'd play it.

wizard_of_gore

12-11-2013, 04:05 AM

Anyways, maybe we'll see another Sulfur Elemental type dude in Red, except that gives +1/-1 to Blue creatures. I'd play it.

It's already exist (http://www.google.hr/imgres?imgurl=http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx%3Fmultiverseid%3D27175%26type%3Dcard&imgrefurl=http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid%3D27175&h=310&w=223&sz=35&tbnid=CEtC6_wcukAN_M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=65&zoom=1&usg=__NQiK29eE3mbeMLi7DKkjam8dN6Y=&docid=ZSihKzyuS0ay6M&sa=X&ei=XyqoUvHpA-ne4QT0jIDIDA&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAQ)

lordofthepit

12-11-2013, 04:08 AM

It's already exist (http://www.google.hr/imgres?imgurl=http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx%3Fmultiverseid%3D27175%26type%3Dcard&imgrefurl=http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid%3D27175&h=310&w=223&sz=35&tbnid=CEtC6_wcukAN_M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=65&zoom=1&usg=__NQiK29eE3mbeMLi7DKkjam8dN6Y=&docid=ZSihKzyuS0ay6M&sa=X&ei=XyqoUvHpA-ne4QT0jIDIDA&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAQ)

Great, now blue has the best creature removal too.

Kayradis

12-11-2013, 07:05 AM

barcode

12-11-2013, 08:38 AM

*image of Llawan

I saw someone cast Llawan, Cephalid Empress against a True-Name Nemesis this weekend. I laughed.

Luklinda

12-11-2013, 08:44 AM

Most of the complaints aren't "can't be dealt with". More "adds nothing worthwhile, makes playing fair Magic miserable, best solution is to build decks that ignore it, like flier-heavy decks and combo".

If you're playing "fair" magic with non-evasive, non-reach, non-utility creatures and can't potentially just race a TNN or two in legacy then you were doing something wrong to begin with.

+1 for the tentacle queen Llawan, Cephalid Empress!

Arsenal

12-11-2013, 09:07 AM

I run Llawan in my UW Stoneblade sideboard primarily for the mirror (no Snapcaster, TNN, Strix, or Clique for them), but as Merfolk splash damage, it's pretty awesome.

Finn

12-11-2013, 09:27 AM

I saw someone cast Llawan, Cephalid Empress against a True-Name Nemesis this weekend. I laughed.

Oh God. They have really gone and done it now. They have gone too far. Riptide has a purpose!

Arsenal

12-11-2013, 09:30 AM

Riptide has a purpose!

Yet another treasure of an answer to TNN too!

EDIT: Curfew looks promising as anti-TNN tech too. ned, update your list ASAP!!!

OmniStrata

12-11-2013, 09:39 AM

I play Pox. I target nothing. TNN sits in a deck designed to be completely dominated by me. The more it appears, the better my chances at winning. B00yah. :cool:

nedleeds

12-11-2013, 10:44 AM

I run Llawan in my UW Stoneblade sideboard primarily for the mirror (no Snapcaster, TNN, Strix, or Clique for them), but as Merfolk splash damage, it's pretty awesome.

Wow that's some back breaking tech vs. Stoneblade ... how will they ever deal with a Legendary, main phased 4 mana 2/4 with no evasion and no protection?

That's a stone cold lock out of their most important cards. Even worse for them it bounces their SCM, Clique, Strix, Venser that are already in play! Then after they remove your grounded Azure Drake they'll have to cast all those creatures again! Oh Noes! :laugh:

Arsenal

12-11-2013, 10:47 AM

Oh, so you mean their creature removal will actually work on a creature of mine?

EDIT: Also, you haven't updated your TNN answer post. Curfew, man. Curfew!!!!!!

EDIT2: Also, you haven't addressed the fact that TNN virtually bypasses the combat phase due to it being unblockable, untargetable, un-everything able. An entire phase of Magic, virtually removed from the game. At least with Geist, I can block him with my dude. Pro color guy swinging in? Block with a different colored creature or kill him with a different colored removal spell. It isn't just that I can't interact with TNN with most creature removal spells anymore, it's that I can't even do anything about him in combat with my own creatures. It's frustrating to know that stack interaction with TNN is now limited to countermagic-only and battlefield interaction is now limited to mass removal spells. TNN is a creature. A creature that bypasses combat (designed for creatures only) and doesn't care about most creature removal (again, designed for creatures only) is just dumb.

Shawon

12-11-2013, 11:02 AM

True-Name Nemesis: Ah, it burns!

True-Name Nemesis: AAAAAHHHHHH! STOP IT! MAKE IT STOP!!!!

True-Name Nemesis: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=34214&type=card

Arsenal

12-11-2013, 11:03 AM

Shawon

12-11-2013, 11:09 AM

Skullcrack too!

Leyline of Punishment, a stretch but another possibility.

Arsenal

12-11-2013, 11:13 AM

Leyline of Punishment, a stretch but another possibility.

If Magnetic Mountain makes the cut, Leyline of Punishment is in there like booty hair.

Shawon

12-11-2013, 11:58 AM

True-Name Nemesis is the Miley Cyrus of Legacy.

IT CAME IN LIKE A WRECKING BAAAAWWWWWLLLLLL!!!!

EDIT: And nothing is twerking against it.

Arsenal

12-11-2013, 12:10 PM

I smell Doran making a comeback. 1/3 TNN? TECH.

Shawon

12-11-2013, 12:41 PM

I smell Doran making a comeback. 1/3 TNN? TECH.

Doran + Meekstone/Crackdown. Attack with a 5/5 that still untaps and you can't untap your 1/3 attacker? NEXT LEVEL TECH.

Star|Scream

12-11-2013, 12:48 PM

Doran + Meekstone/Crackdown. Attack with a 5/5 that still untaps and you can't untap your 1/3 attacker? NEXT LEVEL TECH.

Format solved

nedleeds

12-11-2013, 12:49 PM

Skullcrack too!

EDIT: ned, you're slipping man. Please edit your TNN answer post with all of the great ones that have since been mentioned; Curfew, Flaring Pain and Skullcrack. We need to have an exhaustive list of all possible TNN answers. Thank you.

I'm not the one bleeding from the vagina over the cards presence. I could list every counterspell ever printed, meddling mage, the 1,000 sac effects etc., but you'd still find a way to cry.

Arsenal

12-11-2013, 12:50 PM

I'm not the one bleeding from the vagina over the cards presence. I could list every counterspell ever printed, meddling mage, the 1,000 sac effects etc., but you'd still find a way to cry.

:cry:

Barook

12-11-2013, 01:17 PM

I smell Doran making a comeback. 1/3 TNN? TECH.
That sounds actually like fun. You can fetch it with GSZ and the color combination offers quite a few answers to TNN, too. Boosting your DRS and SFM is just an added bonus.

TNN would still be an excellent equipment carrier and indestructible blocker, though.

True-Name Nemesis is the Miley Cyrus of Legacy.
It already has enough attention, it doesn't need to whore itself like a drug-addicted hooker.

Scott

12-11-2013, 01:20 PM

Whoever copyrighted "Go play Modern" as a retort is sitting on a gold mine.

Well, if you want to play in a format with an oppresive ban list where all the good cards are not being played, there's a format for you.

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Resources.aspx?x=judge/resources/sfrmodern

Write another check. It's the "If you don't like America, you can giiit out" argument of post-September 11th politics.

KobeBryan

12-11-2013, 02:18 PM

The problem isn't TNN itself, it is the equipment that goes along with it.

Something like Jitte, an equipment we used to legend rule out of the game, no longer works.

So now it becomes a battle of jittes, or whoever finds the answer to destroy it first wins.

I've been playing team america the last 2-3 months, the problem lies when the jitte resolves and you dont have the answer to it. TNN, i can just basically ignore and race.

TheKingslayer

12-11-2013, 02:33 PM

Bed Decks Palyer

12-11-2013, 02:35 PM

Several people in this thread should stop trying to be funny. They completely suck at it.

TsumiBand

12-11-2013, 02:40 PM

Doran would be a lot better if you could prevent the equipment/aura from also hitting. Is it… is it time for Suppression Field.dec???

I read somewhere that Flanking was tech against True-Name Nemesis; Knight of the Holy Nimbus was like born to go in a deck with Suppression Field.

What a troll-ass White Weenie deck that would be.

THE INVINCIBLES
4 Clergy of the Holy Nimbus
4 Knight of the Holy Nimbus
4 Frontline Medic

THE TROLLS
4 Grand Abolisher
4 Mistmeadow Skulk

ALSO THIS GUY
4 Knight of the White Orchid

THE TECH
4 Suppression Field
4 Day of Judgment
4 Blue Scarab

THE LOOT
4 Swords to Plowshares

THE WARRANT
20 Plains

Is this the part where I give the deck a descriptive name like "Eternity and Exemption" or "Stan Getz" or something? I want to move to the naming phase. No need to test. This deck is amazing.

No, this deck is poopy. I just want Suppression Field to be a real card SO BAD

Koby

12-11-2013, 02:41 PM

Several people in this thread should stop trying to be funny. They completely suck at it.

The Ignore button is a blessed gift to mankind.

Barook

12-11-2013, 03:11 PM

I just want Suppression Field to be a real card SO BAD
Maybe when it's getting a hatebear body. As an enchantment, it sucks.

Was the equipment that problematic before the arrival of TNN?
If the equipment was the sole problem, why not play more Pridemages/Abrupt Decays?

Some kind of Junk/Dark Maverick deck sounds more and more attractive to handle TNN.

- Doran as GSZ target
- Pridemage and AD to handle problematic equipment
- potentially Liliana
- SFM for SoFaI (maybe)
- throw in some discard (which can also handle TNN and equipment) and DRS for good measure
- plenty of sideboard options including Zealous Persecution

Now the question is how much discard you can throw in to not auto-lose to combo and how to establish a decent clock (Goyfs?).

KobeBryan

12-11-2013, 03:13 PM

Was the equipment that problematic before the arrival of TNN?

Not really the equipment...I would say its the legend rule.

Games just became jitte wars now.

TsumiBand

12-11-2013, 03:23 PM

Not really the equipment...I would say its the legend rule.

Games just became about having a sideboard that included cards to fight Jitte that weren't also named Jitte now.

FTFY?

Given the propensity of players to dislike it when a card is its own best answer, I'm surprised that this is still a discussion point. Hell, a ton of players don't even like it when Blue cards are the best answer to other Blue cards; in this regard, how is the old Legend rule better than the current one?

Jitte being its own best answer is terrible -- it means that decks don't even need to pack equipment hate, just race to draw more Legendary cards than the other player. Mono-black being able to blow up a Jitte with a Jitte is about as dumb as it gets.

It occurs to me that people don't appreciate cards without answers, or cards that remove that aspect from the gameplay. Thing is, if you build a deck to have a lack of answers, precisely because the best answer is to just pack the card yourself, that's another expression of the same problem. At least this keeps decks an actual answer to JTMS/Jitte/other problematic Legendary things honest.

Admiral_Arzar

12-11-2013, 03:25 PM

not really the equipment...i would say its the legend rule.

Games just became jitte wars now.

World War J

Tormod

12-11-2013, 04:08 PM

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/al/194.jpg

Koby

12-11-2013, 04:09 PM

If we're going for prevention effects, mise well turn their 7 turn clock into a 20 turn clock:

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/cedi/245.jpg

Myelectronicdays

12-11-2013, 04:48 PM

If we're going for prevention effects, mise well turn their 7 turn clock into a 20 turn clock:

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/cedi/245.jpg

still my favorite card <3

Erdvermampfa

12-11-2013, 04:58 PM

Since we are now making fun of all those ridiculously bad 'answers' to TNN that people come up to suggest in defense of it, I think we can safely say what the actual conclusion of this thread is...

Koby

12-11-2013, 05:05 PM

Since we are now making fun of all those ridiculously bad 'answers' to TNN that people come up to suggest in defense of it, I think we can safely say what the actual conclusion of this thread is...

... to point out there's a ton of chicken littles in this community.

ESG

12-11-2013, 05:14 PM

Well, if you want to play in a format with an oppresive ban list where all the good cards are not being played, there's a format for you.http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Resources.aspx?x=judge/resources/sfrmodern

This type of response is probably the single most useless retort in the thread. Legacy and Modern aren't comparable at all. I actually played in a big Modern tournament, for the first time, last weekend. I ran Affinity. I played four Affinity mirror matches out of six rounds. It was not fun. Kayradis, have you actually played Modern?

Scott's comparison to post-9/11 politics is right on ("If you don't like America, you can giiit out").

Sure, that's evidence of its format-warping nature, but what is a format without its all-stars?

I'm glad we've at least reached the point where some people freely admit that format warping is occurring.

The format maybe needs a bit more time to adapt. True-Name Nemesis wasn't a good addition to the metagame/card pool, but I don't think it's "sky is falling" either.

If the sky actually fell, some people would still be saying the contrary. You can look back at every ban thread on these boards, and there were people who defended anything and everything. Time doesn't change what the card is and does; time can only offer the possibility of future cards to mitigate the damage done.

Bed Decks Palyer

12-11-2013, 05:41 PM

The Ignore button is a blessed gift to mankind.
The ignored users still make it annoying to read the thread.

Dragonslayer_90

12-11-2013, 06:56 PM

I'm glad we've at least reached the point where some people freely admit that format warping is occurring.

Really? I don't see why any rational person would not say that TNN is warping the format, but I find it similar to how Deathrite Shaman warped the format when he came out. Deathrite Shaman decks were everywhere when that guy came out. Eventually the format adjusted and Deathrite Shaman just became one of the best creatures of the format. He didn't warp the format to the point you had to play him in your deck to play a legit deck. This is just how new legacy staples come into the format. They become the center of attention for a little while until the format figures out how to keep the card or deck they are played in in check. I see True-Name Nemesis following a similar path. Then again, it could be that he's worse than Deathrite and the bugger will have to get banned eventually. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

KobeBryan

12-11-2013, 07:26 PM

Really? I don't see why any rational person would not say that TNN is warping the format, but I find it similar to how Deathrite Shaman warped the format when he came out. Deathrite Shaman decks were everywhere when that guy came out. Eventually the format adjusted and Deathrite Shaman just became one of the best creatures of the format. He didn't warp the format to the point you had to play him in your deck to play a legit deck. This is just how new legacy staples come into the format. They become the center of attention for a little while until the format figures out how to keep the card or deck they are played in in check. I see True-Name Nemesis following a similar path. Then again, it could be that he's worse than Deathrite and the bugger will have to get banned eventually. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

If anything, delver and deathrite shaman is more oppressive than TNN

warai

12-11-2013, 07:34 PM

If anything, delver and deathrite shaman is more oppressive than TNN

How many deck strategies are not viable anymore because of TNN? That is one of the key points for a card to get a ban.

Rug delver is the big loser with this TNN meta imo.

KobeBryan

12-11-2013, 07:38 PM

How many deck strategies are not viable anymore because of TNN? That is one of the key points for a card to get a ban.

Rug delver is the big loser with this TNN meta imo.

I can't name of any deck that makes TNN oppressive to the point where it is play or go home.

Delver is probably more rampant than TNN in winning games at this point. a 3/2 for 1 mana is outrageous. then a 1/2 for 1 mana with 3 different abilities and the ability to control the GY...that is overpowered.

but a 3/1 for UU1 that needs to have an equipment to make it really worthwhile is not that overpowered.

bjholmes3

12-11-2013, 09:21 PM

1.) RUG Delver is not dead. It alone has almost the same amount of tops as every TNN deck combined.
2.) Where is the line between warping the format and simply changing it.

Scott

12-11-2013, 09:27 PM

Mark Rosewater answering another question about TNN on his blog (http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/69737344432/would-thought-be-given-to-having-true-name-nemesis#notes).

Would thought be given to having True-Name Nemesis receive Errata to sustain its functionality in multiplayer games but not entirely apply to 1v1 games?

That’s not how we want to use errata.

UnderwaterGuy

12-11-2013, 09:30 PM

1.) RUG Delver is not dead. It alone has almost the same amount of tops as every TNN deck combined.

Where are you getting that info from? mtgtop8's lists definitely do not show this but maybe they are inaccurate?

bjholmes3

12-11-2013, 10:10 PM

TheCouncil, always. MTGTop8 is sketchy for Legacy. Do note, also, the results are from November. I list out the statistics in a post a page or two back in detail.

ESG

12-12-2013, 03:27 AM

1.) RUG Delver is not dead. It alone has almost the same amount of tops as every TNN deck combined.

Some RUG Delver decks play TNN. Others are adopting it. I don't see your point. They're taking the "join it" approach.

2.) Where is the line between warping the format and simply changing it.

It hinges on oppressiveness of a card and how that card pushes out other strategies. Delver of Secrets, Deathrite Shaman, and Abrupt Decay changed the format in small ways: Delver of Secrets gave tempo decks a faster clock; Deathrite Shaman gave ramp, color fixing, and more to anyone with black or green duals; Abrupt Decay provided a way to break out of CounterTop lock, while also having utility against other permanents (chief among them Delver of Secrets). True-Name Nemesis, by contrast, is warping the format: It turns the format on its head into ignoring it (combo decks) or playing it (TNN decks). The rest of the meta is small. Creatureless control decks should be decent, but they are currently underrepresented. The data you provided was from November. I expect the December data to reflect the warping that has been occurring the past few weeks as more people start running Nemesis or switching to combo decks.

Nielsie

12-12-2013, 05:15 AM

To everybody saying that there are enough answers, well, how about we unban for example Mishra's Workshop? The most played non-basic is Wasteland, that's a good answer for Workshop it's so good that almost every deck already includes it. Or how about Dustbowl, Ghost Quarter, Sinkhole, Small Pox, Pox, Molten Rain, Stone Rain,... I can go on all day... Even Force of Will will work because it counters the stuff that gets cast with Workshop. Answers enough :really:

Every card on the banlist has answers...

Do I have to go play Vintage now because I proposed this?

Though I do agree that this poll is poorly worded. I think it should have said: "Would you prefer that True-Name Nemesis had never been printed?"

Higgs

12-12-2013, 05:37 AM

Because we can't go back in time yet and undo a mistake, the closest we can get is taking back a mistake. If you'd rather it had not been printed then your best alternative is banning it.

I really don't understand people re-iterating a long list of narrow, and mostly completely useless except for TNN, answers to advocate not banning. Just because there is an answer for a card doesn't mean that it is a healthy, balanced design. You can Disenchant, Wear/Tear, Qasali Pridemage or Serenity a Necropotence but does it mean that it's a healthy card for the format? You can REB, Spell Pierce, Counterspell, FoW or Meddling Mage a Tinker but is it an OK card?

Echelon

12-12-2013, 06:50 AM

Higgs

12-12-2013, 06:56 AM

Don't get me started on parallel universes and alternative timelines :)

PirateKing

12-12-2013, 07:28 AM

Can we all just agree to unban Survival?

Tylert

12-12-2013, 07:53 AM

Going back in time to undo it's printing is pointless since doing so would prevent you from having a reason to travel back in time in the first place, causing you not to travel back in time to undo the printing of TNN.

As you can see, TNN still exists today. So even if someone at any time went back (or ahead) in time to undo its printing, apparently it did not work.

Rabbi

12-12-2013, 08:01 AM

Echelon

12-12-2013, 08:02 AM

As you can see, TNN still exists today. So even if someone at any time went back (or ahead) in time to undo its printing, apparently it did not work.

That's because TNN had protection from that person. Lol

Deadpool09

12-12-2013, 08:26 AM

Anyone in this thread who is like "well yeah TNN is unfun to play with or against and i dont like it, but it shouldn't be banned because [some attempt to make this card game sound like a noble sport of kings]" should really take a step back. Literally no one likes this card, so we as a group of players should make it so we don't play with/against it, and we do that by lobbying to get it banned. Everyone not liking a card is really enough justification to ban it guys, we don't have to have a mathematical proof of a card's negative impact.

Literally no one likes this card? Says who? Check the poll. Ask the players who play them in their decks. Ask turtenwald.
And I don't get it. People are claiming its warping the format. It's either tnn or combo. No it's not.
Dnt, elves,affinity,rug delver,shardless bug,miracles,ub tezzeret. These are decks that made an appearance in a bunch of tourneys that don't use tnn. Are they combo? No. Do they use tnn? No. I don't think people here understand what warping the format really means. If guys are afraid of a hard to deal with 3/1 creature, then how would justify show and tell, griselbrand, death rite shaman, delver of secrets. I mean look at snow and tell, it forces you to sideboard a 3-5 cards against for you to even have a chance of winning. You wanna talk about unfun? Losing in 3 turns is never fun. But we don't bitch about it the way some of you are bitching about tnn.

bjholmes3

12-12-2013, 08:41 AM

Some RUG Delver decks play TNN. Others are adopting it. I don't see your point. They're taking the "join it" approach.

Out of the 30 most recent decklists on TheCouncil, ranging from mid-November to December 8th, there are 3 copies of TNN. 3 copies! That's hardly what I would call the "join it" approach.

Also, the meta of December:

RUG Delver, with 4 tops, not TNN, not Combo
MUD, with 3 tops, not TNN, not Combo
Patriot, with 3 tops, TNN
Goblins, with 3 tops, not TNN, not Combo, and not counter-TNN
Blade Control, with 2 tops, TNN
ANT, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo
Sneak Attack, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo
OmniTell, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo

Goblins, lol. RUG without TNN, lol. MUD, lol. For those whining about combo, this meta has a good split. 6 combo decks, 10 aggro decks, 5 control/prison decks.

Higgs

12-12-2013, 09:20 AM

Check the poll.

The poll says majority of players don't want to see the card banned it doesn't say anything about players liking the card. And most people who are against the ban are like "yea the card sucks but I'm a leet, competitive, kick ass player and know how to beat it, so because I'm so damn good at magic I can't justifiably ask for a ban". Let's be honest guys :) What I understand from these arguments is most people consider invulnerability as the only factor for a ban.

I think the closest example to what's wrong with TNN is ante cards. They just don't belong in a constructed, two player environment.

TheKingslayer

12-12-2013, 09:24 AM

Going back in time to undo it's printing is pointless since doing so would prevent you from having a reason to travel back in time in the first place, causing you not to travel back in time to undo the printing of TNN.

And you might end up at prom with your mother, which would be weird.

Star|Scream

12-12-2013, 09:25 AM

Out of the 30 most recent decklists on TheCouncil, ranging from mid-November to December 8th, there are 3 copies of TNN. 3 copies! That's hardly what I would call the "join it" approach.

Also, the meta of December:

RUG Delver, with 4 tops, not TNN, not Combo
MUD, with 3 tops, not TNN, not Combo
Patriot, with 3 tops, TNN
Goblins, with 3 tops, not TNN, not Combo, and not counter-TNN
Blade Control, with 2 tops, TNN
ANT, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo
Sneak Attack, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo
OmniTell, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo

Goblins, lol. RUG without TNN, lol. MUD, lol. For those whining about combo, this meta has a good split. 6 combo decks, 10 aggro decks, 5 control/prison decks.

Shhhh. If you keep doing that you're liable to win the thread.

Anyway, don't you know Starcity Games top 8 are the only acceptable representations of the "meta?"

Barook

12-12-2013, 09:29 AM

Literally no one likes this card? Says who? Check the poll. Ask the players who play them in their decks. Ask turtenwald.
We've already been over this - the poll is horribly worded for its intended purpose. We could open another thread with a poll that says:

Do you like True-Name Nemesis?

[ ]Yes
[ ]No

But it would just result in further childish shitslinging while some people complain about yet another TNN thread and mods would probably close it very soon, so there's no point.

Edit: How long until we see TAFKAP alters of TNN?

Esper3k

12-12-2013, 09:46 AM

Can we all just agree to unban Survival?

^^^ This!

Anyone in this thread who is like "well yeah TNN is unfun to play with or against and i dont like it, but it shouldn't be banned because [some attempt to make this card game sound like a noble sport of kings]" should really take a step back. Literally no one likes this card, so we as a group of players should make it so we don't play with/against it, and we do that by lobbying to get it banned. Everyone not liking a card is really enough justification to ban it guys, we don't have to have a mathematical proof of a card's negative impact.

-I- like TNN...

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-IT8eK2QKNsM/UqnMFHPH4EI/AAAAAAAADfE/hZa3jp5Fa5k/s500/TNN%2520-%2520We%2520Know%2520Drama.JPG

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 09:59 AM

Out of the 30 most recent decklists on TheCouncil, ranging from mid-November to December 8th, there are 3 copies of TNN. 3 copies! That's hardly what I would call the "join it" approach.

Also, the meta of December:

RUG Delver, with 4 tops, not TNN, not Combo
MUD, with 3 tops, not TNN, not Combo
Patriot, with 3 tops, TNN
Goblins, with 3 tops, not TNN, not Combo, and not counter-TNN
Blade Control, with 2 tops, TNN
ANT, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo
Sneak Attack, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo
OmniTell, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo

Goblins, lol. RUG without TNN, lol. MUD, lol. For those whining about combo, this meta has a good split. 6 combo decks, 10 aggro decks, 5 control/prison decks.

TheCouncil's tiers as of 12-12-13 8:55am Central:

1.) RUG Delver (lists are running TNN in the SB)
2.) Blade Control (TNN)
3.) MUD (no TNN influence)
4.) Death and Taxes (no TNN influence)
5.) Patriot (TNN)
6.) Miracles (anti-TNN)
7.) ANT (combo)
8.) OmniTell (combo)

Of the top 8 decks, only 4 of them have no TNN influence associated with them (MUD, D&T, ANT, OmniTell). Half TNN influenced, half not. Healthy?

HSCK

12-12-2013, 10:10 AM

Miracles is played as the anti-TNN deck, or is it simply good against TNN. Miracles' share and space in the meta is the same, it's just good against any deck that wants to win in the red zone anyway. To classify everything as TNN or anti-TNN is just your slant on it, combo decks are combo decks that existed long before TNN as well.

By the way, how many of those are Brainstorm decks?

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 10:14 AM

That's fair. Miracles may not be classified as an anti-TNN deck as it destroys creature-based decks without prejudice. For me, TNN simply isn't fun. I play with it (UW Stoneblade) and against it, and I derive very little enjoyment from winning games where I jammed more TNNs than my opponent and he failed to find his narrow SB answer in time (while showing me a handful of StP and Jace).

Combat was designed specifically for creatures and players to interact. Combat doesn't serve any other purpose. Therefore, when a creature bypasses combat, that's a problem (less interaction). Also, creature removal spells were designed specifically to interact with creatures. Creature removal doesn't serve any other purpose. So when a creature blanks many, many creature removal spells, that too is a problem (less interaction).

The mere existence of "answers" to a problematic card shouldn't justify a card's legality. I mean, EVERY card on the banned list has an answer to it, so why not unban every card?

Higgs

12-12-2013, 10:21 AM

By the way, how many of those are Brainstorm decks?

This question is akin to "How many of those are Fetchland decks?" Brainstorm doesn't impose strategies. It is used as a very efficient tool in a very wide range of strategies. Fast combo (stom), slow control (miracle), tempo (rug). Fetchlands are also used in a wide range of strategies as efficient tools.

I feel like I'm pulling the pin of a grenade posting this :)

Esper3k

12-12-2013, 10:23 AM

I wouldn't call RUG a TNN deck either. A few might run 1 or 2 in the 75, but it hardly leans on it the way Stoneblade or Patriot decks do.

Really, the only decks right now that I think you can really call a TNN deck (if that) are those two decks and really, Stoneblade cares more about Stoneforge Mystic (as can be seen by lists running 3 TNN instead of the full 4) and UWR is really a Delver deck (again, doesn't need to play the full 4 TNN).

So we're not even seeing decks focused fully around TNN. In every deck we see TNN in, it's complementary to the existing game plan, but not the focal point.

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 10:25 AM

it's complementary to the existing game plan, but not the focal point.

Mental Misstep? Mystical Tutor?

Esper3k

12-12-2013, 10:33 AM

Mental Misstep?

Mental Misstep was certainly one of those cards that you can literally just throw into any deck you wanted to, unlike TNN which can really only be played in heavily blue decks.

MM also had much higher saturation of the format than TNN as well, not to mention the plethora of decks it killed off.

As of yet, we haven't seen TNN kill anything that wasn't already dead before and per our previous conversation, it's brought an archetype (Blade Control) back to the forefront (we can probably argue that it brought new life to Bant decks as well).

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 10:34 AM

Erdvermampfa

12-12-2013, 10:48 AM

I still don't see the actual difference between the two questions. The logical consequence of a desire to see a card gone in MtG is a desire for a ban of it in the respective format. I've said this before but please stop digging too deep in the semantic of the two questions, because they mean the exact same and are just phrased differently. Besides, it really intrigues me what tremendous negative reactions the word 'ban' causes among the players nowadays. It seems that the word is now fairly connoted with negative associations and labels, people who demand a 'ban' are immediately accused of being 'n00b' or 'unwilling to adapt'. My surmise is that this perception has been forced through among the community by those harsh and often aggressive posts we have seen in this thread as well (go play modern!), and it started at the time of the Misstep ban, which was heavily disapproved by some. Since this time, we haven't seen a single ban even though some cards obviously deserved it. The community has grown silent and fatalistic regarding cards that are detrimental to the format, and one of the reason appears to be that people rather avoid being stigmatized as a 'n00b' than demanding a ban of a card.

Dragonslayer_90

12-12-2013, 11:00 AM

The poll says majority of players don't want to see the card banned it doesn't say anything about players liking the card. And most people who are against the ban are like "yea the card sucks but I'm a leet, competitive, kick ass player and know how to beat it, so because I'm so damn good at magic I can't justifiably ask for a ban". Let's be honest guys :) What I understand from these arguments is most people consider invulnerability as the only factor for a ban.

I think the closest example to what's wrong with TNN is ante cards. They just don't belong in a constructed, two player environment.

I find it kind of offensive that you characterize many players as leet. It's not JUST because there are so many answers for it. I'm sure many of the players you call leet fear a ban just because TNN is unpopular. They don't want it to set a negative trend that would make Wizards ban hammer happy in another format. However, as people have previously stated, I could see True-Name banned on the basis of something like "This card was never designed for two player games and therefore does not belong in Legacy." My point is bannings should only really last resort since too many bannings is never healthy for a format.

By the way, how many of those are Brainstorm decks?

Ugh, prepare for Ban Brainstorm discussion # 4546735267 ladies and gentlemen.

Esper3k

12-12-2013, 11:17 AM

Mystical Tutor? Vampiric Tutor? My point is that there are cards on the banned list that (a.) have answers to them (nedleed's argument) and (b.) aren't the focal point of a deck (your argument). And yet, they're banned. Reasons?

EDIT: Also, although you are technically correct in that ANY deck could run Mental Misstep, let's be real, only blue decks actually ran Mental Misstep with any sort of regularity.

Cards like Mystical Tutor (I'd be fine with it being unbanned, btw) and Vampiric Tutor are banned because they make combo decks much stronger, which has always been the biggest fear of Legacy - that combo decks become too powerful to deal with. Just look at the current ban list - barring the ante/dexterity cards, the majority of cards on that list are banned due to combo (things like Earthcraft, Black Vise, and Mind Twist are probably safe to take off too).

A 3/1 for 1UU that fundamentally does nothing but attack or block really well should not be banned in Legacy. That sets a bad precedent for bannings and starts us down a slippery slope we probably don't want to go down.

"Only blue" decks is misleading. MM was played across all archetypes - aggro, aggro/control, control, combo.

I still don't see the actual difference between the two questions. The logical consequence of a desire to see a card gone in MtG is a desire for a ban of it in the respective format. I've said this before but please stop digging too deep in the semantic of the two questions, because they mean the exact same and are just phrased differently. Besides, it really intrigues me what tremendous negative reactions the word 'ban' causes among the players nowadays. It seems that the word is now fairly connoted with negative associations and labels, people who demand a 'ban' are immediately accused of being 'n00b' or 'unwilling to adapt'. My surmise is that this perception has been forced through among the community by those harsh and often aggressive posts we have seen in this thread as well (go play modern!), and it started at the time of the Misstep ban, which was heavily disapproved by some. Since this time, we haven't seen a single ban even though some cards obviously deserved it. The community has grown silent and fatalistic regarding cards that are detrimental to the format, and one of the reason appears to be that people rather avoid being stigmatized as a 'n00b' than demanding a ban of a card.

I see it as the opposite. When new powerful cards come up, you get people starting threads screaming about the death of Legacy due to <insert Tarmogoyf/Griselbrand/Deathrite Shaman/Abrupt Decay/True-Name Nemesis/etc.>.

In the vast majority of the situations, the format has proven itself resilient enough to deal with them, so all the doomsaying gets old really quick.

Second, calling for the banning of something sets a bad precedent for the format. Quick and easy bannings of cards would not be good for Legacy - just look at what that type of policy has done to Modern. In Modern, it's uncertain what might be the next card banned and it seems to be shifting towards what Extended was - people play it only when a GP / PTQ season is coming up. Better not invest too much in a deck because you never know when WoTC will ban a key card from it! Part of Legacy's appeal is its stability as a format and people's faith that their cards will remain legal in the format for years to come.

Finally, in regards to "Since this time, we haven't seen a single ban even though some cards obviously deserved it.", that's just a matter of opinion. I believe we have too many banned cards as is and would like to see the continued trend of the past few years of slowly removing cards from the ban list and see how the format shakes out.

Higgs

12-12-2013, 11:32 AM

Star|Scream

12-12-2013, 11:42 AM

Cards like Mystical Tutor (I'd be fine with it being unbanned, btw) and Vampiric Tutor are banned because they make combo decks much stronger, which has always been the biggest fear of Legacy - that combo decks become too powerful to deal with. Just look at the current ban list - barring the ante/dexterity cards, the majority of cards on that list are banned due to combo (things like Earthcraft, Black Vise, and Mind Twist are probably safe to take off too).

A 3/1 for 1UU that fundamentally does nothing but attack or block really well should not be banned in Legacy. That sets a bad precedent for bannings and starts us down a slippery slope we probably don't want to go down.

"Only blue" decks is misleading. MM was played across all archetypes - aggro, aggro/control, control, combo.

I see it as the opposite. When new powerful cards come up, you get people starting threads screaming about the death of Legacy due to <insert Tarmogoyf/Griselbrand/Deathrite Shaman/Abrupt Decay/True-Name Nemesis/etc.>.

In the vast majority of the situations, the format has proven itself resilient enough to deal with them, so all the doomsaying gets old really quick.

Second, calling for the banning of something sets a bad precedent for the format. Quick and easy bannings of cards would not be good for Legacy - just look at what that type of policy has done to Modern. In Modern, it's uncertain what might be the next card banned and it seems to be shifting towards what Extended was - people play it only when a GP / PTQ season is coming up. Better not invest too much in a deck because you never know when WoTC will ban a key card from it! Part of Legacy's appeal is its stability as a format and people's faith that their cards will remain legal in the format for years to come.

Finally, in regards to "Since this time, we haven't seen a single ban even though some cards obviously deserved it.", that's just a matter of opinion. I believe we have too many banned cards as is and would like to see the continued trend of the past few years of slowly removing cards from the ban list and see how the format shakes out.

I can't see how anyone could possibly dispute what you just wrote, so I imagine they will just ignore it and change the subject.

Dice_Box

12-12-2013, 12:01 PM

Don't get me started on parallel universes and alternative timelines :)
Don't worry, the Dr will save us. After all his very name was the Nemesis the Silence tried to stop being spoken.

catmint

12-12-2013, 12:22 PM

I am usually always against bannings and would like to see a couple of things come of the banned list. Nemesis has so far not been as format warping as many expected although she did really make an impact if you think about it. Lingering Souls and Geist are gone. Fair non blue decks like Death and taxes and Jund are hurt significantly. Overall I think format diversity will suffer.

That arguments aside (it is too early to make a call and also a topic where people have different opinions). What I don't like about the card is that I think it should not exist in the first place. If I would be a wizard shareholder I would love this. It is the ideal way to print money and squeeze out the legacy community. Baleful Strix and Ooze have been similar but those where very cool cards, unique and the appropriate powerlevel.

But printing "monoblue overpowered/uninteractive/stupid spell" is just so lazy and ridiculous. And the reasoning they gave: "designed for commander" (how about different card text to make it not viable in a 2 player game) or "white has protection from colors - blue from other stuff" (ähm... wtf) just makes me angry cause this is basically saying "f**k you - we don't care about your stupid format, just show me the money".

Saying this it would be an even bigger "fuck you" if they ban the card after 6-12 months when the legacy community made their commander packs sell like water in the desert, but I would still like to pretend this never happened or does not exist.

So summing up I don't hate the impact on the format (yet) and still enjoy legacy very much, but I hate what the card represents in terms of wizards policy.... or at least what I interpret to be wizards policy concerning legacy (you never know... they might be really that stupid or careless).

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 12:38 PM

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/96

From the article:

The fascinating thing about the aforementioned agreement is that it seemed that the people who were part of the gentleman's agreement were having more fun than the people who weren't. Whether or not they were aware that there was anything special going on, they were experiencing a better variety of decks and a higher quantity of recognizable baseline Magic gameplay—even though they were still playing with nearly every Magic card that has been printed. We saw the world they had made, and we liked it. We liked it so much more than the competitive world that had Mystical Tutor decks that we decided to give that happier world to everyone.

Although they touched on the combo power issue (by using a Flash deck as an example, no less), they indicated that the "fun factor" and returning to "recognizable baseline Magic gameplay" as the main reasons Mystical Tutor was banned. Using this criteria, I would argue that TNN has sucked some of the "fun" out of Magic (less stack and battlefield interaction) and it definitely has circumvented specific pillars of recognizable baseline Magic gameplay (like, oh say, making the entire combat phase virtually irrelevant).

Esper3k

12-12-2013, 12:48 PM

I can't see how anyone could possibly dispute what you just wrote, so I imagine they will just ignore it and change the subject.

Heh thanks for the compliment. I don't mind being proven wrong (ok, we all do!), but if someone's going to do it, it's going to take some hard evidence to do it, not nebulous arguments like "unfun", "uninteractive", "it killed X deck (that was already previously dead)", "it's stifling the format" (we're not seeing any evidence of this yet), "wwaaah it's blue" (umm... ok...).

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/96

From the article:

Although they touched on the combo power issue (by using a Flash deck as an example, no less), they indicated that the "fun factor" and returning to "recognizable baseline Magic gameplay" as the main reasons Mystical Tutor was banned. Using this criteria, I would argue that TNN has sucked some of the "fun" out of Magic (less stack and battlefield interaction) and it definitely has circumvented specific pillars of recognizable baseline Magic gameplay (like, oh say, making the entire combat phase virtually irrelevant).

Really, you're quoting the infamous Tom LaPille article? On -this- board? :)

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 12:50 PM

Really, you're quoting the infamous Tom LaPille article? In -this- forum? :)

Well, that's the only official Wizards documentation into the Mystical Tutor banning. Is there something else that Wizards has stated/released that is contrary to the article I posted?

Lord Seth

12-12-2013, 12:50 PM

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/96

From the article:

Although they touched on the combo power issue (by using a Flash deck as an example, no less), they indicated that the "fun factor" and returning to "recognizable baseline Magic gameplay" as the main reasons Mystical Tutor was banned. Using this criteria, I would argue that TNN has sucked some of the "fun" out of Magic (less stack and battlefield interaction) and it definitely has circumvented specific pillars of recognizable baseline Magic gameplay (like, oh say, making the entire combat phase virtually irrelevant).
All right everyone, you know what you do: If you want True-Name Nemesis gone, make a gentleman's agreement with as many people as possible to not play it!

Esper3k

12-12-2013, 12:56 PM

Well, that's the only official Wizards documentation into the Mystical Tutor banning. Is there something else that Wizards has stated/released that is contrary to the article I posted?

Here's the explanation to why Mental Misstep was banned, by Erik Lauer (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/161b)

Force of Will has long been thought of as a card that helps keep combination decks in check in Legacy and Vintage. However, it doesn't directly help decks that aren't playing blue. One idea that was floated was creating a similar card that could be played in nonblue decks. When Phyrexian mana was designed, it was an opportunity to create such a card. R&D wanted a card that could help fight combination decks, and could also fight blue decks by countering cards such as Brainstorm. Clearly printing a card like this has a lot of risk, but there is also the potential for helping the format a lot. The risk is mitigated, because if it turns out poorly, the DCI can ban the card.

Unfortunately, it turned out poorly. Looking at high-level tournaments, instead of results having blue and nonblue decks playing Mental Misstep, there are more blue decks than ever. The DCI is banning Mental Misstep, with the hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep.

While it does not directly contradict LaPille's article, this one is shorter but seems to be more based on actual data and evidence than perception based topics like "fun" and "gentleman's agreement".

As the Mental Misstep banning is the much more recent of the two, we can only assume that it is the approach they would most likely follow.

Both announcements talk about combo decks being a concern, which again TNN has little impact on.

PirateKing

12-12-2013, 12:57 PM

Reasons for banning are one time use only, or follow some karmaic reincarnation cycle that lasts decades. Any time you try and follow whatever ban logic is applied to formats, you run yourself in circles. Off a cliff.
To say Mystical Tutor was banned for reason X, the same reason TNN should be banned, ends up being more an sign of why they won't ban it.

Star|Scream

12-12-2013, 01:05 PM

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 01:22 PM

A 3/1 for 1UU that fundamentally does nothing but attack or block really well should not be banned in Legacy. That sets a bad precedent for bannings and starts us down a slippery slope we probably don't want to go down.

"Only blue" decks is misleading. MM was played across all archetypes - aggro, aggro/control, control, combo.

True, it attacks and blocks... because it's a creature. No one is disputing that TNN is/isn't a creature. But you're leaving out that as a creature, it invalidates many, many cards (current and future) specifically designed to deal with... creatures. Also, although it uses the combat phase to do it's business, it prevents other creatures from interacting with it within that same phase. Reducing an entire phase of Magic to something it clearly wasn't intended for isn't something we should be championing.

And my response to MM being played in blue was to address your statement that TNN is only played in blue. You stated that MM could go in any deck, I then pointed out that MM primarily saw play in blue decks and not really in non-blue decks.

EDIT: What "hard evidence" do you need in order to consider having TNN banned? Tournament penetration? What specific data would satisfy you?

Dragonslayer_90

12-12-2013, 01:27 PM

@Dragonslayer_90
Sorry if it came off that way, it was intended to be a friendly banter actually. I don't feel that strong about the whole issue to start insulting people online :) I think Erdvermampfa put it better than I did. Asking for a ban is, in my view, kind of stigmatized because honestly someone does it everytime a new good card is printed. But I think we shouldn't only think in terms of beatability in this case. Yes the card is beatable but if you are saying "I can beat it but I wished it hadn't been printed" it means you think the card is just not good for the health of the game. Simple as that. That's what I think anyway.

I see man. Well, I hope I didn't come off as an asshole as well. Just kind of tired of people calling for a ban when we need more time to see how the format with TNN in it. I can see where you and Erdvermampfa are coming on the health "argument", but I think there is a fine line between banning a card for the health of the format and being too punitive with bans. I hate to bring up modern again but that's just the best example. There are cards banned in that format that makes me want to puke. Wizards banned Wild Nacatl so that there could be more options for aggro than just Natcatl Zoo. Welp, still waiting for those options to turn up. RG Zoo was a thing for a little when Gatecrash came out, but that deck went to Tier 2 status in a short while. Probably because Modern is Midrange Heaven.

I am usually always against bannings and would like to see a couple of things come of the banned list. Nemesis has so far not been as format warping as many expected although she did really make an impact if you think about it. Lingering Souls and Geist are gone. Fair non blue decks like Death and taxes and Jund are hurt significantly. Overall I think format diversity will suffer.

Lingering Souls had already stopped being played long before True-Name Nemesis entered the format. Geist I can see, but really he was only played in UWR so it's not like being better than Geist pushed out a lot of decks. In fact True-Name made UWR better. Death and Taxes seems to be one of the best non-blue decks to play still. You will usually see at least one D&T list in recent Top 8s or 16s. Elves is putting up similar results. Jund? I don't really know. I think that deck stopped being good before TNN entered the format so I'm not sure if it was necessarily pushed out because of TNN

Tormod

12-12-2013, 01:31 PM

Mystical Tutor was banned in December 2010. They plan blocks something like 3 to 6 years in advance, (I'm not sure exactly how far in advance)
Miracle Mechanic was introduced in Innistrad block 2011-2012

OF COURSE Wizards ISN'T going to let the cat out of the bag and say "We have this new miracle mechanic coming out, that will give blue the ability to time walk consistently with Mystical tutor, so we're banning it advance." :laugh:

Esper3k

12-12-2013, 02:00 PM

True, it attacks and blocks... because it's a creature. No one is disputing that TNN is/isn't a creature. But you're leaving out that as a creature, it invalidates many, many cards (current and future) specifically designed to deal with... creatures. Also, although it uses the combat phase to do it's business, it prevents other creatures from interacting with it within that same phase. Reducing an entire phase of Magic to something it clearly wasn't intended for isn't something we should be championing.

And my response to MM being played in blue was to address your statement that TNN is only played in blue. You stated that MM could go in any deck, I then pointed out that MM primarily saw play in blue decks and not really in non-blue decks.

Who cares if it invalidates spot removal? Invisible Stalker is unblockable and hexproof, but no one wants to see it banned in Legacy. Progenitus has more protections than TNN, but no one is calling for its ban either. Thrun is both uncounterable and survives most sweepers that would take out TNN.

Fundamentally, in Legacy, the trend for banning creatures has generally been only in the case of one-card combo enablers, such as Hermit Druid.

Just because a creature requires something other than Swords to Plowshares or Lightning Bolt to deal with isn't a reason to ban it.

Re Mental Misstep: It saw play in blue decks and in non-blue decks. TNN can only be played in blue decks and heavy blue decks at that. For all the claims of oppressing the format, TNN is seeing nowhere near the numbers that MM saw before its banning.

Barook

12-12-2013, 02:38 PM

Who cares if it invalidates spot removal? Invisible Stalker is unblockable and hexproof, but no one wants to see it banned in Legacy. Progenitus has more protections than TNN, but no one is calling for its ban either. Thrun is both uncounterable and survives most sweepers that would take out TNN.
- Stalker is a 20-turn clock and can't act as indestructible wall

- Progenitus is brutal, but requires more resources (normal case would be NO since S&T has better targets). It could also be raced by a Batterskull, while TNN just sits back as a wall, waiting for his buddy to arrive who beats you down then.

- Thrun also costs more mana and has alot of mana upkeep both in combat and against sweepers - I wouldn't underestimate that. And he can be chump-blocked to hell - have fun against those 4/5 Goyfs.

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 02:39 PM

Who cares if it invalidates spot removal? Invisible Stalker is unblockable and hexproof, but no one wants to see it banned in Legacy. Progenitus has more protections than TNN, but no one is calling for its ban either. Thrun is both uncounterable and survives most sweepers that would take out TNN.

Fundamentally, in Legacy, the trend for banning creatures has generally been only in the case of one-card combo enablers, such as Hermit Druid.

Just because a creature requires something other than Swords to Plowshares or Lightning Bolt to deal with isn't a reason to ban it.

Re Mental Misstep: It saw play in blue decks and in non-blue decks. TNN can only be played in blue decks and heavy blue decks at that. For all the claims of oppressing the format, TNN is seeing nowhere near the numbers that MM saw before its banning.

It doesn't just invalidate spot removal, it invalidates spot removal + non-combat damage + sidesteps many key facets of the combat phase. And your argument that because there are non-StP and non-Bolt answers for TNN can also be applied to virtually every card on the banned list, so I don't really get what you point is.

davelin

12-12-2013, 02:54 PM

Maybe TNN should be banned, maybe it shouldn't. But can't we just wait more than 6 weeks before declaring it as warping the format or oppressive?

FTW

12-12-2013, 03:17 PM

Heh thanks for the compliment. I don't mind being proven wrong (ok, we all do!), but if someone's going to do it, it's going to take some hard evidence to do it, not nebulous arguments like "unfun", "uninteractive", "it killed X deck (that was already previously dead)", "it's stifling the format" (we're not seeing any evidence of this yet), "wwaaah it's blue" (umm... ok...).

As further proof of the strength of your argument (or the weakness of theirs), I make reference to another card that fits all those descriptors but is nowhere near banworthy. This card is blue (wahhh), subjectively unfun and uninteractive (if you're not playing blue), kills some linear deck strategies (Belcher, Cheerios, Spanish Inquisition, etc.), and most especially can be found Stifleing the format... har har har...

Anyway, disadvantages of TNN:
- can be countered, unlike Troll Ascetic. if only people played blue in Legacy. wait...
- dies to Pox.dec
- dies to Deed, EE, Ratchet Bomb, and other cmc-based stuff
- dies to Supreme Verdict (hi Landstill?), Wrath, even Nausea
- held off by prison.dec
- cannot be searched for with Natural Order (Proggy) or GSZ (Thrun), meaning you need to run multiples for any consistency, limiting decks it slides into smoothly
- in opening hand, loses race with opening hand Delver
- loses race with burn.dec
- strictly worse than Vendilion Clique vs combo
- loses to Wasteland+Port+manascrew
- can't block Goblin Piledriver. have fun blocking Goblin Matron instead
- comes out the same turn NO PRO could pop a Natural Order, easily loses that race

In a nutshell, the card is just a creature that turns sideways. It's very beatable. Yes, it's better than a lot of other creatures that just turn sideways, much like Tarmogoyf and Delver of Secrets were when they were released, and plenty of people whined for their bannings too, but that's just power creep. It doesn't have any broken interactions with the game (e.g. annihilate 6 or draw 14 cards). It's just a better, linear, slow beater. There are many ways to play around it. The biggest thing it could do is shift the meta towards decks that can either handle it better or don't care about it. There are many of those decks. Meh.

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 03:38 PM

So, if a card has answers, then it should not be banned?

Higgs

12-12-2013, 03:52 PM

I don't want to push this point further but that's what I'm thinking as well. Just because you can Aven Mindcensor in response to Tinker doesn't mean that Tinker is an OK card in Legacy. Or just because you can Notien Thief against Necro doesn't mean Necro is an OK card. There are perfectly fine arguments here for not banning TNN but to me they all end up focusing on the fact that you can answer TNN.

Lord_Mcdonalds

12-12-2013, 03:58 PM

Zombie

12-12-2013, 04:16 PM

So, if a card has answers, then it should not be banned?

Can I have Necro?

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 04:29 PM

Can I have Necro?

Welp, since Disenchant exists, sure!

DLifshitz

12-12-2013, 04:50 PM

Can I have Necro?

Only on a 7/7 demon with lifelink, sorry.

FTW

12-12-2013, 05:16 PM

So, if a card has answers, then it should not be banned?

I am saying the arguments for banning it are similar to the whining to ban Tarmogoyf when it was printed. Sure, it is a powerful creature. It is ultimately just a creature that turns sideways and improves your matchups against other creature strategies involved turning ground dorks sideways. That is actually a fairly big difference from just being answerable. There is no precedent to ban a card on such grounds.

Perhaps I should not have given further examples. I was just trying to demonstrate that a "protection from everything"-like effect on a 3/1 body is by no means broken. Not only is it answerable but plenty of Legacy decks can shrug it off without changing their deck configurations, very different from these silly Necro and other examples.

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 05:24 PM

So... because TNN is a creature, and because other creatures are not banned, TNN shouldn't be banned?

FTW

12-12-2013, 05:27 PM

So... because TNN is a creature, and because other creatures are not banned, TNN shouldn't be banned?

The default is that a card is not banned. The better question is... why SHOULD it be banned? Because it is better than many other creatures? Because it can win the game on turn 9 if opponent cracked 2 fetches and can't counter it?

People were arguing it should be banned because it is tough to answer. Hence I was showing it is quite answerable. Necro and Tinker were not banned because they were tough to answer, they were banned because they do broken overpowered things, so then being answerable isn't a counter argument. TNN does not do broken overpowered things. It does not warp the format. It is sufficiently answerable. Do you have a good reason to ban it?

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 05:57 PM

Esper3k

12-12-2013, 06:11 PM

It really boils down to the decreased interaction I have with my opponents. I'm playing a fair deck because I want to interact with my opponent, TNN takes that option away from me. In many fair vs. fair games I've played, once I have TNN resolved, it no longer becomes me interacting with him, the game devolves into me watching him furiously dig for his TNN answer; likewise for the reverse. I suppose I could just not run TNN, but then I'd lose to other fair decks playing TNN, so I pretty much have to run him in order to keep pace.

Also, just conceptually, it's a terrible card that doesn't do anything to add to the game (it simply takes away interactions and possible lines of play instead). I really hope that TNN is an abberation and won't see other similar cards.

If decreased interaction with opponents is your only criteria, then following your line of thinking, all combo decks should be banned? At what point do you draw what looks to be a pretty arbitrary line?

To me, it simply has not been proven that TNN:

1) Enables any sort of consistent, 1 card combo.
2) There is a lack of answers to it in the format.
3) Oppressed/Saturated the format to the point where either everyone has to play a deck built around it or play a deck specifically designed to beat it.

Arguments like "unfun" and "noninteractive" are completely subjective and purely dependent the player.

I have plenty of fun playing TNN and against it. When playing against it, I find that I have no shortage of interaction with it.

danyul

12-12-2013, 06:25 PM

If decreased interaction with opponents is your only criteria, then following your line of thinking, all combo decks should be banned? At what point do you draw what looks to be a pretty arbitrary line?

To me, it simply has not been proven that TNN:

1) Enables any sort of consistent, 1 card combo.
2) There is a lack of answers to it in the format.
3) Oppressed/Saturated the format to the point where either everyone has to play a deck built around it or play a deck specifically designed to beat it.

Arguments like "unfun" and "noninteractive" are completely subjective and purely dependent the player.

I have plenty of fun playing TNN and against it. When playing against it, I find that I have no shortage of interaction with it.

This just occurred to me, so please don't hurt me for not entirely thinking it through...but what if people's problems with TNN stem from the "Sirlin Positioning" that it forces upon them? I'm referring to this article (http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/) when I say that. Lemme clarify.

People play combo because they want to interact as little as possible. People play fair because they want to interact as much as possible. Let's just assume these to be true for the sake of argument.

Now, people's troubles with TNN occur when, while playing a fair deck, they resolve a TNN and suddenly they feel like they are playing a combo deck in the sense that now they don't have to interact if they don't want to. Now you have forced a "fair" player into a gamestate where they feel like a "combo" player, and this weird feeling makes them uncomfortable because this is not how they intended to play the game. (I'm making a lot of assumptions here) This forced perspective shift feels to them, somewhat broken and wrong. If they had signed up to play broken shit ala combo from the start, then they would have perhaps gotten over this feeling from the moment they sleeved up their decks. But they didn't sign up for this combo mumbo jumbo. They wanted to play fair. And now that they are slamming TNNs, they just feel gross about it.

Am I psychoanalyzing too much here? I am huh? I gotta cut that shit out.

Does this resonate with anybody?

I think the card is kinda stupid either way but I'm apathetic about the whole thing. I'll let tournament results sort it out.

Erdvermampfa

12-12-2013, 06:26 PM

[...]I have plenty of fun playing TNN and against it.

Esper3k

12-12-2013, 06:48 PM

UnderwaterGuy

12-12-2013, 06:52 PM

I mean really - our "aggro" decks are ones that run 12 creatures and 30 spells?

But TNN is never going to change that back. I'd say that TNN has probably ensured that we will never ever see a high creature count aggro deck (ie zoo) again.

wotc has given us multiple fun/interesting creatures that became playable in Legacy. Even in the past year we've gotten Young Pyromancer and Deathrite Shaman. With Snapcaster, Thalia, and more all being pretty recent. We didn't need to have threads that took over the entire forum arguing about cards like those but they've still added a lot to creature decks and none of them are combo pieces. I don't think that a powerful new creature has to be controversial or polarizing.

Feaor

12-12-2013, 07:08 PM

The biggest problem with TNN is that it pretty much removes all incentive to play non-blue "fair" decks. Prior to to TNN, you could play decks like Jund and Maverick because the beat up on the "fair" blue decks which made up a sizable portion of the meta. Now, TNN really shores up the match ups for the the blue decks, they're now at least even and not 70/30 or 60/40 as they have been in the past. But since these other midrange decks don't have blue, they're soft to combo but that was fine because you had other good match ups. Now they lost their good match ups but their bad match ups are still bad and combo is on the upswing since its one of the best ways of beating TNN, by not caring about it. So now what is the point in playing any of these decks? You're soft to combo and even against most of the rest of the field, that does not seem like a winning deck.

Plus now that TNN is really starting to take off people are playing things like MD Supreme Verdict which is bad for the aggressive decks that could try and swarm the TNN decks. I think its very likely that over the next few months TNN will warp the format, turning the format into TNN decks, decks that don't care about TNN, and anti-TNN decks.

troopatroop

12-12-2013, 07:34 PM

can we all just agree to unban survival?

thank you. Ban Vengevine 2014!

luckme10

12-12-2013, 07:37 PM

Lord Seth

12-12-2013, 08:36 PM

1)Printing Cards that are legacy legal but not modern legal is just not a good idea.

I would argue that reprinting scavenging ooze for the other formats is just as, if not more detrimental than printing True Name Nemesis for only legacy and vintage. This gives the perception that the legacy format becomes a testing ground for modern.
True-Name Nemesis wasn't printed for only Legacy and Vintage. It was also printed for Commander. In fact, Commander was the format it was printed for; the fact it was legal in Legacy and Vintage was just a side effect. Similarly, when Scavenging Ooze was reprinted, it was reprinted for Standard, with the side effect of introducing it into Modern. I doubt they were thinking "this is okay in Legacy, let's put it in Modern." Most likely they were thinking "well, this card is in demand and worth something and wouldn't break Standard, and it could be interesting in Standard, so why not put it into Standard?" Which I agree with; I thought the card was quite interesting in Standard.

Rabbi

12-12-2013, 09:12 PM

If they unbanned survival people would just use it to get 4 TNNs into play.

UnderwaterGuy

12-12-2013, 09:14 PM

True-Name Nemesis wasn't printed for only Legacy and Vintage. It was also printed for Commander. In fact, Commander was the format it was printed for; the fact it was legal in Legacy and Vintage was just a side effect. Similarly, when Scavenging Ooze was reprinted, it was reprinted for Standard, with the side effect of introducing it into Modern. I doubt they were thinking "this is okay in Legacy, let's put it in Modern." Most likely they were thinking "well, this card is in demand and worth something and wouldn't break Standard, and it could be interesting in Standard, so why not put it into Standard?" Which I agree with; I thought the card was quite interesting in Standard.

I definitely do not believe this. Wotc intentionally includes some new cards in precons that are designed and intended to be staples or at least playables in formats other than the format the precon is targeted at. They almost always do this and it makes sense since all they need to do is throw one interesting card into some precons (Flusterstorm, Ooze, Toxic Deluge, Unexpectedly Absent, TNN, Baleful Strix, Shardless Agent) and then an entire different audience will buy them. Those cards I listed are not made for the casual audience that the rest of the precon is made for. 59/60 cards (or 99/100) sell the product to casuals and the 1 other card sells it to people like us. It's their strategy and it's a pretty good one.

I think the problem is that they design cards for eternal formats without developing and testing them.

Jamaican Zombie Legend

12-12-2013, 10:46 PM

Yeah, I'd like to see TNN nixed because he's the most recent in a sequence of printed mistakes that is fast erasing an entire cluster of archetypes from competitive Legacy play.

First we have the rise of the Show and Tell archetype as the premier combo deck in Legacy, which is notoriously difficult to hate out with all of the different threats various strains of the deck can plop onto the play area. Remember, hatebears were starting to get pretty decent against Storm and Dredge...not perfect, but enough that the aggro/combo matchup would be some miserable 10/90 affair. And looking towards a (now irrelevant) future, hate for Storm and Dredge was likely to gain in power faster than the combo decks themselves; Wizards has quite the hate-boner for both archetypes and the fundamental mechanics that would strengthen them (free shit from the graveyard, fast mana, tutoring, draw-engines*) are unlikely to see power increases. Unlike the Stupid Fucking Fatties that enable Show and Tell decks. We'll probably see more as Wizards pushes the envelope.

Elves supplanting Dredge as the secondary combo threat is also a wee bit of a toughie for aggro to cope with as it's a combo deck that is much harder to hate by a lot of convention means (Thalia, Teeg, every piece of extremely pushed gravehate, etc) that can also adopt a ground and pound game that isn't a goofy gimmick like old SI lists siding in Tomb of Urami or some shit.

Second, Control got Terminus (and, to a lesser extent, Supreme Verdict), making those matchups no longer favorable. I don't have any actual data, but I'd venture a guess that the matchups against say...Miracles are not in favor of the aggro deck.

Now, you have TNN making one of the few matchups where aggro might have had a chance, namely Blue tempo, into a dicey affair. The jury's still out on this one, as TNN could be all hype or some Super Secret Tech™ could be dug up to prop aggro's numbers up. But it still points to growing problem in the Legacy ecosystem.

Namely that the metagame is becoming more rapidly centered around Blue shells and combo decks (or some overlap). This is exacerbating issues of accessibility as well as chewing up the diversity of viable decktypes/playstyles that was one of Legacy's biggest selling points. While no-one doubts the idea that Legacy can self-correct due to the vast cardpool replete with powerful answers, it's less clear whether or not the format comes out for the better after multiple periods of self-correction. The mechanism of self-correction is only so robust against shocks to the system, and Wizards has been dumping a ton of awful (and powerful) cards into the Legacy pool...how many more Delvers/Griselbrands/TNNs will it take to make the format so bad that uber-Spikes finally wake up and realize bans aren't necessarily a bad thing?

*That aren't also in the category "Stupid Fucking Fatties"

menace13

12-12-2013, 10:55 PM

If they unbanned survival people would just use it to get 4 TNNs into play.
No, don't be stupid. That's the SB plan.:tongue:

Arsenal

12-12-2013, 11:35 PM

If decreased interaction with opponents is your only criteria, then following your line of thinking, all combo decks should be banned? At what point do you draw what looks to be a pretty arbitrary line?

You misunderstand. I want to interact with my opponent, therefore, I play with fair decks. I'm fine if my opponent chooses to play with combo. In fact, if you're constructing an entire deck just so that your 1 or 2 engine pieces work, then more power to you. Again, I want to interact, what my opponent wants to do is up to him. It's actually not too far from danyul's explanation.

Barook

12-12-2013, 11:46 PM

I think the problem is that they design cards for eternal formats without developing and testing them.
Yeah, that's pretty much part of the problem.

"Hey, look, we care about you! We made some cards for Legacy!"
"Did you test them?"
"Nope, no time for that."
"But some of them ruin the format!"
"Oopsy Daisy, have another overpowered blue card that definitely does not belong to the blue color pie instead. Have a nice day!"

Tormod

12-13-2013, 12:54 AM

Cowards can't block warriors!

bjholmes3

12-13-2013, 02:00 AM

I wish that Griselbrand was printed blue.

Nonsense aside, can someone please provide me a list of prominent archetypes that have been defeated by TNN? I could fly to the moon with all the hot air that's been blown on this subject. I don't believe that TNN has killed anything that was any sort of alive in the first place, and I challenge someone to show me otherwise. Kindly do me the courtesy of a thought out post, not a nonsensical text wall of circumstantial and subjective drivel.

As for those lamenting the so-called death of the combat step, those claims are ludicrous. Any Legacy aggro deck without either a blazing fast clock or evasive beaters is doomed to fail, TNN or not. Brews littered with pathetic mediocre creatures have no place here. Furthermore, TNN is only one creature, and he can only attack OR block at any given time. Further board development aside, he functions the same as any massive creature would; either he attacks and you don't block, or he doesn't attack, and you don't either. Just like in Standard when the opponent pops down Big Daddy. Except TNN is weaker than Big Daddy. If your creatures can't race a tempo/control with TNN's clock, you aren't doing aggro right to begin with.

Lastly, WHY is there such a big push on fair // unfair decks? This whole concept is ridiculous and contrary to the very nature of the format we play. If you only want fair decks, play Standard. Otherwise, keep that nonsense to yourself. That's a reason to choose a deck for yourself, not a reason for a card to be banned.

DLifshitz

12-13-2013, 03:26 AM

I wish that Griselbrand was printed blue.

Nonsense aside, can someone please provide me a list of prominent archetypes that have been defeated by TNN? I could fly to the moon with all the hot air that's been blown on this subject. I don't believe that TNN has killed anything that was any sort of alive in the first place, and I challenge someone to show me otherwise. Kindly do me the courtesy of a thought out post, not a nonsensical text wall of circumstantial and subjective drivel.

In terms of statistics (http://www.mtgdecks.net), it's pushed down midrange and/or board control decks like Jund, Shardless BUG and Aggro Loam (the modern 4-color version was doing pretty well). I wouldn't say those decks have become completely nonviable, and people still play them, especially the former two, but they're definitely on the downsurge.

I also expect that Maverick will die for a second time sometime soon, and some neat decks (Team Italia, Haterade: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?26832-Haterade-4-Color-%28GBwr%29-Midrange-Agro-with-maindeck-hate-package, Junk) that aim to attack on the ground will go with it, because it's so difficult to punch through TNN on the ground.

Illusions

12-13-2013, 06:53 AM

I was mulling over this some more today and wanted to make note of another point of why I liked TNN:

Over much of the history of MTG, non-creature spells have traditionally been more powerful than creature spells. Nowadays, WoTC has been trying to push the envelope of creatures. Even looking past Tarmogoyf, look at the great 1-drops and 2-drops we have available to us today - Delver of Secrets, Deathrite Shaman, Goblin Guide, Stoneforge Mystic, Young Pyromancer, etc. Legacy, given that our card pool spans the history of MTG, is still dominated by spells (Brainstorm, StP, Lightning Bolt, Dark Ritual, LED, Show & Tell, Force of Will, Thoughtseize, etc.). I mean really - our "aggro" decks are ones that run 12 creatures and 30 spells?

However, if you look at the creatures that regularly see play, we have a real lack of powerful creatures in the 3 drop slot. Yes, even Knight of the Reliquary is generally too weak these days.

In TNN, we get a creature that isn't huge, but is great at doing what the two functions creatures basically do: attacking and blocking. Nothing else.

WoTC has given us a 3 drop creature that manages to be Legacy playable (I'd go as far as to say it'll eventually become a staple), yet does not enable some sort of combo. I actually find that somewhat impressive.

What does our community go and do? Start complaining about it!

And people wonder why WoTC doesn't cater to us more...

Actually, as individual creatures get stronger, tempo gets better relative to pure aggro, because it's able to maintain high threat density and pressure whilst still having access to powerful proactive abilities. The reason tempo is so incredibly good in legacy now is because the creatures are so powerful, and as they get better, other strategies will probably have a tough time keeping up (in fact, I would argue they already are). Without those creatures, tempo decks just wouldn't be as good, because it would be much harder to ride a single busted creature to victory. By contrast, there is a limit as to how fast and powerful an aggro deck can be.

I mean, pure aggro will likely never be a thing in legacy again, because it follows the exact same strategy as fast combo. Both combo and aggro are highly proactive decks that aim to kill an opponent before they get to play magic. The difference is, combo can feasibly win the game on turn one or two, whereas there is a hard limit on how quickly an aggro deck can win. Turn three seems to be about the limit, though infect decks (aggro-combo) can do it turn two. If you're playing a highly proactive deck that isn't grinding out massive card advantage, combo does everything that pure aggro does, but better. It's harder to shut down, and it's faster.

On the other hand, with incredibly strong creatures, you can play a highly reactive strategy, but retain the power and consistency of aggro decks. You get the best of both worlds. As a result of how good creatures have become (and you only really need a few), tempo is by far the most consistent strategy in the format. Personally, I think the power of creatures has long since outstripped the power of non-creature spells; the reason spells get played more in legacy is because they have much more flexibility, and you don't actually need that many good creatures to win the game. Most of the time, one will do. In contrast, not being able to react to the highly proactive and powerful strategies that both combo and creatures represent, is a sure path to losing.

Nielsie

12-13-2013, 07:50 AM

Goblins is also dead. It put up some good results over the summer but now with TNN it looks very hard for Goblins. I also believe that RUG will fade out. Many people will keep trying to play it, even try to play their own TNN but soon they will realize it's simply better to switch the green pieces for white pieces.

I think the big problem with TNN is Jitte. Before, Jitte was always equiped on a creature you could kill when it attacked or block and then use some sac effect on your blocker to negate the counters. For example Goblins was troubled with Jitte but it could use Skirk Prospector or Siege-Gang to blow up the blocking goblin or use Gempalm Incinerator to kill the carrier, giving you more time to find, tutor and set up something to destroy the jitte.

With TNN it's impossible to interact with the Jitte carrier and that just makes it now pointless to play any midrange strategy that is not itself using TNN and Jitte. Why bother with Maverick, Goblins, Jund, etc? Your combo matches are not great, now your other matchups are terrible too. I would like an answer to that question: Why bother playing a non TNN midrange strategy?

If TNN should be banned, it's because he substracts from the meta-game. Granted Maverick and Goblins are not played in big numbers but the strategies were viable before TNN and gave appeal to the format. What TNN does is transform Legacy into Modern. Have you ever played Modern? Every round is the same, you play against: Tron, Affinity, BGx, Splinter Twin or UW control. Simply boring, not one round you will feel suprised with your opponent's deck. It's almost at the point of rock, paper, scissors.

I guess there are 3 options to consider: ban TNN, Jitte or Stoneforge
- Stoneforge: you would destroy a whole batch of other decks in the splash damage while TNN decks would just run Jitte as a 4 of. Horrible solution...
- Jitte: could be a solution. Many people already don't like this card in Legacy. TNN decks can be raced or swarmed by other aggro or midrange strategies without seeing their creatures get killed by Jitte counters.
- TNN: we would return to the metagame before TNN. Not a bad thing because there was a lot more variation and openess in the format. The most important TNN decks (blade control and UWR) already are viable decks without TNN so they aren't hurt that much either. The only problematic thing if it happens right now: it would set a precedent for banning a new card too quickly.

Arsenal

12-13-2013, 09:18 AM

As for those lamenting the so-called death of the combat step, those claims are ludicrous. Any Legacy aggro deck without either a blazing fast clock or evasive beaters is doomed to fail, TNN or not. Brews littered with pathetic mediocre creatures have no place here. Furthermore, TNN is only one creature, and he can only attack OR block at any given time. Further board development aside, he functions the same as any massive creature would; either he attacks and you don't block, or he doesn't attack, and you don't either. Just like in Standard when the opponent pops down Big Daddy. Except TNN is weaker than Big Daddy. If your creatures can't race a tempo/control with TNN's clock, you aren't doing aggro right to begin with.

Lastly, WHY is there such a big push on fair // unfair decks? This whole concept is ridiculous and contrary to the very nature of the format we play. If you only want fair decks, play Standard. Otherwise, keep that nonsense to yourself. That's a reason to choose a deck for yourself, not a reason for a card to be banned.

First, aggro hasn't been a thing for a long time. And the aggro decks that do exist are firmly entrenched in tier 2/3 (Infect? Zoo? Lol). I suppose to clear this up, what are you classifying as "aggro"?

Second, decks running creatures that aren't "blazing fast" and with no evasion are doomed to fail? Wow... so a FIVE turn clock (not exactly "blazing" imo) with no evasion fits your description perfectly, yet, Tarmogoyf is still the king of Legacy. Pretty sure decks running Goyf are doing A-okay.

Third, your view of combat doesn't even make any sense. If my opponent is attacking with a creature, large or small, and I control an untapped creature, it allows me make a decision (don't block, take the damage or block, combat damage dealt, then play Bolt on his dude to try to finish it off, cast a removal spell, etc). I interact with my opponent and his creature if I so choose. With TNN, that decision has been taken away me. That potential interaction is now no longer part of the game. And what do you mean "or he doesn't attack, and you don't either"? If my opponent is sitting on a 4/5 Goyf and I have a 2/2 Geist, I can most certainly choose to attack. This now allows my opponent to make a decision to either interact with my Geist or not. We're talking about COMBAT, a phase designed solely for creatures and players to interact. I'm playing with fair decks because I want to interact with my opponent on the stack and on the battlefield. When I play with TNN, it takes some of that potential interaction away from the game.

Finally, I love your "go play [FORMAT] if you don't like Legacy!" attitude. That solves everything. Thanks, never thought of that.

Esper3k

12-13-2013, 09:46 AM

Third, your view of combat doesn't even make any sense. If my opponent is attacking with a creature, large or small, and I control an untapped creature, it allows me make a decision (don't block, take the damage or block, combat damage dealt, then play Bolt on his dude to try to finish it off, cast a removal spell, etc). I interact with my opponent and his creature if I so choose. With TNN, that decision has been taken away me. That potential interaction is now no longer part of the game. And what do you mean "or he doesn't attack, and you don't either"? If my opponent is sitting on a 4/5 Goyf and I have a 2/2 Geist, I can most certainly choose to attack. This now allows my opponent to make a decision to either interact with my Geist or not. We're talking about COMBAT, a phase designed solely for creatures and players to interact. I'm playing with fair decks because I want to interact with my opponent on the stack and on the battlefield. When I play with TNN, it takes some of that potential interaction away from the game.

If you're trying to maximize interaction with your opponent, I hope you don't play any creatures that can be bigger than theirs, have evasion of their own, have shroud/hexproof/protection/regeneration, or are large enough to survive Lightning Bolts.

Any of that stuff would reduce interaction.

Again, it's a pretty arbitrary criteria.

Finally, if you're only concerned about your own deck and not your opponent's, then you can just not play TNN if you don't like it.

Arsenal

12-13-2013, 09:51 AM

If you're trying to maximize interaction with your opponent, I hope you don't play any creatures that can be bigger than theirs, have evasion of their own, have shroud/hexproof/protection/regeneration, or are large enough to survive Lightning Bolts.

Any of that stuff would reduce interaction.

Again, it's a pretty arbitrary criteria.

Finally, if you're only concerned about your own deck and not your opponent's, then you can just not play TNN if you don't like it.

I play with SFM (no evasion, dies to Bolt, doesn't do much in combat), Clique (evasive flier, dies to Bolt, can sometimes protect itself via ETB trigger, dies to everything in combat), Snapcaster Mage (no evasion, dies to Bolt, dies to everything in combat) and TNN. I think I've maximized the potential for interaction with/for my opponent, TNN excluded of course.

I've already noted that I could just not run TNN, but then I'd just lose (more) to other decks that do run TNN. So I pretty much have to run it in my deck if I want to keep pace with other fair decks running TNN.

EDIT: Also, your criteria for banning a card doesn't apply to some currently banned cards, yet they remained banned.

Esper3k

12-13-2013, 10:02 AM

I play with SFM (no evasion, dies to Bolt, doesn't do much in combat), Clique (evasive flier, dies to Bolt, can sometimes protect itself), Snapcaster Mage (no evasion, dies to Bolt, doesn't do a whole lot in combat usually) and TNN. I think I've maximized the potential for interaction with/for my opponent, TNN excluded of course.

I've already noted that I could just not run TNN, but then I'd just lose (more) to other decks that do run TNN. So I pretty much have to run it in my deck if I want to keep pace with other fair decks running TNN.

Ah but by playing all those 2-for-1 creatures, you've reduced the value of your opponent's interaction with them.

By playing removal, you reduce your opponent's interaction with you.

By playing countermagic, you reduce your opponent's interaction with you.

By playing evasive creatures, you reduce your opponent's interaction with you.

I'm not saying reducing your opponent's interaction with you is a bad thing - how much you want to allow your opponent to interact with you is up to each player to decide. However, if you think you're somehow allowing maximum interaction with your opponent, you're deluding yourself.

Carsten Kotter recently had a great article about the misnomer of being a "fair" deck in Legacy that does a good job explaining how even the "fair" decks do "unfair" things. (http://www.starcitygames.com/article/27393_Fair-Unfair.html)

Arsenal

12-13-2013, 10:07 AM

Esper3k

12-13-2013, 10:17 AM

Maybe, maybe not. If I resolve Snapcaster Mage and target my StP with the ETB trigger, my opponent now interacts with me/it by activating his Deathrite Shaman/Scavenging Ooze in response. If I resolve my SFM and announce the ETB trigger, my opponent now interacts with me/it by casting Stifle. Your interaction criteria was my creatures can't be bigger than my opponent's (which they usually aren't), dies to Bolt (which all of them do), and doesn't have evasion (Clique does only, nobody else does); TNN excluded or course. Now it's changed. Please list what your full list of interaction criteria is.

Playing removal doesn't reduce interaction, playing removal is interaction. And I play exactly 2 evasive creatures in my deck outside of TNN. I could easily shave those 2 Cliques and make them something else (2 Ponder, etc).

Your opponent plays Tarmogoyf. You StP it. Your opponent plays Tarmogoyf #2. You flash in SCM, flash back StP on their Tarmogoyf. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

You play Stoneforge Mystic on turn 2 and get Batterskull. Your opponent has neither a counterspell nor removal spell. You SFM in the Batterskull and bash in their brains with your recurring Serra Angel. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

You Thoughtseize away one of their threats on t1. On T3, you SCM back Thoughtseize and take their other threat. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

"Interaction" is completely arbitrary. That's the point.

Arsenal

12-13-2013, 10:26 AM

Your opponent plays Tarmogoyf. You StP it. Your opponent plays Tarmogoyf #2. You flash in SCM, flash back StP on their Tarmogoyf. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

You play Stoneforge Mystic on turn 2 and get Batterskull. Your opponent has neither a counterspell nor removal spell. You SFM in the Batterskull and bash in their brains with your recurring Serra Angel. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

You Thoughtseize away one of their threats on t1. On T3, you SCM back Thoughtseize and take their other threat. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

"Interaction" is completely arbitrary. That's the point.

Compare your Tarmogoyf example to: My opponent plays TNN. I'm holding the aforementioned StP and SCM. My opponent plays TNN #2. I'm still holding the aforementioned StP and SCM..... which example had more interaction?

And the difference with your SFM example and TNN is that if my opponent draws into a creature removal (or artifact removal if SBed) spell, he can maybe get back in the game. Maybe he doesn't, but there's a chance and he now has options/choices/decisions staring down a SFM + Batterskull. If I play TNN on turn 3 and my opponent doesn't have the counterspell (he can have as many StPs as he wants), I just bash his brains in with my 3/1 dude while he sits on removal, his largely irrelevant creatures can't block, etc. Which example yielded more interaction?

I don't run Thoughtseize, I'm on UW Blade Control (SCG Dallas list).

Star|Scream

12-13-2013, 10:29 AM

Arsenal

12-13-2013, 10:35 AM

Right, that's what my definition of "interaction" is. Maybe Esper and I have been disagreeing because he has a completely different definition. What is your definition of "interaction", Esper?

Admiral_Arzar

12-13-2013, 10:39 AM

In all fairness I think most people agree that interaction is being able to alter the opponent's gameplan through hand manipulation, counterspells, removal, or attacking and blocking. With that definition TNN does remove a lot of interaction from the game.

This is accurate. Countering someone's spell doesn't "reduce interaction" - it is the very definition of interaction (c'mon Esper, you know better than that lol). Casting turn one Ad Nauseam followed by a billion spells and a Tendrils is non-interactive because all but one of the spells you are playing don't care that you have an opponent in front of you. They are forced to interact (Force of Will) or die. Because most Legacy decks play ways to interact with storm combo, storm itself must play interactive cards (Cabal Therapy, Duress, Silence, etc. are all interactive because they directly screw with your opponent's gameplan) in order to keep up.

Esper3k

12-13-2013, 11:16 AM

Compare your Tarmogoyf example to: My opponent plays TNN. I'm holding the aforementioned StP and SCM. My opponent plays TNN #2. I'm still holding the aforementioned StP and SCM..... which example had more interaction?

And the difference with your SFM example and TNN is that if my opponent draws into a creature removal (or artifact removal if SBed) spell, he can maybe get back in the game. Maybe he doesn't, but there's a chance and he now has options/choices/decisions staring down a SFM + Batterskull. If I play TNN on turn 3 and my opponent doesn't have the counterspell (he can have as many StPs as he wants), I just bash his brains in with my 3/1 dude while he sits on removal, his largely irrelevant creatures can't block, etc. Which example yielded more interaction?

I don't run Thoughtseize, I'm on UW Blade Control (SCG Dallas list).

Again, you haven't made a case why "interaction" should be on such a pedestal that it should be maximized at all times (which you yourself admit, you do not do).

If you're playing the SCG Dallas list, you're playing Jaces - again, a very noninteractive card (Planeswalkers are notoriously difficult to interact with).

Right, that's what my definition of "interaction" is. Maybe Esper and I have been disagreeing because he has a completely different definition. What is your definition of "interaction", Esper?

No, I'm calling you out for saying that you want maximum interaction with your opponent, but then go on to play cards that reduce interaction with your opponent.

You say you're fine with opponents playing combo and combo being in the format, but then you want to turn around and ban a creature that's far more interactive than combo decks. So why is TNN bannable, but combo isn't?

This is accurate. Countering someone's spell doesn't "reduce interaction" - it is the very definition of interaction (c'mon Esper, you know better than that lol). Casting turn one Ad Nauseam followed by a billion spells and a Tendrils is non-interactive because all but one of the spells you are playing don't care that you have an opponent in front of you. They are forced to interact (Force of Will) or die. Because most Legacy decks play ways to interact with storm combo, storm itself must play interactive cards (Cabal Therapy, Duress, Silence, etc. are all interactive because they directly screw with your opponent's gameplan) in order to keep up.

You ever talk to those players who hate blue control decks because they get all their stuff countered by their opponents and can't do anything? Ask them how interactive of a match they felt that was?

Combo is of course generally the least interactive of deck archetypes since it generally ignores your opponent, but heavy permission decks that just stifle your opponent also reduce interaction.

Of course, by the definition of being able to alter the opponent's gameplan through hand manipulation, counterspells, removal, or attacking and blocking, TNN of course has less interaction than most other creatures, but let's take a look at the different parts of that particular definition:

Hand Manipulation: TNN can be interacted with through hand disruption. Check.
Counterspells: TNN can certainly be countered. On top of that, it's a creature that can be countered by REB/Pyroblast, a commonly played cheap counterspell that will likely be online well before TNN can be cast (unlike say a T1 Delver). It's also a 3 drop spell, which in a format of Stifle/Wasteland/Daze, can be difficult to cast to say the least.
Removal: He's got all the bonuses of Hexproof plus protection from damage. Pretty good, but not unbeatable. Most of the sweepers still get him and he's particularly susceptible to cards like Golgari Charm and Zealous Persecution.
Attacking/Blocking: He's also great here, no doubt about it. Again, not unbeatable as any form of evasion pretty much gets past him (other than the rare blue Intimidate guys) and he's not exactly a fast clock as a 3 drop, 3 power guy.

So while he certainly does reduce interaction, to me, it hasn't been shown why this particular level of interaction is somehow unacceptable and warrants a ban.

UnderwaterGuy

12-13-2013, 11:19 AM

Again, you haven't made a case why "interaction" should be on such a pedestal that it should be maximized at all times (which you yourself admit, you do not do).

If you're playing the SCG Dallas list, you're playing Jaces - again, a very noninteractive card (Planeswalkers are notoriously difficult to interact with).

No, I'm calling you out for saying that you want maximum interaction with your opponent, but then go on to play cards that reduce interaction with your opponent.

You say you're fine with opponents playing combo and combo being in the format, but then you want to turn around and ban a creature that's far more interactive than combo decks. So why is TNN bannable, but combo isn't?

You ever talk to those players who hate blue control decks because they get all their stuff countered by their opponents and can't do anything? Ask them how interactive of a match they felt that was?

Combo is of course generally the least interactive of deck archetypes since it generally ignores your opponent, but heavy permission decks that just stifle your opponent also reduce interaction.

Of course, by the definition of being able to alter the opponent's gameplan through hand manipulation, counterspells, removal, or attacking and blocking, TNN of course has less interaction than most other creatures, but let's take a look at the different parts of that particular definition:

Hand Manipulation: TNN can be interacted with through hand disruption. Check.
Counterspells: TNN can certainly be countered. On top of that, it's a creature that can be countered by REB/Pyroblast, a commonly played cheap counterspell that will likely be online well before TNN can be cast (unlike say a T1 Delver). It's also a 3 drop spell, which in a format of Stifle/Wasteland/Daze, can be difficult to cast to say the least.
Removal: He's got all the bonuses of Hexproof plus protection from damage. Pretty good, but not unbeatable. Most of the sweepers still get him and he's particularly susceptible to cards like Golgari Charm and Zealous Persecution.
Attacking/Blocking: He's also great here, no doubt about it. Again, not unbeatable as any form of evasion pretty much gets past him (other than the rare blue Intimidate guys) and he's not exactly a fast clock as a 3 drop, 3 power guy.

So while he certainly does reduce interaction, to me, it hasn't been shown why this particular level of interaction is somehow unacceptable and warrants a ban.

Such a long post just to avoid answering a simple question...

What is your definition of "interaction", Esper?

Arsenal

12-13-2013, 11:21 AM

Esper, before I answer your questions, I'd appreciate it if you'd answered mine, what is your definition of interaction? Your previous posts clearly prove that you do not believe that countermagic/hand manipulation/attacking&blocking/removal is "interaction". So what exactly do you believe "interaction" to be?

davelin

12-13-2013, 11:22 AM

Esper3k

12-13-2013, 11:28 AM

Just like "fun" or "pornography", the definition of "interaction" depends on the perspective of each individual. Why should I tie myself down to any particular definition for the vocal minority TNN haters to nitpick at?

I certainly have no incentive to answer any questions like that when haters can't even effectively answer "Why does a 3/1 for 1UU that does nothing except attack or block need to be banned?"

(nameless one)

12-13-2013, 11:31 AM

Why not just play Staxx?

10 years back, Type 1 was pretty much homogenized with decks using the same core to win. The a solution was found: Stax!

The closes thing we have to a Stax deck right now is DnT and to some extent Blood Moon decks. Why can't we take a step back and just punish people casting spells that are 3+cc? Like Sphere of Resistance?

I mean if the name of the game is cutting interaction with your opponent, so be it.

Arsenal

12-13-2013, 11:31 AM

Just like "fun", the definition of "interaction" depends on the perspective of each individual. Why should I tie myself down to any particular definition for the vocal minority TNN haters to nitpick at?

I certainly have no incentive to answer any questions like that when haters can't even effectively answer "Why does a 3/1 for 1UU that does nothing except attack or block need to be banned?"

The only way we're going to have an effective discussion is if all parties agree on certain truths, like what the term "interaction" is defined as. I've given my definition, as have others, but you refuse to give yours because you don't want to be nitpicked? Come on man, come on.

Esper3k

12-13-2013, 11:36 AM

Since folks are bringing up interaction, let's break it down and see how TNN impacts those levels. Traditionally there have been four categories of interaction in the format -

1) Permanent removal
2) Discard
3) Counters
4) Combat

I'll tackle these in reverse order. Combat interaction is the least relevant in the eternal formats. Sure sometimes combat math comes into play and games come down to profitable attacks/blocks but it's a minor part of the format. I'm sure most people who play Legacy aren't complaining that the format needs more interactivity in the form of combat.

Counters and discard affects TNN so those levels of interactivity aren't affected. I would also argue these levels are the most skill-intensive so IMO it's good that TNN can still be battled along these lines.

Now we come to permanent removal. First keep in mind that TNN is still affected by some permanent removal that is currently played in the format such as Deed, Liliana, Terminus, etc. TNN is of course not affected by two of the most common spot removal spells in StP and Bolt.

Some of the complaining sounds to me folks aren't willing to switch around their removal-suite/gameplans in order to interact effectively with TNN. That doesn't even mean you always have to play sweepers, artifact removal to get rid of the equipment is still I believe a viable way to interact with the TNN-threat. TNN poses a threat that decks and SBing plans have to account for, but there are numerous other cards this has already been true for.

In short there are still many ways TNN can be interacted with, and most of these are already ubitiquous in the format. Decks will need to be better prepared and perhaps swap out some cards to effectively deal with a threat it didn't have to before, but isn't that the beauty of a shifting metagame? Does everyone just want the same decks to be viable all the time and decklists never change?

Pretty much this. On top of that, the "TNN Doomsday" that has been predicted hasn't come about it, nor are we tripping over the littered corpses of the decks it has killed.

Why not just play Staxx?

10 years back, Type 1 was pretty much homogenized with decks using the same core to win. The a solution was found: Stax!

The closes thing we have to a Stax deck right now is DnT and to some extent Blood Moon decks. Why can't we take a step back and just punish people casting spells that are 3+cc? Like Sphere of Resistance?

I mean if the name of the game is cutting interaction with your opponent, so be it.

There's nothing like the feeling of having your opponent with 0 permanents while you have a Trinisphere, Crucible of Worlds, a few lands, and a Smokestack at 1.

The only way we're going to have an effective discussion is if all parties agree on certain truths, like what the term "interaction" is defined as. I've given my definition, as have others, but you refuse to give yours because you don't want to be nitpicked? Come on man, come on.

Why does "interaction" need to have an agreed upon definition? No one is arguing that TNN is less interactive than many other creatures. The question is why it it such a bad thing that it warrants banning?

Arsenal

12-13-2013, 11:38 AM

Why does "interaction" need to have an agreed upon definition? No one is arguing that TNN is less interactive than many other creatures. The question is why it it such a bad thing that it warrants banning?

If I don't know what you think "interaction" means, then how do I know what you're arguing? I mean, you claim that me running Swords to Plowshares reduces "interaction" whereas I believe that casting Swords to Plowshares on my opponent's creature is the very definition of "interaction" (within the context of Magic).

Also, if you read the last 2-3 pages, I've given my reasons many times over as to why I don't think TNN is good for the game. Then you claimed that my deck (minus TNN) is just as bad because every card I run reduces "interaction" (claiming countermagic, Jace, removal, creatures that can die to Bolt and be killed in combat all reduce "interaction"). I then asked you for your definition of "interaction" as it clearly differs greatly from mine (and pretty much everyone elses). Now you're refusing to do so... did I miss anything?

Esper3k

12-13-2013, 11:47 AM

If I don't know what you think "interaction" means, then how do I know what you're arguing? I mean, you claim that me running Swords to Plowshares reduces "interaction" whereas I believe that casting Swords to Plowshares on my opponent's creature is the very definition of "interaction" (within the context of Magic).

Also, if you read the last 2-3 pages, I've given my reasons many times over as to why I don't think TNN is good for the game. Then you claimed that my deck (minus TNN) is just as bad because every card I run reduces "interaction" (countermagic, Jace, removal, creatures that can die to Bolt and be killed in combat). I then asked you for your definition of "interaction" as it clearly differs greatly from mine (and pretty much everyone elses). Now you're refusing to do so... did I miss anything?

Again, no one has disagreed that TNN reduces interaction, no matter the definition of interaction, so trying to somehow have a global definition of it is a moot point.

Second, while you've given your particular reasons, the question of why this lack of interaction on this creature is so bad that it warrants a ban over say Show & Tell hasn't been answered adequately (we won't even go into the attempt at the "fun" argument for banning).

Me calling you out on your decklist choices has nothing to do with the TNN argument. It has to do with you claiming you're maximizing interaction with your opponent then going around and playing cards that reduce interaction with your opponent.

Arsenal

12-13-2013, 12:09 PM

It has to do with you claiming you're maximizing interaction with your opponent then going around and playing cards that reduce interaction with your opponent.

Again, I don't think you and I have the same definition of "interaction" so while you believe that my deck (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?21441-Deck-Blade-Control&p=767395&viewfull=1#post767395) reduces "interaction", I believe that it does nothing but offer potential interaction with/for my opponent (save for TNN of course).

This point of contention is important as if you believe that "interaction" means X, Y, Z and I believe it to mean A, B, C, then we will never be able to discuss the topic at hand, which is how TNN removes interaction from the game of Magic. Also, interaction (my definition) is important because that's a fundamental aspect of playing Magic. If Magic has zero interaction (my definition) and was just 100% Belcher with no interactive cards (no Force of Will, etc), imagine what the game would look like.

menace13

12-13-2013, 12:18 PM

So we're using the If TNN should be banned then SnT goes first. By that fucking logic then unban flash because SnT is still legal.

Esper3k

12-13-2013, 12:21 PM

Again, I don't think you and I have the same definition of "interaction" so while you believe that my deck (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?21441-Deck-Blade-Control&p=767395&viewfull=1#post767395) reduces "interaction", I believe that it does nothing but offer potential interaction with/for my opponent (save for TNN of course).

This point of contention is important as if you believe that "interaction" means X, Y, Z and I believe it to mean A, B, C, then we will never be able to discuss the topic at hand, which is how TNN removes interaction from the game of Magic. Also, interaction (my definition) is important because that's a fundamental aspect of playing Magic. If Magic has zero interaction (my definition) and was just 100% Belcher with no interactive cards (no Force of Will, etc), imagine what the game would look like.

So you believe cards like Supreme Verdict (uncounterable sweeper), JTMS (the best Planeswalker ever printed), Mishra's Factory (one of the best manlands ever printed), countermagic (reduces your opponent's ability to interact with you), and Umezawa's Jitte (kills all the creatures!) do nothing but offer potential interaction for your opponent? I mean I guess when you Supreme Verdict them, they interact by putting their creatures in the graveyard...

I have nothing against you playing powerful cards. A large part of MTG is about cutting off options available to your opponent. What I take issue with is you somehow believing you're maximizing interaction for you and your opponent. While you may have plenty of options, you're playing plenty of cards that reduce the amount of options available to your opponent, ie reducing the amount of interaction they can have with you.

It's already been established that while TNN is less interactive than many other creatures, it's hardly close to the doomsday scenario you pose of 100% Belcher with no Forces around. The very scenario you proposed was one of combo not being stopped by countermagic, which TNN has nothing to do with either (well at least it pitches to Force, so it actually HELPS interaction there).

I find a distinct lack of consistency in your position where TNN is bannable, but you're fine with combo decks. It would seem that if someone wants to ban TNN on interactivity grounds, then combo decks (which is generally agreed have less interactivity than creature based decks) should be at the very top of your ban list.

Arsenal

12-13-2013, 12:24 PM

So you believe cards like Supreme Verdict (uncounterable sweeper), JTMS (the best Planeswalker ever printed), Mishra's Factory (one of the best manlands ever printed), countermagic (reduces your opponent's ability to interact with you), and Umezawa's Jitte (kills all the creatures!) do nothing but offer potential interaction for your opponent? I mean I guess when you Supreme Verdict them, they interact by putting their creatures in the graveyard...

I have nothing against you playing powerful cards. A large part of MTG is about cutting off options available to your opponent. What I take issue with is you somehow believing you're maximizing interaction for you and your opponent. While you may have plenty of options, you're playing plenty of cards that reduce the amount of options available to your opponent, ie reducing the amount of interaction they can have with you.

It's already been established that while TNN is less interactive than many other creatures, it's hardly close to the doomsday scenario you pose of 100% Belcher with no Forces around. The very scenario you proposed was one of combo not being stopped by countermagic, which TNN has nothing to do with either (well at least it pitches to Force, so it actually HELPS interaction there).

There are only so many ways of saying the same thing; YES, I believe that my deck offers potential interaction with/for my opponent. And umpteen posts later, you still refuse to answer a simple question: what is your definition of "interaction"? Mishra's Factory being uninteractive... that's a first! :laugh:

UnderwaterGuy

12-13-2013, 12:25 PM

So you believe cards like Supreme Verdict (uncounterable sweeper), JTMS (the best Planeswalker ever printed), Mishra's Factory (one of the best manlands ever printed), countermagic (reduces your opponent's ability to interact with you), and Umezawa's Jitte (kills all the creatures!) do nothing but offer potential interaction for your opponent? I mean I guess when you Supreme Verdict them, they interact by putting their creatures in the graveyard...

If you don't think that Counterspells, JTMS, Factory, and Jitte are interactive then you are using a completely different definition of that word than the accepted meaning it has in the mtg jargon. Are you trying to say that removal is uninteractive? (the only non-removal spell you listed was Factory) Removal is one of the most common means of interaction; the removal spell interacts with the cards being removed. I believe that this is pretty simple to understand.

The only non-interactive spell you listed is Supreme Verdict because it's uncounterable. It offers very little interaction but to list Counterspell in the same breath is absurd. There are NO more interactive cards than counterspells. They literally cannot be used in any way that is not interactive.

Arsenal

12-13-2013, 12:27 PM

If you don't think that Counterspells, JTMS, Factory, and Jitte are interactive then you are using a completely different definition of that word than the accepted meaning it has in the mtg jargon.

The only non-interactive spell you listed is Supreme Verdict because it's uncounterable. It offers very little interaction but to list Counterspell in the same breath is absurd. There are NO more interactive cards than counterspells. They literally cannot be used in any way that is not interactive.

Meh, I give up with Esper. If he thinks that my deck is nothing but uninteractive spells, let him. I honestly don't know what else to say if he thinks me casting StP on a dude is "reducing interaction".

Also, yes, I agree that Supreme Verdict is uninteractive (my bad, I claimed that TNN was the only uninteractive card in my deck), but that's largely a concession to the TNN matchups. Trust me, if TNN didn't exist, I wouldn't be running Supreme Verdict.

skinnytalls

12-13-2013, 01:33 PM

It's a 3/1 creature in legacy so no it should not be band. People please Stop hating. brew up something to combat the nemesis, as there are tons of ways to interact with this guy, discard, sacrifice, counter spells, and board sweeps. this is so pointless to discuss a 3/1 creature getting the axe in legacy. shit while we are at it, We should ban enchantments all together because I cannot target them with stp.:laugh: just my two cents on this ridiculousness.

danyul

12-13-2013, 01:48 PM

Meh, I give up with Esper. If he thinks that my deck is nothing but uninteractive spells, let him. I honestly don't know what else to say if he thinks me casting StP on a dude is "reducing interaction".

Also, yes, I agree that Supreme Verdict is uninteractive (my bad, I claimed that TNN was the only uninteractive card in my deck), but that's largely a concession to the TNN matchups. Trust me, if TNN didn't exist, I wouldn't be running Supreme Verdict.

Based on Esper's responses, I would guess that his definition of "interaction" centers more around the binary win/lose part of the game and is something similar to "letting my opponent do damage to me". Since you are stopping his creatures/spells from hurting you, you aren't letting your opponent do stuff to your life total. You are shutting him out of the game and he can no longer do stuff. That might feel shitty for him, but your cards got to do stuff to his cards, so you feel like you have interacted. To your opponent who just got his board wiped and his hand discarded and all his creatures countered, he might not feel like he is interacting (although by your definition he has) because now he just sits there and watches a Batterskull eat his lifetotal. I think that is what Esper is getting at.

The thing is, feeling like you are interacting...and actually interacting...those aren't necessarily the same thing. Having a RUG player "interact" with all your shit until you die with no permanents in play just feels bad. That doesn't make it noninteractive in the traditional sense of the word. TNN might actually be *minimally* interactive. But it sure doesn't feel like it (actually, if I'm right about Esper's idea of interaction, then to him TNN becomes incredibly interactive because it allows you to poke your opponent's life total at will). That dissonance is, I think, the heart of your jousting back and forth for the last few pages. I'm not saying either one of you is right or wrong. You both made salient points.

How did people *feel* about Tarmogoyf when he first took over the meta? People hated him. But now people just accept that he is part of the meta. Will we feel the same way about TNN in the future? I dunno. I think the only answer to all this discussion is that we just have to wait and see what happens.

PirateKing

12-13-2013, 02:25 PM

On interaction: Isn't the definition of interaction when a line of play depends on or is affected by an opponent's choice? If I sit at home goldfishing Charbelcher, there's nobody to interact with, it's an uninteractive game. I play spells, nobody counters anything, count to 7, win. If that doesn't happen, I lose. If I go to a tournament, sitting across from a live person playing a deck, there is potential for interaction, but the gameplan is mostly unchanged. I play spells, nobody counters anything, count to 7, win. If that doesn't happen, I lose. My play experience is mostly unchanged regardless of the seat across being empty or not.
Any time your actions are affected by the person across from you, or you affect their gameplan, that is interaction. Playing Magic solitaire, there is no reason to not always attack with your Tarmagoyf, your opponent has no blockers! Against a live person, who knows, maybe they have a Giant Scorpion or Rest in Peace in play, something that would change your lines of play. This is why every counterspell is quintessential interaction. Playing around Daze is like the picture next to the word interaction in the Magic dictionary. You are doing what you would normally do, but different, because opponent.

Zombie

12-13-2013, 06:31 PM

How did people *feel* about Tarmogoyf when he first took over the meta? People hated him. But now people just accept that he is part of the meta. Will we feel the same way about TNN in the future? I dunno. I think the only answer to all this discussion is that we just have to wait and see what happens.

A lot of the goyf hate was that he was so absurdly strong he dramatically reduced beater diversity. Then six years of creature power creep happened and we're back at a point where people employ a diverse array of threats. The hate was never so much that he couldn't be killed, he was just absurd and reduced format variety a ton. Plus Tarmo standoffs are a thing. It stands to reason he isn't complained anymore now that the rest of the creature base is up to scratch - goyf isn't fundamentally horrendous, just too strong for it's time.

Dragonslayer_90

12-13-2013, 06:32 PM

Guys, Force of Will should be banned because it's very uninteractive. How do you think all those Belcher players feel getting their plan crapped on by Force of Will?

But seriously, hard to interact does not equal impossible to interact with. Mishra's Factory cannot be killed by a removal spell unless it is animated. Still means it can be interacted with. And even without animation, it can still be killed by wasteland, a staple of the format. Even Supreme Verdict can be interacted with, though only with narrow cards usually like Golgari Charm.

HSCK

12-13-2013, 06:53 PM

Zombie

12-13-2013, 07:34 PM

I think the sentiments against TNN are the same as when Goyf came out and it killed all of those decks that we don't even remember anymore. Does anyone remember the refrain of Goyf killing Goblins? Now it's TNN right?

Yup, we'll just need cards with abilities like "After blockers have been declared, choose a single non-flying, attacking creature an opponent controls. Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt by that creature. CARDNAME deals damage equal to its power to the chosen creature and it deals damage equal to its power to CARDNAME. That damage can't be prevented".

Or spells. Imagine that. "Choose a single creature in play. CARDNAME deals 3 damage to that creature. The damage can't be prevented."

Yeah, I guess the game will return to sanity at some point. Or perhaps we'll all be casting one-mana 15/15 Deathkittens and the notion of an ugly, uninteractive piece of shit strong enough to make you play it or play an ignore-it strategy seems quaint and old-fashioned.

That is to say, there is a fundamental difference between Tarmogoyf and True-Shit. Tarmogoyf dies to removal that isn't torturously specific. It also happens to be the exact same thing that keeps Delver and DRS tolerable. They die to all the things ever printed.

HSCK

12-13-2013, 07:48 PM

Except it's still a 3/1 for 3. I have no idea why people still want it banned.

Zombie

12-13-2013, 07:59 PM

Except it's still a 3/1 for 3. I have no idea why people still want it banned.

Because it's not a 3/1 for 3. Saying that is as disingenuous as saying DRS is just a 1/2 for 1 or that Delver is just a 1/1.

btm10

12-14-2013, 12:09 AM

Yeah, I guess the game will return to sanity at some point. Or perhaps we'll all be casting one-mana 15/15 Deathkittens and the notion of an ugly, uninteractive piece of shit strong enough to make you play it or play an ignore-it strategy seems quaint and old-fashioned.

That is to say, there is a fundamental difference between Tarmogoyf and True-Shit. Tarmogoyf dies to removal that isn't torturously specific. It also happens to be the exact same thing that keeps Delver and DRS tolerable. They die to all the things ever printed.

I'd hardly call the black "target player sacrifices a creature" removal specific. You do lose control over which creature dies first, but your other removal is still good against their other creatures, so if you're playing BUG and staring down SFM and TNN, a Liliana activation followed by Innocent Blood/Diabolic Edict does the job for 1B. This is just one of many scenarios and isn't even remotely absurd or much of your deck to give you both cards over the period of say, 2 turns.

More importantly though, I don't see the "play it or ignore it" metagame that keeps being brought up. UW Miracles has seen its fortunes improve somewhat, but other than that there hasn't been any significant change in the meta or the top tier of decks beyond what was already happening without TNN. It's a bit early to say for sure, but preliminary results strongly suggest that he made existing good decks better at the expense of their weaker cards in the same slot (most vividly replacing Geist) rather than spawning decks built around him that are forcing a major restructuring of deckbuilding principles or of viable archetypes. Absent both of those criteria there is no argument for banning.

HSCK

12-14-2013, 12:15 AM

Because it's not a 3/1 for 3. Saying that is as disingenuous as saying DRS is just a 1/2 for 1 or that Delver is just a 1/1.

Sorry, an invincible 3/1 for 3...that needs equipment or a very aggressive tempo shell to be a decent player in the meta. That's certainly oppressive and ban worthy right? Or is it just design that means it should?

Avatar of Bro

12-14-2013, 12:37 AM

Nemesis does NOT NEED TO GO.

I repeat -- True-Name Nemesis DOES NOT NEED TO GO.

Why are we so concerned with a card that kills with a much, MUCH slower clock than decks like Belcher and Storm?

Barook

12-14-2013, 02:21 AM

Why are we so concerned with a card that kills with a much, MUCH slower clock than decks like Belcher and Storm?
Because it completely takes away one of the key aspects in Magic: Interaction. It sure is exciting to see two TNN decks bash each other's head in.

Other people just choose to play combo because they don't want to interact with it. So TNN actually promotes other non-interactive decks which is also a bad side effect.

Deadpool09

12-14-2013, 08:02 AM

Because it completely takes away one of the key aspects in Magic: Interaction. It sure is exciting to see two TNN decks bash each other's head in.

Other people just choose to play combo because they don't want to interact with it. So TNN actually promotes other non-interactive decks which is also a bad side effect.

Really? Well they're just bad players to begin with if that's the case. That's a lame excuse for being too lazy to play around tnn and board properly against it.

Teluin

12-14-2013, 08:11 AM

I'm curious how many people who support/like TNN don't own any, and vice-versa.

Einherjer

12-14-2013, 08:14 AM

I'm curious how many people who support/like TNN don't own any, and vice-versa.

I actually don't care about Nemesis, mostly because I play Miracles. But I do own them, in case I wanna play Blade and stuff.

Greetings

Deadpool09

12-14-2013, 08:34 AM

I'm curious how many people who support/like TNN don't own any, and vice-versa.

I play multiple decks, some have tnn, some don't. I own more than one deck, so my stance on tnn is not affected by whether tnn "invalidates" any of my decks.

davelin

12-14-2013, 09:58 AM

Because it completely takes away one of the key aspects in Magic: Interaction. It sure is exciting to see two TNN decks bash each other's head in.

Other people just choose to play combo because they don't want to interact with it. So TNN actually promotes other non-interactive decks which is also a bad side effect.

See my previous post, to say TNN completely takes away interaction is pretty hyperbolic.

Bed Decks Palyer

12-14-2013, 12:32 PM

I'm curious how many people who support/like TNN don't own any, and vice-versa.
I'm not sure if "don't care of TNN" is support or not, but for your opinion poll:
- don't care
- don't have

btm10

12-14-2013, 04:14 PM

I do not own TNN.

Mr.C

12-14-2013, 04:26 PM

I support not banning them, and I also don't own them.

I also play combo, so I don't care about TNN.

Grand Superior

12-14-2013, 06:04 PM

I own four copies of True-Name Nemesis and have the pieces for Esper Stoneblade/Deathblade and UWR Delver. I preferred pre-TNN Legacy (yes, even if that format was the one where Shardless BUG was besting Stoneforge Mystic decks) but I don't believe that TNN should be banned.

lordofthepit

12-14-2013, 06:46 PM

I own a playset of TNN and I'm looking to pick up another set. I don't think it needs to be banned right now, but it is a horrible addition to the format, and I wouldn't shed any tears if it did get banned.

I know several of the most vocal critics of TNN on this thread also own at least a playset.

Zombie

12-14-2013, 07:02 PM

I play combo so I can largely ignore it. Still hate the card's guts.
I also don't understand several people (not necessarily in this thread) asking me why I dislike the card if it improves my win percentages.
WTF kind of logic is that. We don't get paid to play, we play for fun. Other people do, too. I had good enough matchups previously, wth should I want people who like to play on the board have a miserable time because I win a couple games more? It makes no damn sense to me.

HSCK

12-15-2013, 12:38 AM

Only 3 MD TNN in the 7-1 lists for SCG Invi lists and a wide array of archetypes, but the format's still TNN vs. anti-TNN right?

dontbiteitholmes

12-15-2013, 03:32 AM

Only 3 MD TNN in the 7-1 lists for SCG Invi lists and a wide array of archetypes, but the format's still TNN vs. anti-TNN right?

To be fair the Invitational is skewed because it is also 50% Standard thus it's generally considered bad form to point to the top 8 Legacy decks as indicative of any trend in the meta.

Bed Decks Palyer

12-15-2013, 04:24 AM

I really like Zombie's post!

Barook

12-15-2013, 06:13 AM

To be fair the Invitational is skewed because it is also 50% Standard thus it's generally considered bad form to point to the top 8 Legacy decks as indicative of any trend in the meta.
He was talking about the 7-1 Legacy performers, not the Top 8:

7-1 or better (http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?t%5BT2%5D=3&event_ID=&feedin=&start_date=2013-12-08&end_date=2013-12-15&city=Las+Vegas&state=NV&country=US&start=700&finish=800&exp=&p_first=&p_last=&simple_card_name%5B1%5D=&simple_card_name%5B2%5D=&simple_card_name%5B3%5D=&simple_card_name%5B4%5D=&simple_card_name%5B5%5D=&w_perc=0&g_perc=0&r_perc=0&b_perc=0&u_perc=0&a_perc=0&comparison%5B1%5D=%3E%3D&card_qty%5B1%5D=1&card_name%5B1%5D=&comparison%5B2%5D=%3E%3D&card_qty%5B2%5D=1&card_name%)

EpicLevelCommoner

12-15-2013, 06:29 AM

*reads TNN*
*reads Invisibile Stalker*
*scratches head*

So a 3/1 for 1UU with effectively Hexproof and Unblockable in Legacy (because, ya know, when was the last time anyone used global damage outside of the occasional Bonfire of the Damned?) is bad for the format?

I may be a terrible player, but I honestly think this card is nowhere near banworthy. In fact, I'd argue it's actually healthy for the format, as it could actually make maindeck sweepers viable (Deed and Terminus aside) over Snapcaster and Spot Removal in certain metagames.

BVB09

12-15-2013, 06:56 AM

He was talking about the 7-1 Legacy performers, not the Top 8:

7-1 or better (http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?t%5BT2%5D=3&event_ID=&feedin=&start_date=2013-12-08&end_date=2013-12-15&city=Las+Vegas&state=NV&country=US&start=700&finish=800&exp=&p_first=&p_last=&simple_card_name%5B1%5D=&simple_card_name%5B2%5D=&simple_card_name%5B3%5D=&simple_card_name%5B4%5D=&simple_card_name%5B5%5D=&w_perc=0&g_perc=0&r_perc=0&b_perc=0&u_perc=0&a_perc=0&comparison%5B1%5D=%3E%3D&card_qty%5B1%5D=1&card_name%5B1%5D=&comparison%5B2%5D=%3E%3D&card_qty%5B2%5D=1&card_name%)

Hi, I think I got a bit lost. Legacy IQ wasn't taking place today?
Where do those lists come from?
Thanks

Feaor

12-15-2013, 07:38 AM

dontbiteitholmes

12-15-2013, 07:51 AM

I hope you realize that 2/3 of the lists that are 7-1 are TNN lists or anti-TNN lists, that's quite a lot. Its pretty much impossible for all the top decks to be one archetype, even during Survival and Mental Misstep days, other lists were in the top as well. I think its pretty obvious that the best decks in Legacy right now are the TNN + SFM decks, they play blue so they have good combo match ups and TNN shores up their Midrange matchup so the decks that used to prey on them are at best even with them. That's the problem I have, whats the point in playing non-blue midrange decks? Decks like Jund have pretty bad combo match ups but were reasonable choices because they beat up on the blue decks, but with TNN this really isn't the case anymore. Is that matchup still winnable? Sure, TNN is far from unbeatable, but its an uphill battle and that doesn't seem like a winning deck to me.

I think its maybe a bit too early to say with certainty that TNN is warping the format since its only been a month, but from what I see its already starting to warp the format a bit so it seems very likely that it will continue to warp the format.

I still don't like using Invi results to infer things about the meta. Plenty of people could have done very well in Legacy but may have dropped because they were X-3 in the Standard portion before they got to finish all the Legacy rounds. That said the results that were posted don't look like TNN vs. Anti-TNN decks to me at all. Esperblade sans. TNN, Junk, RUG Delver, MUD all decks we have seen before with cards that aren't exactly out of place and then one EsperBlade with MD TNNs. I mean if it was like Junk + 3x MD Golgari Charms and Esper with 2x MD Zealous Persecutions I would see your point but those lists look pretty stock to me. Sure the SBs are different because of TNN but that's what sideboards are for. I think this is just a case of people seeing what they want to see, but then again I don't put stock in Invi results one way or the other for reasons I already mentioned.

rxavage

12-15-2013, 08:36 AM

I hope you realize that 2/3 of the lists that are 7-1 are TNN lists or anti-TNN lists, that's quite a lot.

Care to explain how any of those 6 decks listed are "anti-TNN"? What have any of these decks changed or included in there 75 that they previously hadn't?

The funniest part of all this Nemesis apocalypse is that it's still all the same decks winning as before. So what if they're all trying out a new toy, it happens with every decent legacy playable creature.

Feaor

12-15-2013, 09:25 AM

Care to explain how any of those 6 decks listed are "anti-TNN"? What have any of these decks changed or included in there 75 that they previously hadn't?

The funniest part of all this Nemesis apocalypse is that it's still all the same decks winning as before. So what if they're all trying out a new toy, it happens with every decent legacy playable creature.

Ok maybe I should clarify, 12 Post is a deck which can completely ignore TNN by going over the top of it, I'd list it in the same category as S&T, Elves!, and ANT. These have become much better because the TrueBlade decks don't have a fast clock and you can just go over the top of them, completely ignoring TNN.

Also there has been a pretty sizable shift in the Meta, go look at the past few months of data on the top decks, Blade Control completely fell off the map towards the end of the summer, and now its one of the decks to beat. Even look at just October's data versus November's data, Blade control wasn't even on the list and now its placed well enough to be the 5th deck in terms of points and 3rd in terms of Top 8's.

mini1337s

12-15-2013, 10:18 AM

Ok maybe I should clarify, 12 Post is a deck which can completely ignore TNN by going over the top of it, I'd list it in the same category as S&T, Elves!, and ANT. These have become much better because the TrueBlade decks don't have a fast clock and you can just go over the top of them, completely ignoring TNN.

Also there has been a pretty sizable shift in the Meta, go look at the past few months of data on the top decks, Blade Control completely fell off the map towards the end of the summer, and now its one of the decks to beat. Even look at just October's data versus November's data, Blade control wasn't even on the list and now its placed well enough to be the 5th deck in terms of points and 3rd in terms of Top 8's.
Oh come on... so decks that are good versus creature strategies, that were all played before the printing of True Name only exist to combat it? Of course True Name Nemesis exists in the metagame, but to suggest people are only playing 12 Post, Elves, SnT, etc to combat TNN is frankly ridiculous. Stop looking at the format with TNN-tinted glasses.

Dia_Bot

12-15-2013, 10:56 AM

*reads TNN*

I may be a terrible player, but I honestly think this card is nowhere near banworthy.

It isn't.
However it is certainly not healthy for the format. A creature like that forces the format in a certain direction and that is certainly not healthy.

HSCK

12-15-2013, 11:09 AM

Ok maybe I should clarify, 12 Post is a deck which can completely ignore TNN by going over the top of it, I'd list it in the same category as S&T, Elves!, and ANT. These have become much better because the TrueBlade decks don't have a fast clock and you can just go over the top of them, completely ignoring TNN.

Also there has been a pretty sizable shift in the Meta, go look at the past few months of data on the top decks, Blade Control completely fell off the map towards the end of the summer, and now its one of the decks to beat. Even look at just October's data versus November's data, Blade control wasn't even on the list and now its placed well enough to be the 5th deck in terms of points and 3rd in terms of Top 8's.

Oh no, Blade Control, the most oppressive and uninteractive deck there is is now performing well....And those other decks definitely did not exist pre-TNN because they were pushed out by all the decks that TNN pushed out like Zoo...and...that other deck...and that other deck....

mini1337s

12-15-2013, 11:11 AM

It isn't.
However it is certainly not healthy for the format. A creature like that maybe (and has yet to) forces the format in a certain direction and that I, Dia_Bot, don't think is healthy.
Fixed that for you.

There are no numbers to back up claims that True Name Nemesis is dominating the format. TNN decks are placing well, but there is still a ridiculous amount of format diversity, based on results from http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/formato.php?format=Legacy . Hell, the decks people claim are invalidated (aka Death and Taxes) are still showing up in Top 8s.

The "unfun" argument is ridiculously subjective. Some people think Emrakul is "unfun," but it seems only recently those people jumped ship to the TNN bandwagon. At the end of the day, this is Legacy; things are banned because they are broken or dominate (see Survival) (neither of which TNN is shaping up to be), not because they aren't fun to play against.

Zombie

12-15-2013, 11:30 AM

Oh come on... so decks that are good versus creature strategies, that were all played before the printing of True Name only exist to combat it? Of course True Name Nemesis exists in the metagame, but to suggest people are only playing 12 Post, Elves, SnT, etc to combat TNN is frankly ridiculous. Stop looking at the format with TNN-tinted glasses.

Saying that decks built to evade/be too big are anti-TNN is valid, IMO (so hugecreature decks, flier decks, combo typically). They do better than usual exactly because they naturally don't give a shit. Even then, though, that specific deck listing is full of anti-TNN decks is stretching it a bit, even if the lists have a few oddities. Trueblade, a racing-oriented D&T build, MUD are pretty much what would be expected. Oddly no Hellkites. RUG adopted TNN, but it's pretty flimsy as far as Trueblade counters go. Only 1 Grudge. Junk has 4 Souls and Lili in the main, which is unusual IMO. Heavy anti-TNN sweeps in the side, but that's less horrible. The most normal thing in the 6 is Ravitz's Esperblade which just looks like it's lived under a rock and came to the tournament to see the sights.

I'd say it's wrong to call that sample very warped, but at the same time it can't really be called normal, IMO. And we have to remember this is the Invitational we're talking about. Split format, very unusual audience. It's an event whose Legacy meta hasn't usually been normal to begin with.

*reads TNN*
*reads Invisibile Stalker*
*scratches head*

So a 3/1 for 1UU with effectively Hexproof and Unblockable in Legacy (because, ya know, when was the last time anyone used global damage outside of the occasional Bonfire of the Damned?) is bad for the format?

I may be a terrible player, but I honestly think this card is nowhere near banworthy. In fact, I'd argue it's actually healthy for the format, as it could actually make maindeck sweepers viable (Deed and Terminus aside) over Snapcaster and Spot Removal in certain metagames.

You kind of forgot the part where it has appreciable attack power on it's own - enough to be a clock and to assassinate Planeswalkers and the part where it can block everything forever. And also the part where people play Pyroclasm pretty regularly.

It's not necessarily banworthy on a raw power level - however, it doesn't give us anything interesting and makes the format distinctly worse and less interactive. While it isn't super-broken strong, it IS strong, too. Strong enough to lift an Esperblade back to the top tier limelight, strong enough to be a permanent fixture and force consideration from others.

Basically, imagine a troll in on a forum. The forums are a very correct place, and the moderation is kinda bureaucratic. This troll never outright insults anyone, just goes everywhere making clearly wrong statements with an air of authority. In any argument with him, goalposts move at the speed of light, and he nitpicks like a champ. Threads get endlessly derailed because he never acknowledges anything. Yet he isn't banned because he's never actually breaking the rules. That's TNN. It's a troll. And like a troll, it needs to go so more fun can be had again.

Fixed that for you.

There are no numbers to back up claims that True Name Nemesis is dominating the format. TNN decks are placing well, but there is still a ridiculous amount of format diversity, based on results from http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/formato.php?format=Legacy . Hell, the decks people claim are invalidated (aka Death and Taxes) are still showing up in Top 8s.

The "unfun" argument is ridiculously subjective. Some people think Emrakul is "unfun," but it seems only recently those people jumped ship to the TNN bandwagon. At the end of the day, this is Legacy; things are banned because they are broken or dominate (see Survival) (neither of which TNN is shaping up to be), not because they aren't fun to play against.

Claiming D&T would get invalidated seems pretty odd, given the deck's capacity for playing a lot of fliers and thus ignoring TNN's stalling properties. The deck is also good at dealing with True-Shitpickle's support cards. May not be the best or most fun games, but D&T definitely can win.

TBH, I despise the standard crew of dumb autowin permanents played these days, and wouldn't shed a tear if they got the hammer. They're kinda like TNN. Bleh, but apparently the format can handle them so yay for bad games?

EpicLevelCommoner

12-15-2013, 11:32 AM

The most oppressive aspect of True-Name Nemesis is Batterskull. . . . wait. . . .

Tormod

12-15-2013, 11:49 AM

This thread is getting truly pathetic, now that some data is being generated TNN isn't oppressive or warping the format. Some folks just want to complain about the data...

I only mention this because the nonsense bitching has been going on for over a month. I get the feeling a lot of guys don't get the chance to play Legacy and haven't actually played with or against TNN.

Its a 'real card', but seriously its not even that good.

Arsenal

12-15-2013, 11:58 AM

because, ya know, when was the last time anyone used global damage outside of the occasional Bonfire of the Damned?

Pyroclasm and Rough/Tumble see regular play in Legacy.

Zombie

12-15-2013, 12:01 PM

because, ya know, when was the last time anyone used global damage outside of the occasional Bonfire of the Damned?

Pyroclasm and Rough/Tumble see regular play in Legacy.

Also worth noting that people really, really loved playing against Stalker-Blade decks. They did, didn't they? Really wished for a second season of it instead of saying good riddance.

Feaor

12-15-2013, 12:51 PM

Its a 'real card', but seriously its not even that good.

Uh what? It single handedly catapulted decks that were not doing very well to the top of the meta, pretty much every deck is packing 3-5 answers for just TNN and I've even heard of Jund players main decking things like Golgari Charm so their TNN match ups are better. If it wasn't that good why would everyone be packing so much hate for it?

EpicLevelCommoner

12-15-2013, 12:51 PM

Also worth noting that people really, really loved playing against Stalker-Blade decks. They did, didn't they? Really wished for a second season of it instead of saying good riddance.

First, my bad on missing Pyroclasm and Rough//Tumble: I was mistaken when I thought that 2 global damage is actually relevant with all the heavy hitting "fatties" in Legacy (specifically Tarmogoyf).

Second, how did people deal with Stalker-Blade decks then? Because the format looks like it hasn't changed that much with either card's printing, so some archetype must have been keeping the Stalker down.

Third, Emrakul is far more oppressive than either Stalker or TNN whether with or without SFM. Even with Griselbrand existing, I doubt decks like Mono-U Omniscience, UR Sneak Attack, or 12 Post would have nearly as much momentum as other archetypes if it weren't for a 15/15 flier that forces the opponent to sac 6 permanents every time it swings and cannot be killed with traditional spot removal.

EDIT: missed the original message to me, one sec.

EDIT2: Now that I read that. . . . First, it's either gonna swing, or it's gonna block unless a Batterskull is equipped to it, correct? So therefore, the Batterskull (or rather the Stoneforge Mystic which tutors the Batterskull in the first place) is the primary target and TNN the secondary target. Second, I consider both the ability to slay Planeswalkers AND encourage evasive beats fairly healthy for the format: at the very least JMS won't be slammed into every blue deck simply because it's good.

Upon further reflection though, it does promote its own use, as TNN is evasive as well. Hmm . . . still think Emrakul is a lot worse, but I see the unhealthy argument a bit better now.