Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?

[Erdvermampfa]

It's amazing how this topic can fill so many pages while the real answer is more than evident...

[Julian23]

http://i.imgur.com/EnjomVh.jpg

When asking for an opinion, there is not "evident answer".

[Erdvermampfa]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Max_Weber_1894.jpg

[Esper3k]

Because it's a metric that does not work. Let's take Elves, for example. From looking at the number of NOs and Glimpses in top8's, maindeck especially, you'd think Elves is a Glimpse deck. Which is wrong because Elves most definitely is a Natural Order deck first and foremost. Those UW Jace decks also probably run more Stoneforges than Jaces. A lot of ANT? Is it Ad Nauseam that is doing well, or Past in Flames? The numbers don't tell us, but an examination of the deck tells us it's a Past in Flames deck. Carsten's "Army of God"? 4 Jace, not a Jace deck. It's an Entreat the Angels deck.

When it's a card you want to see as often as possible (as is in the most cases with cards we watch), counting the numbers the card shows up in is fine.

Again, it's not the only metric you go by, but it's better than trying to subjectively classify a deck as X deck or Y deck, especially when decks these days can go either directions.


Don't forget Bant Aggro. Check thecouncil's data for Bant Aggro pre-TNN and post-TNN, it's like night and day.

So we have more decks that are rising in performance & popularity again, but do you guys have data on what decks have gotten pushed out?


It's amazing how this topic can fill so many pages while the real answer is more than evident...

Agreed - should True-Name Nemesis be banned?

Yes: 165 (45.08%)
No: 201 (54.92%)

[Arsenal]

So we have more decks that are rising in performance & popularity again, but do you guys have data on what decks have gotten pushed out?

Most non-blue creature-based decks (the only non-blue creature-based decks that are keeping pace are the BGx decks that can run a metric ton of TNN hate). If TNN decks (or decks running TNN in the maindeck and/or sideboard, but not considered TNN decks for whatever reasons) are occupying more of the top slots, then whatever occupied it before TNN was printed has been (or will be) pushed out. Maverick is a great example:

Jan 2013 - 10th
Feb 2013 - 11th
Mar 2013 - 9th
April 2013 - 7th
May 2013 - 8th
June 2013 - 5th
July 2013 - 12th
Aug 2013 - 8th
Sept 2013 - 10th
Oct 2013 - 13th
Nov 2013 - 7th
Dec 2013 - 40th

Maverick's numbers can/will change once the final tally for December is calculated. It could turn out I was wrong and Maverick may get back up to it's Jan-Nov 2013 9th place average, but I highly doubt it. I suspect that Maverick players looked at TNN, said "man, I should just play with TNN Bant" and did just that. No surprise, Bant has gone from a mostly uncharted deck for all of 2013 to 11th place in December 2013 (these numbers will also change, it could very well go back to uncharted status, but again, I highly doubt it).

[Esper3k]

Most non-blue creature-based decks (the only non-blue creature-based decks that are keeping pace are the BGx decks that can run a metric ton of TNN hate). If TNN decks (or decks running TNN in the maindeck and/or sideboard, but not considered TNN decks for whatever reasons) are occupying more of the top slots, then whatever occupied it before TNN was printed has been (or will be) pushed out. Maverick is a great example:

Jan 2013 - 10th
Feb 2013 - 11th
Mar 2013 - 9th
April 2013 - 7th
May 2013 - 8th
June 2013 - 5th
July 2013 - 12th
Aug 2013 - 8th
Sept 2013 - 10th
Oct 2013 - 13th
Nov 2013 - 7th
Dec 2013 - 40th

Maverick's numbers can/will change once the final tally for December is calculated. It could turn out I was wrong and Maverick may get back up to it's Jan-Nov 2013 9th place average, but I highly doubt it. I suspect that Maverick players looked at TNN, said "man, I should just play with TNN Bant" and did just that. No surprise, Bant has gone from a mostly uncharted deck for all of 2013 to 11th place in December 2013 (these numbers will also change, it could very well go back to uncharted status, but again, I highly doubt it).

So we have 3 decks that moved up (Bant, Deathblade, Blade Control) by the TCDecks denominations and one that looks to be going down significantly right now.

Are there any other decks getting pushed out that your research can show?

Also keep in mind that just because a deck moves up a tier, it doesn't mean that another one gets pushed down since the number of decks at Tier 1 status isn't a static number.

[Deadpool09]

I remember when abrupt decay was released. Naysayers thought, "welp, that's the death of miracles, counter top decks", now there's no more hard control in legacy". But players adapt. You can misdirect it or venser it. And that's mainboard. Now we have a creature that requires no linear answer, you can counter, discard, board wipe, -1/-1, or just plain race it. Almost all colors have an answer for it or the decks that play it. People are being hysterical, overreacting, and just being too lazy.

[Higgs]

I think the only lazy people are the ones who are not exercising reading comprehension when everyone else is saying that the inability to kill TNN has nothing to do with the criticism against the card because we all understand how -1/-1 sweepers work.

[Arsenal]

Esper, every time you've requested data, I've provided it to you. However, each time I do, you conclude that the data doesn't matter because the decks aren't TNN enough as they don't run a full playset or there aren't enough decks being pushed out (although losing a major meta player in Maverick, a non-TNN deck, and having it replaced by Bant, a TNN deck, just homogenizes the format further) or that people running fringe stuff maindeck like Celestial Flare, Diabolic Edict doesn't matter because it's only a couple cards.

[Zombie]

When it's a card you want to see as often as possible (as is in the most cases with cards we watch), counting the numbers the card shows up in is fine.

Again, it's not the only metric you go by, but it's better than trying to subjectively classify a deck as X deck or Y deck, especially when decks these days can go either directions.

How is it better? We can definitely say Elves is an NO deck moreso than a Glimpse deck. We can definitely say that Carsten's Army of God is an Entreat deck even though it runs 3 Entreat 4 Jace because it's built around the card. We can easily say ANT is a Past in Flames deck, and that TES is an Ad Nauseam/Empty the Warrens deck and not really a Past in Flames one, even if both decks play one copy of Flames and Nauseam and 4 cards that tutor for them. It's not subjective, that's how the decks are built to play out and how they play out.

Or we could just give you a pile of random format staples and call it a day, after all the quality of the deck is subjective, too, right?

[EpicLevelCommoner]

This is ridiculous.

My point about S&T was not to derail the thread about S&T, but rather show that if we can somehow adapt to all the TIMMEH! crap it can cheat in, then why the hell are we even worried about a 3/1 for 1UU Pro-You? Not arguing that it's a badly designed card for a 1v1 format; just arguing it's nowhere near banworthy.

[Dice_Box]

The issue is that when people start running TNN to combat TNN, you end up fighting past each other not with each other. That's not fun, it's also one of the most common criticisms leaved at Modern.

Where did you stand when Modern came to claim Legacy?

[Deadpool09]

I think the only lazy people are the ones who are not exercising reading comprehension when everyone else is saying that the inability to kill TNN has nothing to do with the criticism against the card because we all understand how -1/-1 sweepers work.

My point is tnn can be dealt with, and the decks that play those can still be beaten. What else is left to criticize? Is it the fact that tnn shows up in the top 8? Of course it will. Legacy y players can be a bunch of sheep sometimes. They net deck, they see what's the newest tech, then they play it. It's domino effect. The more people play a certain card or deck, the higher the chance that card or deck will appear at the top 8. Back then it's always been rug, esper, show and tell then some maverick. Can't remember anyone bitching about that, except for some people wantin to ban show and tell. It's not about killing the card per se, it's about adapting, dealing with the whole deck, not just one single creature.
That's why I call people here lazy. Too lazy to adapt to a changing environment. Too lazy to play around one card, too lazy to board properly against it without ruining they're game plan. But when it comes to bitching and moaning, you guys are hard at work. Beat the decks that play it, not just a single card. Words to live by. Unless you're playing against combo decks, then pray to Buddha you have enough can't rips and counterspells to make it past turn 5

[Higgs]

What else is left to criticize?

Seems like you haven't read the last 10 pages or so if you are asking this. If you can't be bothered to read and understand where the criticism is coming from, also including some of the members who voted no yet still agreed to the criticism, then I can't be bothered to sum it up for you yet one more time.

I will only say this, as a player who already owns all these blade-tnn decks if I was being lazy I would just sleeve up my blade decks and run with them. I used to be a big fan of esper.

Have some perspective on "moaners".

[Esper3k]

Esper, every time you've requested data, I've provided it to you. However, each time I do, you conclude that the data doesn't matter because the decks aren't TNN enough as they don't run a full playset or there aren't enough decks being pushed out (although losing a major meta player in Maverick, a non-TNN deck, and having it replaced by Bant, a TNN deck, just homogenizes the format further) or that people running fringe stuff maindeck like Celestial Flare, Diabolic Edict doesn't matter because it's only a couple cards.

No, it's not that I conclude the data doesn't matter - I come to different conclusions than you.

One of the supposed threats that TNN is doing is killing non-blue creature decks and killing deck diversity. According to the data, we've seen one deck that's had a bad December (Maverick, which by your own data did fine in November), and yet we've seen three decks that had not been doing as well previously moving up in the ranks (Bant, Blade Control, Deathblade). That would seem to show that diversity of top decks is increasing, not decreasing, unless you can show more decks that are getting pushed out?

A second point is that we're not even 2 months into TNN's splash into the format. We simply don't have enough data (we won't even get into the difficulty of obtaining accurate data for our purposes) to definitively show either way.

Regarding the point on people running cards like Celestial Flare and Diabolic Edict... why is it a bad thing? I'm happy to see more types of removal outside of Swords to Plowshares/Lightning Bolt/Abrupt Decay getting played. I should think you would be too.


How is it better? We can definitely say Elves is an NO deck moreso than a Glimpse deck. We can definitely say that Carsten's Army of God is an Entreat deck even though it runs 3 Entreat 4 Jace because it's built around the card. We can easily say ANT is a Past in Flames deck, and that TES is an Ad Nauseam/Empty the Warrens deck and not really a Past in Flames one, even if both decks play one copy of Flames and Nauseam and 4 cards that tutor for them. It's not subjective, that's how the decks are built to play out and how they play out.

Or we could just give you a pile of random format staples and call it a day, after all the quality of the deck is subjective, too, right?

I would say that using a metric that you can empirically determine is better than one that is subjectively determined.

The fact that there is even debate over what type of deck UWR Delver is shows that "deck type" is one that's subjective. What happens when you start mixing deck types such as a UW/x Miracles deck that plays SFM? As you broaden the archetypes, it can get even harder to determine. Is a deck aggro? Combo? Control? What happens when you start mixing archetypes? Aggro/control? Combo/control? Aggro/combo?

Vs:

In the month of December, we see the following numbers of top cards being played (according to TCDecks):

Brainstorm 444
Force of Will 420
Wasteland 359
Ponder 261
Polluted Delta 256
Swords to Plowshares 249
Deathrite Shaman 217
Misty Rainforest 211
Spell Pierce 207
Daze 202
Stoneforge Mystic 202
Thoughtseize 199
Underground Sea 181
Abrupt Decay 179
Tarmogoyf 170
Flooded Strand 160
Scalding Tarn 158
True-Name Nemesis 156
Verdant Catacombs 156
Tundra 140

I would prefer the hard numbers as opposed to a metric that can be manipulated by the way decks are categorized.

[dontbiteitholmes]

The issue is that when people start running TNN to combat TNN, you end up fighting past each other not with each other. That's not fun, it's also one of the most common criticisms leaved at Modern.

Where did you stand when Modern came to claim Legacy?

References Modern as a reason a creature should be banned in Legacy for being OP in the combat phase.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liwh0zSP3z1qcy5xm.png

Yeah if you don't want to ban TNN you must want legacy to be more like Modern obviously because the Modern ban policy is what Legacy needs more of.

[Dice_Box]

All the same arguments against TNN are the ones used against Modern. The compassion is fair.

[Arsenal]

One of the supposed threats that TNN is doing is killing non-blue creature decks and killing deck diversity. According to the data, we've seen one deck that's had a bad December (Maverick, which by your own data did fine in November), and yet we've seen three decks that had not been doing as well previously moving up in the ranks (Bant, Blade Control, Deathblade). That would seem to show that diversity of top decks is increasing, not decreasing, unless you can show more decks that are getting pushed out?

Read your statement again. How does having TNN Bant, TNN UWx Stoneblade and TNN Deathblade = deck diversity increase? It's all TNN decks moving up from mediocrity/unplayability into the top tier while a former top 10 player in Maverick (a non-TNN deck and is unable to run traditional TNN hate like Golgari Charm, Toxic Deluge, etc) just flatout died.

[HSCK]

Read your statement again. How does having TNN Bant, TNN UWx Stoneblade and TNN Deathblade = deck diversity increase? It's all TNN decks moving up from mediocrity/unplayability into the top tier while a former top 10 player in Maverick (a non-TNN deck and is unable to run traditional TNN hate like Golgari Charm, Toxic Deluge, etc) just flatout died.

Oh no, Maverick's died and variants of Stoneforge+TNN are tier 1, making up......not even close to Survival or Misstep numbers? That's definitely banworthy, I mean, we can't have 2 and 3 of TNN decks winning tournaments or doing well, in fact, let's just freeze Legacy to pre-TNN because changing what is good or not good = banhammer.

[Feaor]

I would prefer the hard numbers as opposed to a metric that can be manipulated by the way decks are categorized.

Then the most reasonable thing we could conclude from this data is that Brainstorm and Force of Will need to go as they are way over represented compared other cards in the format. Clearly this is not a sensible thing to do as Force of Will is the shining light that holds the darkness (i.e. Belcher decks) at bay. Both of these cards and Wasteland do very good things for the format and banning them based on how prevalent they are would probably kill the format. Its too narrow-minded to just crunch the numbers and make decisions based on card prevalence, you have to look at the bigger picture of the format and what X card does to the format.

[EpicLevelCommoner]

Read your statement again. How does having TNN Bant, TNN UWx Stoneblade and TNN Deathblade = deck diversity increase? It's all TNN decks moving up from mediocrity/unplayability into the top tier while a former top 10 player in Maverick (a non-TNN deck and is unable to run traditional TNN hate like Golgari Charm, Toxic Deluge, etc) just flatout died.

So ... three decks that happen to be based around the same card are becoming viable while one deck that was viable is falling out of favor?

I'm sorry, but +3 to -1 is still a net increase of 2 archetypes in terms of deck diversity.

Now if you're looking for card diversity, you'd be right . . . in pretty much every format other than Limited.

[Arsenal]

Oh no, Maverick's died and variants of Stoneforge+TNN are tier 1, making up......not even close to Survival or Misstep numbers? That's definitely banworthy, I mean, we can't have 2 and 3 of TNN decks winning tournaments or doing well, in fact, let's just freeze Legacy to pre-TNN because changing what is good or not good = banhammer.

We had a blue-based SFM+hard-to-kill threat (Geist) deck doing fairly well pre-TNN (Patriot), we don't need 3 more similar blue-based SFM+hard-to-kill threat (TNN) decks in the top tier too. And I like how you act like Maverick dying isn't a big deal... it is.

[HSCK]

Why? It's gone in and out before, and really it's just Esper which found a share again and UWR being consistent. Bant is not a major player outside of TNN's debut.

[Koby]

It's the number of unique archetypes that's important. Not which ones. Then, what is the base strategy in those decks? Is there consolidation of strategies?

These are the metrics we should watch. Not whether Maverick is playable, nor which deck is playing TNN in varying quanitites.

[Zombie]

It's the number of unique archetypes that's important. Not which ones. Then, what is the base strategy in those decks? Is there consolidation of strategies?

These are the metrics we should watch. Not whether Maverick is playable, nor which deck is playing TNN in varying quanitites.

How broad are you thinking here? Like, "tempo" broad or "delver tempo" broad? "Control" or "D&T and Miracles separate"?

[Arsenal]

Why? It's gone in and out before

Maverick most certainly hasn't "gone in and out" before. If you look at all of the data for 2012 and the data for Jan-Nov 2013, Maverick never fell out of favor. I would ask that you show me data from that 23 month timespan that would suggest that Maverick wasn't a major meta player.


and really it's just Esper which found a share again and UWR being consistent.

This is false. It isn't just UWx Stoneblade that matters again, it's Deathblade too.


Bant is not a major player outside of TNN's debut.

Exactly. It wasn't even charting for most/all of 2013, TNN is printed, then boom, it matters again (while basically mirroring Deathblade's gameplan).

[Koby]

How broad are you thinking here? Like, "tempo" broad or "delver tempo" broad? "Control" or "D&T and Miracles separate"?

Vial/mana denial decks (D&T, Merfolk, Goblins, etc)
Delver Tempo (U/x cheap-free spells)
Mid-range (Stoneblade, Jund, Junk, Maverick, etc)
Control (Miracles, 12-Post, Lands, Next Level Thresh, Stax, Pox)
Storm Combo (Belcher, Tin Fins, ANT, TES, SI, etc)
Slow Combo (Elves, S&T, High Tide)

[HSCK]

Maverick most certainly hasn't "gone in and out" before. If you look at all of the data for 2012 and the data for Jan-Nov 2013, Maverick never fell out of favor. I would ask that you show me data from that 23 month timespan that would suggest that Maverick wasn't a major meta player.



This is false. It isn't just UWx Stoneblade that matters again, it's Deathblade too.



Exactly. It wasn't even charting for most/all of 2013, TNN is printed, then boom, it matters again (while basically mirroring Deathblade's gameplan).

http://www.eternalcentral.com/legacy-metagame-analysis-november-2013/

Maverick's results post M14 and THS but pre-TNN is there. Not really a major player is it?

Deathblade doesn't count as a variation of Esper? So that makes 3 different decks doing well instead of 2, how is that bad?

And why is it okay that Blade decks totally fell off, but are now back, but not Maverick?

[Star|Scream]

http://www.eternalcentral.com/legacy-metagame-analysis-november-2013/

Maverick's results post M14 and THS but pre-TNN is there. Not really a major player is it?

Deathblade doesn't count as a variation of Esper? So that makes 3 different decks doing well instead of 2, how is that bad?

And why is it okay that Blade decks totally fell off, but are now back, but not Maverick?

Because Maverick is a non-blue deck, and (I believe) he thinks that all those stoneblade decks just homogenize the format. I get what he's saying because Maverick is a great non-blue deck, and it would be great if more non-blue decks were at the top, but really it hasn't been Tier 1 in a while--even before TNN was printed.

[Deadpool09]

Seems like you haven't read the last 10 pages or so if you are asking this. If you can't be bothered to read and understand where the criticism is coming from, also including some of the members who voted no yet still agreed to the criticism, then I can't be bothered to sum it up for you yet one more time.

I will only say this, as a player who already owns all these blade-tnn decks if I was being lazy I would just sleeve up my blade decks and run with them. I used to be a big fan of esper.

Have some perspective on "moaners".

Bro youre level of ignorannece is..... I can't even.
I understand the complaints, however weak they are. They're saying it's warping the format, that it's lessening the interaction, the format being stagnat blah blah. I get it. That's why I said in last COUPLE of posts, stop selling the format short, stop being lazy , and adapt to the changes. Sure it's hard to interact with one creature, but it doesn't mean you can't interact with the rest of the deck. Bro before you criticize, be sure you read all my post , so you can stop looking like an imbecile.

[Zilla]

Bro youre level of ignorannece is..... I can't even.
This is the very definition of irony.

[Barook]

Maverick most certainly hasn't "gone in and out" before. If you look at all of the data for 2012 and the data for Jan-Nov 2013, Maverick never fell out of favor. I would ask that you show me data from that 23 month timespan that would suggest that Maverick wasn't a major meta player.
Maverick is pretty much unplayable on MODO for months now since its meta consists of a myriad of shitty match-ups. And there isn't even a TNN released yet.

If I'm not mistaken, then TNN is going to be released on MODO in the next few days. It's going to be interesting how the online meta is going to change, considering TNN has unlimited availability over there and 3 daily events per day firing at a highly competitive level. We're going to see meta changes much faster there.

[Dice_Box]

This is the very definition of irony.

New quote for me, thanks.

[dontbiteitholmes]

All the same arguments against TNN are the ones used against Modern. The compassion is fair.

The biggest complaint I hear about Modern is the itchy trigger finger approach to the banned list, so it's ironic you cite the format as any kind of model for what the banned list in Legacy should be. Also we were having this same conversation about Goyf when it first came out, you can dig up the thread if you want. Pretty much the exact same argument. It's too powerful, no reason not to run it, it's its own best answer, too hard to deal with, invalidates too many other creatures... Also Modern kind of sucks. If anything I want Legacy to be as little like Modern as possible and I'm sure most people here would agree. If you want TNN banned fine but don't bring Modern into the argument or you already lost in my book.

Anyways if TNN gets banned they should ban Goyf too so I can play Flame Tongue Kavu again.

[Koby]

Anyways if TNN gets banned they should ban Goyf too so I can play Flame Tongue Kavu again.

I've got a Psychatog deck ready to go if we're back to those Golden Days.

[HSCK]

I've got a Psychatog deck ready to go if we're back to those Golden Days.

MadTog 4 ever.

Also the Tarmo Thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?6672-Brainstorming-Tarmogoyf)

[Dice_Box]

The biggest complaint I hear about Modern is the itchy trigger finger approach to the banned list, so it's ironic you cite the format as any kind of model for what the banned list in Legacy should be. Also we were having this same conversation about Goyf when it first came out, you can dig up the thread if you want. Pretty much the exact same argument. It's too powerful, no reason not to run it, it's its own best answer, invalidates too many other creatures... Also Modern kind of sucks. If anything I want Legacy to be as little like Modern as possible and I'm sure most people here would agree. If you want TNN banned fine but don't bring Modern into the argument or you already lost in my book.

Anyways if TNN gets banned they should ban Goyf too so I can play Flame Tongue Kavu again.
I do not think I have said I want it outright banned. I have said I want it gone but that is not the same thing.

The issue I see mostly bought up about Modern is that the format is a bunch of people hitting past each other with no other way to win a game. The ban list comes up but after a while I started tuning out of Modern ban list talks. Most of us do not play the format so its not like we really have experience in this matter. We compare it to legacy and I do not think that is a fair comparison.

The issue that I have with True Name is that feeling of hitting past someone. Two players at a table, each with a True name is the most boring thing in the game to watch. Both players just digging to find something to add an edge. When someone drops a second copy it just becomes worse. To me this is a flaw of the card. I think if it had of had a "Can not block" clause it would still be a bitch of a card, but then it would have had a single role. Maybe it could have had Defender. I don't know. I do know this though, the card is so badly worded that I swear it needs a silver boarder. The thing just does not fit in this game. Its just too poorly made.

Now we may look back in a year, laugh over how much of a fool we all where and joke about these talks, but I do not think that will be what happens for me. Because if they pull this shit again, if this is the direction this game is going, I will hold onto my Goblins for sentimental value, cash out and maybe go to the US for a holiday or something. Because I want to play Magic, not Whack a Mole or Solitaire.

You do not all have to agree with me, but this is really how I feel about it. Magic the Whacking.


I've got a Psychatog deck ready to go if we're back to those Golden Days.
Fuck Tog, DOG FOREVER!

[Zombie]

MadTog 4 ever.

Also the Tarmo Thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?6672-Brainstorming-Tarmogoyf)

Tarmo was before six years of creature power creep. It was literally the first of it's kind, a clue of a new world. Tarmo is just a grizzly bear, but it was a grizzly bear from the land of giants. We didn't live in the land of giants, so of course it constricted the format. We do live in the land of giants now, figuratively speaking.



I do not think I have said I want it outright banned. I have said I want it gone but that is not the same thing.


Still don't understand this. At all. Gone how? Making it gone now that it's been printed is the same as banning it, you just talk about it with a different word that doesn't give those scrub cootie shivers.

[Dice_Box]

Print me a card that says "Target player Sacrifices a Creature of your choice." and I will say that's a dam good start. You can kill a card more than one way. I would love to see it gone, a clean cut, but I do not know if that will happen. So print me cards that kill it effectively and call it there. Make me able to interact with it as I could any other critter and then we have a go.

[Megadeus]

MadTog 4 ever.

Also the Tarmo Thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?6672-Brainstorming-Tarmogoyf)

Was reading the thread and saw this:


A foil Japanese Tarmogoyf sold for $147.50 plus shipping on ebay last week. Wow.

Lol

[HSCK]

If Tarmogoyf stays in the meta and is not reprinted it will be just as expensive as Sea Drakes and Force of Will and all the other cards that are Legacy staples and not in print.


Doubt so., At least, not for a long while. Force of Will is a Vintage Staple, and Sea Drake is from freaking Portal... While Future Sight is quite a recent set with some good cards.



This is the best. But maybe this thread will be viewed the same way in a few years too.

[Arsenal]

According to thecouncil's data I provided, Maverick most definitely was a major meta player in 2013 with exception of December. It averaged 9th place from Jan-Nov 2013, with it's highest position at 5 and lowest at 13.

I thought thecouncil was being used by everyone in this thread. Are we using some other source for data now?

[rxavage]

Not to derail or anything but I haven't personally seen someone sleeve up Maverick in almost a year, right around the time that Gris and Emma kicked it's teeth in.



It's probably been over a year but my point stands.

[HSCK]

According to thecouncil's data I provided, Maverick most definitely was a major meta player in 2013 with exception of December. It averaged 9th place from Jan-Nov 2013, with it's highest position at 5 and lowest at 13.

I thought thecouncil was being used by everyone in this thread. Are we using some other source for data now?

Bob's metagame analysis of top performing decks.

[Lava Spike Spiegel]

MadTog 4 ever.

If we're listing outdated Teeth decks I gotta rep GAT.

[(nameless one)]

MadTog 4 ever.

Also the Tarmo Thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?6672-Brainstorming-Tarmogoyf)

LOL history is bound to repeat itself.

[dontbiteitholmes]

LOL history is bound to repeat itself.

I'm pretty sure there's also a thread somewhere with like 20 pages about how oppressive Goblin Lackey is because he requires a first turn answer.

The more things change the more they stay the same. People will always want to ban whatever card doesn't allow them to play the kind of Magic they want to be playing.

To be honest in the context of the time it was dominant Goblin Lackey was probably the most "oppressive/format warping" creature ever to exist in Legacy. It pretty much invalidated every tier deck when people realized how good Goblins was and the format completely turned upside down in a matter of a couple months. No more spending your first 3 turns dicking around with Squee and Survival, no more cycling Eternal Dragon into turn 4 Nev Disk, and for me no more UR draw/go metagame control deck with MD Blood Moons. I mean Goblins came in second at GP Flash for fuck's sake and that was years later. I personally liked playing slower more grindy games, so I wasn't a big fan of Lackey but I adapted and found new decks that didn't scoop to turn 2 Lackey connect into Siege-Gang.

TNN can't piss in the shadow of what Lackey was back then, it's not even what Goyf was. If you can't adapt, and I'm 100% serious, you are playing the wrong format. People get all bent out of shape when I say that because they think I'm insulting them (and in a way I am), but it's true. Yes TNN is good, a lot of creatures have been good, even better in the past. Lackey and Goyf were the same deal, people complained because the cards that answered them were not part of the meta (Lackey required turn 1 answers and Goyf didn't die easily to Bolts or normal combat damage), but we all moved on and gave up our pet decks that couldn't hang and the format progressed. Don't expect the rules to change now and creatures to start getting banned because one GW midrange deck went from tier 2 to tier 2.5 or you don't feel like having to play the cards that answer a new threat.

Sorry, but that's what happens. New cards come along and old decks either adapt or get pushed the fuck out the format. I personally don't care if we lose Maverick since it's been a tier 2 at best deck for a long time now. It was a metagame deck, now the metagame is different, deal with it. TNN is good but it has answers. I think it pushes the format in a slower direction and encourages board sweepers and I'm fine with that. Zoo, Goblins, and Maverick have all had enough time in the sun it's time to bring the hard control decks back IMO.

[dontbiteitholmes]

Becareful, some people here don't want to be told to ADAPT.
I totally agree with you about the lackey/goyf/ tnn comparison. But oh well, some of the people here will choose to live in their caves and whine and moan about the tnn apocalypse. They'd rather be afraid of a single creature than find new ways to deal with it, or the decks that play it.

Also for the record there's no way that 5 page weak ass thread was the Goyf thread I remember, try some of these.

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?15964-Free-Article-Would-Legacy-Be-Better-Off-Without-Tarmogoyf
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?13172-Would-the-format-be-more-interesting-without-Tarmogoyf
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?7893-Ban-Tarmogoyf
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?14460-MTG-says-Tarmogoyf-will-not-make-the-ban-list


According to thecouncil's data I provided, Maverick most definitely was a major meta player in 2013 with exception of December. It averaged 9th place from Jan-Nov 2013, with it's highest position at 5 and lowest at 13.

I thought thecouncil was being used by everyone in this thread. Are we using some other source for data now?

You are trying to make the numbers fit your narrative.

The stats you post are boosted by earlier in the year when Maverick was actually a deck to beat. As far as ranking by number of top 8's goes...

In June Maverick was the #3 deck.

Maverick was 10th in August.

Maverick was 8th in September.

Maverick was 14th place in October, TNN was released November first. TNN is so broken it made Maverick fall off before it even got released. Oh wait Maverick had over twice as many top 8's in November as it did in October... I'm so confused, what was your argument again?

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/metagame.php?format=Legacy&fecha=2013-11

[Bed Decks Palyer]

...Because if they pull this shit again, if this is the direction this game is going, I will hold onto my Goblins for sentimental value, cash out and maybe go to the US for a holiday or something. Because I want to play Magic, not Whack a Mole or Solitaire.

You do not all have to agree with me, but this is really how I feel about it. Magic the Whacking.

...Things went so far that I'm selling my stuff and keeping just RUG (I'd keep BURG, but money don't stink), whereas I'm rebuilding and PIMPING my twelve years old casual deck that I will never again play because our group is long dead, yet I still want to own a nice non-blue, non-retarded, non-8thEdition deck.
_____________________


...Don't expect the rules to change now and creatures to start getting banned because one GW midrange deck went from tier 2 to tier 2.5 or you don't feel like having to play the cards that answer a new threat.

Sorry, but that's what happens. New cards come along and old decks either adapt or get pushed the fuck out the format. I personally don't care if we lose Maverick since it's been a tier 2 at best deck for a long time now. It was a metagame deck, now the metagame is different, deal with it...
Holmes, although I really agree with you on the metametagame analysis, I'd still love if people stop calling the "unwillingness to adapt" and "tiredness of shitty design" the same. I'm glad that I may adapt my RUG and cut the Forked Bolts so that I may laugh at all the "me solves fromat" combo newbies. Sure, they'd be dodgin' TNN all day long... until I utterly crush them with my maindeck Flusterstorms, grab the prices and get out of lgs laughing.



Becareful, some people here don't want to be told to ADAPT.
I totally agree with you about the lackey/goyf/ tnn comparison. But oh well, some of the people here will choose to live in their caves and whine and moan about the tnn apocalypse. They'd rather be afraid of a single creature than find new ways to deal with it, or the decks that play it.

Dude, consider you post reported.

[ESG]

Sorry, but that's what happens. New cards come along and old decks either adapt or get pushed the fuck out the format.

"Adapt" has to be the most parroted, most knee-jerk, most hollow advice given throughout these threads. It's actually hilarious when you see look at the previous arguments over the years.

MENTAL MISSTEP


... And please don't call Mental Misstep "unfair". It is a situational card. It is good, but not over the top "omg needs to be banned"-like. I like it, i play it, but its far away from beeing imbalanced.
Anyone who says that decks are dead because of Mental Misstep or Force of Will has not played Magic long or good enough.


Now that Misstep is here, people are complaining it is warping the format. It isn't 'warping' anything, folks; it's a product of a lack of creativity. There is a huge influx of new players running brews they see listed on Star City's website or by word of mouth from friends, and those folks just pick those decks up and run with them. Legacy is at an all-time low as it pertains to its 'creative' aspect, which is why you see the same decks like NO Rug, Hive Mind, etc. running the gauntlet week in and week out. I still feel the format is fine, though. There are lots of different archetypes winning each week, which is what makes the format great.


This. People will adjust.


SURVIVAL


Just adapt to the format: ignore Vengevine. Smash them in a face with Tendrils or 2/2 Zombies. Format is based on playing 200 creatures in a row? Combo them out.


... It's just a good creature deck and people need to realize that their much loved pet deck of Goblins, Zoo, and Merfolk don't beat the crap out of Survival. Play something different already. Storm and Control have almost no problem with Survival.


... And like Vacrix said, survivine with or without blue is a combo players dream. Only 4 forces and sometimes not a blue card in hand to pitch to FoW? Hell yeah I'll face that MU all day long with SI, TES, or even belcher. Solidarity can also beat the deck pretty easily since the survivine can kill on turn 4 at the earliest and that's with a god hand that doesn't happen very often and if a god hand doesn't occur we have extra turns to sculpt our god hand.


Thank you. Veggies loses to combo decks as they are faster and run more ways to protect their faster combo than Veggies runs to disrupt them.


HULK FLASH


Ok I want to address somethings. A few people are talking about adjusting to Flash. What you really mean to say is it's warping the format, that every deck has to play hate for it or lose to it. Flash Hulk is alot worse then Goblins will ever be.


I know alot of people have already made up thier minds about flash and say it should and will be banned June 1st but what if the metagame adjusts and flash turns out to not make as strong a showing at grand prix cloumbus as everyone thinks? I remember dragon had alot of raw power and resliency but it was actually balanced out by the fact that it could be hated out with certain archetypes. I read in an article(I forget who wrote it sorry) on SCG that people wanted flash banned because they couldn`t play the decks that they liked anymore and all this fussing is just people not wanting to change. I`m not saying its true or untrue but its at the very least a point of view that should be explored.


Hulk Flash isn't quite broken yet. Without Summoner's Pact and Pact of Negation it loses a lot of consistency. Thankfully those cards won't be legal until after Grand Prix Colombus.


I'd let it prove itself first in a tournament setting. If it's the Second Coming, like so many whiny bitches are saying it is, then we'll know first hand and can take action from there. I trust very little what people say online, and if it's so bah-roken, take it to the GP and show us all. Otherwise, I'm rather bored with hearing how it bones the format.


The format is always warped one way or another to fight the top tier decks. We've had a shift to fighting fast agro decks using agro-control with some pure control and some combo all playable.

Now our top deck will be combo and decks will have to readjust. Agro-control will still work... probably more so than ever, it will just have to adapt a few cards to combo instead of adapting them to agro like they did before. Things change, that is good.

Bad decks won't beat it. Shucks.


Are Legacy players just a mob of unthinking buffoons? No way. Believe it or not, people playtest and switch decks, and there are adjustments from one SCG stop to the next (which you can observe mostly from the high-profile players). What history shows us from these "Adapt!" examples is that people tried to beat the card and they found that either it was better EV to play the card themselves or totally switch strategies, such as the calls (in the Survival section) to play faster combo decks. And that resulted in format warping every time. Anyone can metagame to any environment. You could run four Leyline of the Void in your Elves deck if Bazaar of Baghdad was legal. That would be "adapting." But it wouldn't mean that Bazaar was OK for the format.

[Arsenal]

@dontbiteitholmes

Using thecouncil's data, Maverick averaged a 9th place finish for Jan-Nov 2013, with it's highest position at 5 and lowest at 13. It's early 2013 positioning was mostly the same as it's later 2013 positioning, so I call bs on your claim that the average is skewed due to better early year results. I posted the stats on page 38, post #755 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27102-Would-you-like-to-see-True-Name-Nemesis-gone&p=775500&viewfull=1#post775500).

It placed 7th for November 2013, which likely is because TNN just came out that month, and people didn't make changes or "adapt" yet. December 2013 though? Maverick didn't just move down a few positions lower than normal, it died completely going from a 9th place average to 40th. Not surprisingly, it's closest blue cousin, Bant, went from uncharted to 11th place.

So to recap, since you refuse to look at thecouncil data I posted, a very relevant non-TNN deck dies and it's replaced by a TNN deck (which just so happens to be a virtual clone of Deathblade, yet another TNN deck that is now top tier).

[(nameless one)]

Why can't we just unban Survival of the Fittest and call it a day?

There's a lot of graveyard hate in the format compared to when SotF got banned? I want to see the interaction between the two decks.

I'm sure more than half of the "Adapt!" people don't want TNN to be banned because they payed $180 for a playset of it. Why not compromise?

[EpicLevelCommoner]

@ ESG: I agree "adapt or die" is indeed the most misused phrase in gaming. However, the difference between those other cards and True-Name Nemesis is that those other cards polarized the format into best deck that run said card and best deck that can fight said card (and sometimes not even that) while True-Name Nemesis actually hasn't done much except make Maverick worse and a few others better.

But who knows? I may be eating my hat six months from now when TNN does polarize the format.

@ Arsenal: A deck is not defined by a single card in its 75. I wouldn't call Nic Fit a Veteran Explorer or Cabal Therapy or Green Sun's Zenith deck, even though it is fueled by the interactions between those cards.

[(nameless one)]

@ ESG: I agree "adapt or die" is indeed the most misused phrase in gaming. However, the difference between those other cards and True-Name Nemesis is that those other cards polarized the format into best deck that run said card and best deck that can fight said card (and sometimes not even that) while True-Name Nemesis actually hasn't done much except make Maverick worse and a few others better.

But who knows? I may be eating my hat six months from now when TNN does polarize the format.

@ Arsenal: A deck is not defined by a single card in its 75. I wouldn't call Nic Fit a Veteran Explorer or Cabal Therapy or Green Sun's Zenith deck, even though it is fueled by the interactions between those cards.

But Nic Fit is a Veteran Explorer deck.

Without it, its just a terrible Rock deck with overcosted creature base.

[EpicLevelCommoner]

But Nic Fit is a Veteran Explorer deck.

Without it, its just a terrible Rock deck with overcosted creature base.

That's why I said it's based off of Veteran Explorer and its interaction with Cabal Therapy. It very rarely wins off the back of a Veteran Explorer: it relies on those expensive (though severely undercosted for what they do) fatties to do the dirty work while Vet fuels the deck.

The same could be said about TNN in their respective decks: the gameplan may in fact be to buff TNN with equipment and/or other cards, but a deck is more than just 1 card backed up by the other 74: those days have been long gone. There are contingency plans, contingency plans for those contingency plans, and ways to combat other decks' plans and contingency plans.

[Esper3k]

@ ESG: I agree "adapt or die" is indeed the most misused phrase in gaming. However, the difference between those other cards and True-Name Nemesis is that those other cards polarized the format into best deck that run said card and best deck that can fight said card (and sometimes not even that) while True-Name Nemesis actually hasn't done much except make Maverick worse and a few others better.

But who knows? I may be eating my hat six months from now when TNN does polarize the format.

@ Arsenal: A deck is not defined by a single card in its 75. I wouldn't call Nic Fit a Veteran Explorer or Cabal Therapy or Green Sun's Zenith deck, even though it is fueled by the interactions between those cards.

I think in many cases, decks are defined by a single card in the 75. However, with creature based decks, it's generally harder to say they're based on 1 particular card as opposed to say a combo deck.

I would say that Bant, Esper Stoneblade, and Deathblade are the closest things we have to dedicated TNN decks, but I don't see why them moving up in the ranks is such a bad thing. We have multiple Delver decks and decks that run Tarmogoyf in the top ranks, but no one complains about that (anymore).

[Zombie]

I think in many cases, decks are defined by a single card in the 75. However, with creature based decks, it's generally harder to say they're based on 1 particular card as opposed to say a combo deck.

I would say that Bant, Esper Stoneblade, and Deathblade are the closest things we have to dedicated TNN decks, but I don't see why them moving up in the ranks is such a bad thing. We have multiple Delver decks and decks that run Tarmogoyf in the top ranks, but no one complains about that (anymore).


Tarmo was before six years of creature power creep. It was literally the first of it's kind, a clue of a new world. Tarmo is just a grizzly bear, but it was a grizzly bear from the land of giants. We didn't live in the land of giants, so of course it constricted the format. We do live in the land of giants now, figuratively speaking.

[Deadpool09]

Just to be clea, my stance on tnn is not because I only have decks that play it. Yeah I do play death blade and uwr delver blade, but
I have miracles, dark maverick, affinity, junk, almost done with death and taxes too.

So im looking at tnn with both perspective of decks that play it, and decks that don't.

[Esper3k]

@Zombie: So what about other more modern creatures we see played among the top decks such as Delver and SFM?

Let's throw DRS into the mix too since that actually seems to be the most played creature in Legacy by a pretty large margin.

[MGB]

"Adapt" has to be the most parroted, most knee-jerk, most hollow advice given throughout these threads. It's actually hilarious when you see look at the previous arguments over the years.

...

Are Legacy players just a mob of unthinking buffoons? No way. Believe it or not, people playtest and switch decks, and there are adjustments from one SCG stop to the next (which you can observe mostly from the high-profile players). What history shows us from these "Adapt!" examples is that people tried to beat the card and they found that either it was better EV to play the card themselves or totally switch strategies, such as the calls (in the Survival section) to play faster combo decks. And that resulted in format warping every time. Anyone can metagame to any environment. You could run four Leyline of the Void in your Elves deck if Bazaar of Baghdad was legal. That would be "adapting." But it wouldn't mean that Bazaar was OK for the format.

Exactly. Excellent post.

Just because you can adapt to a strategy does NOT mean it's healthy for the format.

[Deadpool09]

Exactly. Excellent post.

Just because you can adapt to a strategy does NOT mean it's healthy for the format.

By that reason, show and tell should be banned and bunch of other combo decks. People adapt to combo decks with much more linear hate cards or strategy. With tnn, most of the hate cards for it are useful not only for the cards itself, but for a bunch of other decks. People can adapt to combo with linear strategy, it's either you have the hate or you don't,if you don't, expect to lose in less than 5 turns with consistency. And you people are telling me you can't deal with a hard to deal with creature that won't kill you immidiately, a creature that will still give you a chance to win, a creature that can be beaten in a lot more ways, and a creature thats plyed into decks that can be dealt with? Man, you guys should wake up and smell the coffee. This is legacy, it's only a creature, it's not an auto win when it resolves.
You can still beat the deck that plays it. That's when I say people are being lazy and unwilling to be flexible and adapt. The hater's unwillingness to "adapt" is what causing trouble here. So what are you're guys reason still for complaining.?
Again I'm playing both decks that play with and without tnn. If ever tnn gets banned, i wouldn't care, I would still play deathblade, uwr delver , and merfolk, as well as my non tnn decks.

[menace13]

By that reason, show and tell should be banned and bunch of other combo decks. People adapt to combo decks with much more linear hate cards or strategy. With tnn, most of the hate cards for it are useful not only for the cards itself, but for a bunch of other decks. People can adapt to combo with linear strategy, it's either you have the hate or you don't,if you don't, expect to lose in less than 5 turns with consistency.

:rolleyes:

Any combo hate cards also affect other cards. They are not exclusive. TNN decks are not all in combo decks so even If you have a hate card it only stops one angle in a non combo deck that is consistent way beyond combo decks. Your post induced vomiting brb

[Deadpool09]

:rolleyes:

Any combo hate cards also affect other cards. They are not exclusive. TNN decks are not all in combo decks so even If you have a hate card it only stops one angle in a non combo deck that is consistent way beyond combo decks. Your post induced vomiting brb

What I'm trying to say is, hate cards for combo decks are much more linear than cards that can deal with tnn, zealous persecution, p. deed, and others can be brought in vs other aggro creature decks as well.
That's the trade off for playing blazing fast combo decks, some of them are all in, you can't expect a combo deck to have more than 3 angles of attack, as far as I know. So of course fair decks that run tnn, even those that don't run it, is much more cohesive in the long run. Do you really play this game? The hate cards people board vs combo are way more linear, a little bit more tailor made for it. You're so butt hurt that you didn't even understand my statement. Your stupidity is vomit inducing. Yeah quote me on that. Any more bitching?

[TheKingslayer]

What I'm trying to say is, hate cards for combo decks are much more linear than cards that can deal with tnn, zealous persecution, p. deed, and others can be brought in vs other aggro creature decks as well.
That's the trade off for playing blazing fast combo decks, some of them are all in, you can't expect a combo deck to have more than 3 angles of attack, as far as I know. So of course fair decks that run tnn, even those that don't run it, is much more cohesive in the long run. Do you really play this game? The hate cards people board vs combo are way more linear, a little bit more tailor made for it. You're so butt hurt that you didn't even understand my statement. Your stupidity is vomit inducing. Yeah quote me on that. Any more bitching?

Storm, however, is a very linear strategy. TNN is not.

[danyul]

What I'm trying to say is, hate cards for combo decks are much more linear than cards that can deal with tnn, zealous persecution, p. deed, and others can be brought in vs other aggro creature decks as well.
That's the trade off for playing blazing fast combo decks, some of them are all in, you can't expect a combo deck to have more than 3 angles of attack, as far as I know. So of course fair decks that run tnn, even those that don't run it, is much more cohesive in the long run. Do you really play this game? The hate cards people board vs combo are way more linear, a little bit more tailor made for it. You're so butt hurt that you didn't even understand my statement. Your stupidity is vomit inducing. Yeah quote me on that. Any more bitching?

You could at least pretend to be a pleasant person. Every post I've seen from you has been full of vitriol.

[Luklinda]

@dontbiteitholmes

Using thecouncil's data, Maverick averaged a 9th place finish for Jan-Nov 2013, with it's highest position at 5 and lowest at 13. It's early 2013 positioning was mostly the same as it's later 2013 positioning, so I call bs on your claim that the average is skewed due to better early year results. I posted the stats on page 38, post #755 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?27102-Would-you-like-to-see-True-Name-Nemesis-gone&p=775500&viewfull=1#post775500).

It placed 7th for November 2013, which likely is because TNN just came out that month, and people didn't make changes or "adapt" yet. December 2013 though? Maverick didn't just move down a few positions lower than normal, it died completely going from a 9th place average to 40th. Not surprisingly, it's closest blue cousin, Bant, went from uncharted to 11th place.

So to recap, since you refuse to look at thecouncil data I posted, a very relevant non-TNN deck dies and it's replaced by a TNN deck (which just so happens to be a virtual clone of Deathblade, yet another TNN deck that is now top tier).

I think the data is still a little too new and limited to say that TNN has killed a non-blue deck and replaced it with a blue-variant. Most likely those with access to maverick also had/have access to the blue staples to easily port over to BANT and, given the relatively small number of strong, legacy playables that can fit in multiple archetypes, much less new playable creatures (that aren't cheated into play) people most likely wanted to play with the new toy. It's a good card but lets be honest, what card hasn't been called out as "meta-warping" and "must-ban/should never have been printed" when it preforms shortly after printing?

I mean, when people are playing at least 50/60 cards in their MB the same and typically at least half their SB the same for years, they want new toys to play with.

Remember how terminus' printing invalidated all types of aggro decks? How Spell pierce and mindbreak trap's simultaneous release made storm unplayable? As of right now it's a solid card that's being heavily played in already tier 1 & tier 1.5 shell decks and thus is putting up results as a combination of solid deck construction and volume of pilots. It's sort of analogous to delver of secrets - which by no means defined or created "RUG tempo" or "BUG tempo" but merely offered a new playable card which allowed relatively minor revisions to already established and "dominate" archetypes that have been around and preformed for years.

[Higgs]

Bro youre level of ignorannece is..... I can't even.
...
stop looking like an imbecile.



You're so butt hurt that you didn't even understand my statement. Your stupidity is vomit inducing. Yeah quote me on that. Any more bitching?

Your mouth seems to have diarrhea. Take two asperins and be well.

[Arsenal]

I think the data is still a little too new and limited to say that TNN has killed a non-blue deck and replaced it with a blue-variant. Most likely those with access to maverick also had/have access to the blue staples to easily port over to BANT and, given the relatively small number of strong, legacy playables that can fit in multiple archetypes, much less new playable creatures (that aren't cheated into play) people most likely wanted to play with the new toy.

When Geist of Saint Traft was printed (a new, playable toy for Maverick players to try out in Bant), Maverick's numbers didn't drop at all and Bant still remained a primarily uncharted deck. So while possible, I find that argument less compelling when you look at the respective data. You could be right though that Maverick will find it's pre-TNN positioning after Bant players get bored of playing with TNN and switch back to Maverick. I just think that's highly unlikely to happen.

[Esper3k]

Storm, however, is a very linear strategy. TNN is not.

Yes, but more powerful if you get it to work. That's the trade off of combo though - you trade resilience & consistency for power & speed usually.

I think what Deadpool09 is trying to say about sideboard hate for combo decks is that the hate is usually much more specific (think Mindbreak Trap or Ethersworn Canonist, for example) than hate for creatures. The sideboard cards for TNN (generally sweepers, sacrifice effects, etc.) are applicable vs more decks than the usually more specific combo hate cards are.

[menace13]

What I'm trying to say is, hate cards for combo decks are much more linear than cards that can deal with tnn, zealous persecution, p. deed, and others can be brought in vs other aggro creature decks as well.
?

So, what you're trying to say is combo hate cards can not be brought in against other combo or other decks. And they are narrow because they do not affect aggro decks. But aggro hate cards are not narrow because you can not bring them in against combo decks. Please explain how a combo hate card is more narrow than an aggro hate card relative to decks one faces? There are very few like Mindbreak, but the rest can come in against other combo decks and a good number can be used against control as well.

Bro, do you even lift?

[Dice_Box]

I'd still love if people stop calling the "unwillingness to adapt" and "tiredness of shitty design" the same.Mate I have been playing this format since its creation. I have adapted over the years as the game rose and fell away again. Then to watch it rise with SCG and see my decks triple in value. I have changed, I have built new decks as my goblins faded, I have had fun over the years. But this guy, he is not fun. I do not have fun with him on the table. If more cards like him are in the pipeline, then I shall go where the fun is. I am willing to adapt, I am not willing to play with shitty design.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Mate I have been playing this format since its creation. I have adapted over the years as the game rose and fell away again. Then to watch it rise with SCG and see my decks triple in value. I have changed, I have built new decks as my goblins faded, I have had fun over the years. But this guy, he is not fun. I do not have fun with him on the table. If more cards like him are in the pipeline, then I shall go where the fun is. I am willing to adapt, I am not willing to play with shitty design.

I'm not sure if you understood me well. My post that you quoted was not targeted at you or people like you. It was targeted at those like deadpool9 who have reading troubles.


I'd still love if people stop calling the "unwillingness to adapt" and "tiredness of shitty design" the same."

I'd love if people like braindead9 noticed that I testified that I'm tired of shitty design, not unwilling to adapt, and then I'd love if they'd ceased to call my tiredness of shitty design with words "unwillingness to adapt". Is it better now?

Also, this thread if beyond stupid.

[Tormod]

Also, this thread if beyond stupid.

It reminds me of mtg salvation.

[Deadpool09]

I love the fact that I got a lot of hate when I said people are lazy and not willing to adapt. I seemed to strike a lot of nerves, to the point that people started calling each other oh so mean names. For what it's worth, I do agree this thread is becoming stupider. If it gets banned, I wouldn't care, I play decks that have tnn, I play decks that don't either.
I like the fact how they justify their stance on tnn. "Im not lazy, I'm open to adapt, I just think its a terrible design"
Yeah so is emrakul, progen, and griselbrand. Which when it resolves, your interactions with are minimal, and chances of winning against it is slim. Though i know you have to invest alot onactually cheating them into play, buts a trade of you have to accept if ou wanna play a deck that wins on turn 5 or less. But decks that play tnn,you can interact with it on bunch of other ways if you really can't beat a 3/1 progen. It's not a 2 or 3 turn clock. Btw, I love it when people quote just a part of what someone wrote, so they can make them look bad. Ignoring the majority of the post so that they can nit pick a certain line they want to emphasize , just like " brain dead" bill o reilly and fox news. Anyone else wanna hate?

[menace13]

I use the word haters when i want to convince myself that i am not that stupid:wink:.


TNN has caught up on the top 20 most played cards. TNNblade is atm the most placing deck. Sneak Attack is second but SnT does not break the top 20 MPCs.

[Dice_Box]

Thing is mate, while we are here we are adapting. Guess which one of my decks I have picked up of late, Fish. The deck I think has the best chance of being hyper competitive in these changing times. So yea, we can adapt, we do. I have rebuilt my Fish deck 3 times since Progenifish was printed adding in things like Sygg over Standstill and more maindeck Dismember for Stoneforge. I am adapting. We all do.

Oh and the hate you are getting mate, it's not because of what you have to say, but how you have decided to say it.

Sent from mobile, forgive spelling and grammatical errors.

[Higgs]

I love the fact that I got a lot of hate when I said people are lazy and not willing to adapt. I seemed to strike a lot of nerves, to the point that people started calling each other oh so mean names.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

- Being a prick on the internet because you can.. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
- The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue.
- Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery

Edit: On another note, adapting could be applicable if you are on the opposite side of TNN and having problems beating the card. The argument is completely NULL when you play stoneblade decks yourself. So in my stoneblade deck I have to not be lazy and adapt... by shoving in 3 TNNs and calling it a day? Easy peasy! This adapt argument is basically an act of trolling at this point because the discussion had gone past that about 20 pages ago.

[MGB]

Can't they just errata this guy so he only works as intended in Commander? This way they wouldn't have to ban him in any format, but his obnoxious invincibility would be neutered.

Something like changing the card text to:

As True-Name Nemesis enters the battlefield, name a commander. True-Name Nemesis has protection from that commander's controller.

[EpicLevelCommoner]

Anyone have data for ISD-RTR-M13 Standard? Because I remember that Thragtusk was a widely played card back then, yet it promoted several distinct archetypes that weren't viable due to Zombies as a deck dominating before.

My point? Well, TNN as a card is seeing a lot of usage, yet it isn't promoting just one archetype, but rather several.

[Arsenal]

You're really comparing Standard to an Eternal format?

[Esper3k]

I use the word haters when i want to convince myself that i am not that stupid:wink:.


TNN has caught up on the top 20 most played cards. TNNblade is atm the most placing deck. Sneak Attack is second but SnT does not break the top 20 MPCs.

Just curious where you're getting your data on them being the most placing decks?

Per TheCouncil, currently we have Sneaky Show, BUG Control, and RUG as the top 3 decks.

Also, the data for this month will be off since they included the T8 of the Invitationals into the results, so all of those decks should really have -16 points or -8 points depending on how TheCouncil gave them points (I didn't see anywhere on there how many we're given for each deck). Jund should lose double the points due to two of the T8 playing it.

[Zombie]

Can't they just errata this guy so he only works as intended in Commander? This way they wouldn't have to ban him in any format, but his obnoxious invincibility would be neutered.

Something like changing the card text to:

As True-Name Nemesis enters the battlefield, name a commander. True-Name Nemesis has protection from that commander's controller.

This is equivalent to banning him. You just use a different word so the scrub cooties stay away.

Not that it's an option on the table anyway, they don't use errata like that anymore.

[Deadpool09]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

- Being a prick on the internet because you can.. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
- The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue.
- Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery

Edit: On another note, adapting could be applicable if you are on the opposite side of TNN and having problems beating the card. The argument is completely NULL when you play stoneblade decks yourself. So in my stoneblade deck I have to not be lazy and adapt... by shoving in 3 TNNs and calling it a day? Easy peasy! This adapt argument is basically an act of trolling at this point because the discussion had gone past that about 20 pages ago.
I clearly stated, I play decks with tnn, and withouth tnn. So I have both perspective.
I tried to be careful with my words here. Ever since I said the words adapting, and being flexible, people went to go on calling people names. So uhmmmm, yeah. Try again, prove it how much of a hater/ignorant you guys are but not reading my statements

[EpicLevelCommoner]

You're really comparing Standard to an Eternal format?

I'm done here. Your ignorant crusade to get TNN banned in Legacy has stopped being funny and has become quite sad.

And for the record, I was comparing one widely-used, hard-to-remove creature card in Standard to one widely-used, hard-to-remove creature card in Legacy.

[Dice_Box]

I clearly stated, I play decks with tnn, and withouth tnn. So I have both perspective.
I tried to be careful with my words here. Ever since I said the words adapting, and being flexible, people went to go on calling people names. So uhmmmm, yeah. Try again, prove it how much of a hater/ignorant you guys are but not reading my statementsMate we are reading what your saying. The issue with you is not what you are saying but your harsh and aggressive delivery. If you would tone back on the aggression and on the bravado you would find people here quite willing to engage with you. Maybe not agree with you but still engage in meaningful discourse on the issues you would like to rase.

In short, don't act like a dick and see where that gets you.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Can't they just errata this deadpool09 guy?

I'd rather ban him.

[Arsenal]

I'm done here. Your ignorant crusade to get TNN banned in Legacy has stopped being funny and has become quite sad.

And for the record, I was comparing one widely-used, hard-to-remove creature card in Standard to one widely-used, hard-to-remove creature card in Legacy.

I just wanted to be clear that you were comparing a card that rotates into obscurity after a few months to a card that is forever. Good job.

[EpicLevelCommoner]

Nice sig bro. Too bad it only reinforces how ignorant you really are regarding the matter.

[Arsenal]

Um, you're comparing a once-Standard creature that could be, you know, interacted with in combat and targeted, to an Eternal creature that can't be interacted with in combat and can't be targeted. And you're calling me "ignorant"? I don't even have words, but you apparently have enough for the both of us. And you're right, you are done here.
______________________________________________________________

Esper, I thought HSCK mentioned something about using a different data source than thecouncil? I've always used it, as many others have, but apparently it isn't valid? I think that if we're going to be citing data, all of us should agree on using the same reference. If there's a more comprehensive and expansive database than thecouncil, let's use that instead.

[EpicLevelCommoner]

Um, you're comparing a once-Standard creature that could be, you know, interacted with in combat and targeted, to an Eternal creature that can't be interacted with in combat and can't be targeted. And you're calling me "ignorant"? I don't even have words, but you apparently have enough for the both of us. And you're right, you are done here.

Still sad, still ignorant, still you.

Like I said, Thragtusk was a widely played card during its time in standard that, shockingly enough, promoted several distinct archetypes as a result of its use. True-Name Nemesis is no different in Legacy, even if you refuse to acknowledge so.

[Arsenal]

Do you not understand that you cannot compare a rotating format to an Eternal format? Set rotation dictates the meta for Standard. Once a set rotates, the entire meta has the potential to shift. You believe Thragtusk "promoted" archetypes when it really just filled the void left open by sets (and previous decks/archetypes) rotating out.

In formats where sets don't rotate, tell me which decks/archetypes has Thragtusk "promoted"?

[EpicLevelCommoner]

Do you not understand that you cannot compare a rotating format to an Eternal format? Set rotation dictates the meta for Standard. Once a set rotates, the entire meta has the potential to shift. You believe Thragtusk "promoted" archetypes when it really just filled the void left open by sets (and previous decks/archetypes) rotating out.

In formats where sets don't rotate, tell me which decks/archetypes has Thragtusk "promoted"?

None. Still doesn't disprove my point though. Thragtusk promoted several archetypes in ISD-RTR-M13 Standard, just like True-Name Nemesis has done so for Legacy based on the data you provided.

TNN is not Misstep, or Survival, or Lackey, or Flash, or Skullclamp. It simply a very good creature that, although unfun, actually diversifies the format in terms of archetypes instead of polarizing it.

[Tormod]

TNN has caught up on the top 20 most played cards. TNNblade is atm the most placing deck. Sneak Attack is second but SnT does not break the top 20 MPCs.

I love facts! But apparently this isn't one of them.

http://www.mtgtop8.com/topcards?format=LE&meta=39

Please don't make stuff up and try to pass it off as fact, we all have the tools to verify or refute.

Its seems like poor judgement to use the top 20 most frequently played cards as a potential ban list.

[Arsenal]

According to this http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/mostplayedcards.php), TNN has broken into the top 20. This is why we need to all agree on using one site for data reference. Too many sites have differing data as their metrics are different.

[Tormod]

According to this http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/mostplayedcards.php), TNN has broken into the top 20. This is why we need to all agree on using one site for data reference. Too many sites have differing data as their metrics are different.

That's a fair response.

But what is the claim? That we should look at the top 20 most frequently played cards as ban candidates?

I think that's a very poor use of the list.

[Master Shake]

I love facts! But apparently this isn't one of them.

http://www.mtgtop8.com/topcards?format=LE&meta=39

Please don't make stuff up and try to pass it off as fact, we all have the tools to verify or refute.

I mean, if you eliminate lands it's number 17, if you keep Wasteland in, it's number 18. I don't really see why you'd make post like this where you try to instigate to that level, it really is a dick move.

[Tormod]

I mean, if you eliminate lands it's number 17, if you keep Wasteland in, it's number 18. I don't really see why you'd make post like this where you try to instigate to that level, it really is a dick move.

You get 1 out of 10 for being civil.

So is your claim we should looking at these these list as ban cadidates?

[Esper3k]

@Arsenal: I'm not sure what data Menace was pulling from on his interpretation on TNN being the top deck (I do see it as in the t20 played cards on theCouncil) so I was curious where that was coming from because it didn't seem to be the top according to theCouncil data? I personally don't mind using what we have from theCouncil, myself. It's not like we have better / more extensive sources of data currently and theCouncil does have nice tools like easily breaking down the t20 cards, etc. As to their top decks, we just have to realize the formula they use for determining that and decide if that's acceptable or not. For me, I'm fine with it simply because I don't have a better formula nor the desire to put in the work to make it happen.

[lordofthepit]

I think TCDecks is a better source for Legacy.

If I understand correctly, mtgtop8 mines MTGO results, which is bad for two reasons: 1) MTGO events are much smaller and softer than the large events that get reported to TCDecks and 2) TNN hasn't been printed on MTGO yet (I think).

[lyracian]

2) TNN hasn't been printed on MTGO yet (I think).
It came out yesterday. Which means there are 6 weeks of MODO tournaments without TNN compared to paper MTG.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/278l&dcmp=ilc-mtgrss

while the new Commander sets go on sale Friday, December 20, at 10:00 a.m.!

[bjholmes3]

I highly recommend that The Council continue to be used for Legacy information. It's what Nihil Credo uses to determine the DTB section, and it's a fantastic site overall.

And what The Council is telling me right now is that TNN has revived two archetypes (Deathblade and Blade Control), renewed one (Patriot), and has only significantly depreciated the standings of one Maverick. The meta looks good to me, honestly, and no matter how controversial the card itself may be, I daresay it hasn't affected the format to any sort of a point where it is banworthy. In fact, I really like the way the format looks right now. I've been proxy-ing the top decks for my LGS to introduce them to Legacy, and I have an amazing selection of variety. Some control, some combo, some aggro (well, as close as Legacy gets to aggro).

Seriously, look at this beautiful meta. (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/metagame.php?format=Legacy)

[Zombie]

Does archetype diversity matter if all the new stuff is TNN decks and TNN games suck?

[EpicLevelCommoner]

I highly recommend that The Council continue to be used for Legacy information. It's what Nihil Credo uses to determine the DTB section, and it's a fantastic site overall.

And what The Council is telling me right now is that TNN has revived two archetypes (Deathblade and Blade Control), renewed one (Patriot), and has only significantly depreciated the standings of one Maverick. The meta looks good to me, honestly, and no matter how controversial the card itself may be, I daresay it hasn't affected the format to any sort of a point where it is banworthy. In fact, I really like the way the format looks right now. I've been proxy-ing the top decks for my LGS to introduce them to Legacy, and I have an amazing selection of variety. Some control, some combo, some aggro (well, as close as Legacy gets to aggro).

Seriously, look at this beautiful meta. (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/metagame.php?format=Legacy)

Thank you.

[Tormod]

OK, so we can all agree on the council as our reference.

Yay! we all agreed on something.

Admittedly, I do like True-Name Nemesis. I think it has great flavour. Its reflective of lore that if you know a persons true-Name that gives power over them such as Rumpelstiltskin. I like the whole. "I name you: xxx xxxx" when I cast it. I love that it gives me a main deck answer against equipment decks. Game 1 if my opponent lands a batterskull or jitte there's a chance I can block with my true name so that jitte doesn't get counters or batterskull won't gain them infinite life. Batterskull, jitte and stoneforge are more frequent than True-Names. I like its a main deck answer to Jace and that it doesn't fold to punishing fire.

I like that the casting cost is 3 and requires double blue. I like that True-Name has 1 toughness. I like that True-Name is difficult to deal with but not impossible. Esper and the slower blade decks were beaten into tier 2 status by abrupt decay, deathrite shaman and punishing fire. I like that True-Name has given those decks another tool to be competative again.

When UW Blade decks gains more popularity we should see a rise of green decks in response such as Maverick and Jund archetypes. More Lilianas and Qasali Pride Mage.

[Erdvermampfa]

All the people who demand a ban for TNN simply lack the understanding of the format and/or are unwilling do adapt to a new enviroment.

[Star|Scream]

Does archetype diversity matter if all the new stuff is TNN decks and TNN games suck?

Yes, because "sucking" is subjective.

[majikal]

Four out of the top 5 decks are TNN decks! Hooray diversity? :really:

[danyul]

All the people who demand a ban for TNN simply lack the understanding of the format and/or are unwilling do adapt to a new enviroment.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, blanket generalizations like these aren't helping further the discussion.

[Erdvermampfa]

It helps to improve the general atmosphere in here which was getting a little too good recently.

[Dice_Box]

All the people who demand a ban for TNN simply lack the understanding of the format and/or are unwilling do adapt to a new enviroment.

Mate I have been playing this format since its creation. I have adapted over the years as the game rose and fell away again. Then to watch it rise with SCG and see my decks triple in value. I have changed, I have built new decks as my goblins faded, I have had fun over the years. But this guy, he is not fun. I do not have fun with him on the table. If more cards like him are in the pipeline, then I shall go where the fun is. I am willing to adapt, I am not willing to play with shitty design.

[Higgs]

About the diversity of top decks discussion I will just leave this here as a clue for the signs to watch for:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/22776_Building_A_Legacy_Choose_Your_Weapon.html

[bjholmes3]

Four out of the top 5 decks are TNN decks! Hooray diversity? :really:

I don't think you and I are looking at the same top 5. Since when are RUG, Sneak Show, and BUG Control TNN? Seriously, this meta is looking really nice to me. Last week was the pinnacle of TNN abuse, and now it looks like things are normalizing. There is so much variety in playstyles (Top 8: Aggro, Control, Combo, Tempo, Tempo, Prison, Aggro-Combo, Aggro), decktypes, and colors (all five colors in top 3 decks), all at the cost of a good creature seeing play.

[Tormod]

About the diversity of top decks discussion I will just leave this here as a clue for the signs to watch for:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/22776_Building_A_Legacy_Choose_Your_Weapon.html

Your post is from left field. I don't understand.

[Esper3k]

I don't think you and I are looking at the same top 5. Since when are RUG, Sneak Show, and BUG Control TNN? Seriously, this meta is looking really nice to me. Last week was the pinnacle of TNN abuse, and now it looks like things are normalizing. There is so much variety in playstyles (Top 8: Aggro, Control, Combo, Tempo, Tempo, Prison, Aggro-Combo, Aggro), decktypes, and colors (all five colors in top 3 decks), all at the cost of a good creature seeing play.

Elves looks to have moved up to #5 as well for December. I see Sneaky Show, BUG Control, RUG, Deathblade, Elves as the T5 on TCDecks right now.

[(nameless one)]

Elves looks to have moved up to #5 as well for December. I see Sneaky Show, BUG Control, RUG, Deathblade, Elves as the T5 on TCDecks right now.

So Sneak Show decks are maindecking TNN now? I know played against one that had it in his sideboard.

RUG runs TNN in the sideboard as well. I wouldn't be surprise if Elves have already splashed blue for Gitaxian Probes, Spell Pierces and TNN.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

All the people who demand a ban for TNN simply lack the understanding of the format and/or are unwilling do adapt to a new enviroment.
Once you'll be done here, you may shit all over the Secret Santa thread again. Forum definitely needs it!

[KaristaDispel]

TNN has a lot of people worked up. I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

[UnderwaterGuy]

TNN has a lot of people worked up.

Thanks for sharing your insight.

[Nielsie]

I highly recommend that The Council continue to be used for Legacy information. It's what Nihil Credo uses to determine the DTB section, and it's a fantastic site overall.

And what The Council is telling me right now is that TNN has revived two archetypes (Deathblade and Blade Control), renewed one (Patriot), and has only significantly depreciated the standings of one Maverick. The meta looks good to me, honestly, and no matter how controversial the card itself may be, I daresay it hasn't affected the format to any sort of a point where it is banworthy. In fact, I really like the way the format looks right now. I've been proxy-ing the top decks for my LGS to introduce them to Legacy, and I have an amazing selection of variety. Some control, some combo, some aggro (well, as close as Legacy gets to aggro).

Seriously, look at this beautiful meta. (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/metagame.php?format=Legacy)
Or how about this beautifull meta: http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/metagame.php?format=Legacy&fecha=2013-10
It has 55 vs 43 decks in it. Granted, this could also have to do with the fact that december has not so many decks posted. We should at least wait untill january before interpreting the december data. November also had a varied meta but TNN wasn't very available to everyone. By now, everyone that wants to play it probably has a set.

A thing that I feel many people overlook is that they focus so much on TNN that they maybe not see the real damage being done is the anti-TNN hate. Before TNN sweepers were too expensive, edicts (aside from Liliana) were too situational, -1/-1 effects were not efficient enough. Because of TNN these hatecards are the best of the worst and see play now, much to the annoyance of rogue decks and tier 1-2 aggro/mid range decks.

The diversity of Legacy has never been the top5 meta decks. It's simply what is playable, what gives you a shot to win it all. It's that suprise in a big tournament when your opponent plays his first card. I think goblins was a prime example of such a deck. Not many people play it, but it could win a tournament with good play. Something like TNN destroys those decks. It brings Legacy closer to a Modern meta. Why play non-blue midrange at this moment? Furthermore the diversity that TNN brings with decks as Esper blade, Deathblade and Bant is as diverse as BG, BGr, BGw, BGrw in Modern. You could argue they are different decks but to me they are just BGx...

[Nabbydian]

Honesty I can't wait to see the back of this card. Too bad it looks like it will be around to stay. Really terrible design in my opinion.

[KaristaDispel]

Thanks for sharing your insight.

As a Lands player, the appearance of more TNN decks has increased my positive match ups. I can't honestly complain about that. My other decks are combo. I've been across the table from the card, but not playing any strategies that are cold to it in any meaningful ways. I'm looking to build, play and test something with TNN in it, but I can see how it's appeared to have reduced the diversity of midrange non-blue.

[CML]

I've had some success with Sylvan Basilisk. The card is deceptively powerful

[TsumiBand]

I've had some success with Sylvan Basilisk. The card is deceptively powerful

"Oh look, a bar of soap."
"Oh SHIT I got you GOOD you FUCKER"

[Dzra]

"Oh look, a bar of soap."
"Oh SHIT I got you GOOD you FUCKER"

Anal rape is no laughing matter.

[trollking21]

Anal rape is no laughing matter.

What is or is not a laughing matter is only determined by if someone laughs. Lolololololol

[nedleeds]

7 of the top 8 are Brainstorm decks (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/metagame.php?format=Legacy) in the 'meta' . Brainstorm is so much more ban worthy than TNN it isn't even close. If representation in 7 of the 8 'top tier' decks as a 4 of isn't enough to ban the most versitile powerful spell in the format then why are people even discussing banning TNN? Take all this wasted text and cry hard enough to get WotC to unban some cards.

[Megadeus]

Anal rape is no laughing matter.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO7-QJGVdM4

[Dzra]

video

loooooool

[uncletiggy]

I'm with nedleeds I'd be fine with exploring a brainstormless meta with tnn in it I think it would weaken most top tier strategies fairly evenly and blow the format wide open rather then just roll the clock back six months if it produces an unhealthy enviroment reevaulate it again in a years time. Tnn would not be anywhere as powerful as it is if you couldn't have it exactly when you wanted in place of that land you just drew.

[Feaor]

7 of the top 8 are Brainstorm decks (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/metagame.php?format=Legacy) in the 'meta' . Brainstorm is so much more ban worthy than TNN it isn't even close. If representation in 7 of the 8 'top tier' decks as a 4 of isn't enough to ban the most versitile powerful spell in the format then why are people even discussing banning TNN? Take all this wasted text and cry hard enough to get WotC to unban some cards.

Yea except Brainstorm's prevalence in the format went up as the direct result of TNN, there are just more blue decks in general at the top of the meta. This is because Blue now does every archetype better than every other color, resulting in an oversaturation. Just go look at the results from the months prior to TNN and compare them to the months after, in September and October there were 3 decks in the top 8 that were not blue, but some of these decks have been pushed down as the result of Blue getting better with the printing of TNN. It seems pretty disingenuous to claim that Brainstorm is suddenly a problem when it wasn't nearly as dominant as it was prior to the printing of TNN. Plus Brainstorm is part of what makes legacy legacy, banning it would be a huge blow to the format (either MaRo or Forsythe has gone on the record to say that they aren't going to ban Brainstorm), where as TNN is another dumb card that pushes blue really hard and should never have actually been printed.

[(nameless one)]

I'm sure Ponder and Preordain can pick up where Brainstorm left behind.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I'm sure Ponder and Preordain can pick up where Brainstorm left behind.

Those don't unmulligan.
The more I think about it, the more I see a BS-less meta as a very interesting idea. Not that I wish for the ban, though.

[Megadeus]

I'm sure Ponder and Preordain can pick up where Brainstorm left behind.

You cant hold up ponder to hide key cards from Thoughtseize. You also cant shuffle away flood late in the game.

[UnderwaterGuy]

A Legacy without Brainstorm is a Legacy with more variance and less skill/choices per game. The only people that want something like that are players that have a bug up their butt about the color blue. Tempo decks would be brutally hobbled while midrange decks could rise to power and dominance in yet another format.

Brainstorm is a utility card. Trying to directly compare it to threats like TNN is absurd and saying that those two cards should have bannings considered for the same reasons is complete nonsense.

[davelin]

A Legacy without Brainstorm is a Legacy with more variance and less skill/choices per game. The only people that want something like that are players that have a bug up their butt about the color blue. Tempo decks would be brutally hobbled while midrange decks could rise to power and dominance in yet another format.

Brainstorm is a utility card. Trying to directly compare it to threats like TNN is absurd and saying that those two cards should have bannings considered for the same reasons is complete nonsense.

That's funny, I think the exact opposite could be argued towards banning Brainstorm, not that I personally would want to see that happen. Yes Brainstorm is a utility card but arguably the best available so it constrains choices towards deck selection/building. Without Brainstorm, I think some decks would fade (mostly blue-based combo) while mid-range would rise. It would definitely shake-up the metagame to an interesting extent.

[nedleeds]

Man one rational brainstorm and I got all 3 of the the ignorant canned responses

Plus Brainstorm is part of what makes legacy legacy' ..... LOL whatever the fuck that means
We got a skill intensive ...
We got a ponder preordain would just replace it ...

Waiting patiently on a 'i would quit if they banned it' ... thxkbye

[UnderwaterGuy]

That's funny, I think the exact opposite could be argued towards banning Brainstorm, not that I personally would want to see that happen. Yes Brainstorm is a utility card but arguably the best available so it constrains choices towards deck selection/building. Without Brainstorm, I think some decks would fade (mostly blue-based combo) while mid-range would rise. It would definitely shake-up the metagame to an interesting extent.

I don't think I understand what you mean by "the exact opposite could be argued towards banning brainstorm". Do you mean that it should be banned because variance should be increased? That's the only argument I made for keeping Brainstorm legal. Mostly I just think it's absurd to compare that card to TNN and this is the TNN thread.

I believe that combo and control decks are the decks that rely less on Brainstorm. They certainly use it and it's powerful but they don't base their entire strategy around Brainstorm the way the incredibly land-light tempo decks do. Combo decks can slot in more Preordains a lot more effectively than a deck like Canadian Threshold can.

[davelin]

I don't think I understand what you mean by "the exact opposite could be argued towards banning brainstorm". Do you mean that it should be banned because variance should be increased? That's the only argument I made for keeping Brainstorm legal. Mostly I just think it's absurd to compare that card to TNN and this is the TNN thread.

I believe that combo and control decks are the decks that rely less on Brainstorm. They certainly use it and it's powerful but they don't base their entire strategy around Brainstorm the way the incredibly land-light tempo decks do. Combo decks can slot in more Preordains a lot more effectively than a deck like Canadian Threshold can.

I meant that banning Brainstorm could possibly introduce more skill and choice into the format, not less. I also believe you're incorrect about combo utilizing Brainstorm less than tempo decks.

[UnderwaterGuy]

I meant that banning Brainstorm could possibly introduce more skill and choice into the format, not less. I also believe you're incorrect about combo utilizing Brainstorm less than tempo decks.

Brainstorm is a card that provides the player with a ton of choices though; when to cast it, which cards to put back on top, when to use fetchlands, and more. How would the amount of decisions (which are opportunities for skill to affect a game's outcome) in a game be increased by removing Brainstorm?

[btm10]

I don't see how removing a high-utility card that requires a lot of choices would make the format more skill-intensive.

[Dzra]

I'm with nedleeds I'd be fine with exploring a brainstormless meta with tnn in it

Wow, why didn't I think of that. The solution to True-Name Nemesis, an incredibly non-interactive and unfun card to play against, is to ban one of the most fun and interactive cards in the format. There's a reason why midranged decks like Jund completely dominate Modern. Without Brainstorm, Thoughtseize becomes one of the best removal spells in the game. The less magic we play with our opponents, the more fun we have, obviously.

[apple713]

TNN is no where near ban worthy. Theres like 10 cards that are more likely to get banned before it. S&T and Griselbrand are probably top of the list if anything were to be considered ban worthy.

Combo decks don't care about it
Control decks should have answers or they are not controlling much of anything.
Aggro decks MIGHT have to reconsider their removal choices but are not rendered worthless. They would probably face a TNN instead of a combo deck.

TNN probably should not have been printed. It's one of those whoopsie things that WOTC does every so often for blue. It does not contribute to the format in a healthy way. It is comparable to other non interactive card like stasis and unfun strategies like land destruction.



This thread needs to be closed.. 40 pages of mindless crap. There are so many other cards more worthy of a discussion than this

[davelin]

I don't see how removing a high-utility card that requires a lot of choices would make the format more skill-intensive.

Two possible ways off the top of my head -

1) Increases the viability of many decks therefore requiring being knowledgable about more matchups
2) Increases the variance of decks requiring more thoughtful choices and chances (i.e. mulliganing)

[apple713]

Two possible ways off the top of my head -

1) Increases the viability of many decks therefore requiring being knowledgable about more matchups
2) Increases the variance of decks requiring more thoughtful choices and chances (i.e. mulliganing)

this is the mindless crap I'm talking bout.

1) brainstorm lends it flexibility to multiple decks making them viable
2) removing brainstorm doesn't increase variance. Increasing the odds of mulliganing reduces the skill required. You now just have to get lucky.

Blue is played the most because it reduces the luck factor and rewards the skill factor.

[bjholmes3]

No Brainstorm == More Luck;
More Luck != More skill;

Arguing that banning Brainstorm would make the game more skill-intensive is like arguing that banning spoons would make eating soup more skill intensive.

The meta is blue-heavy, but there is a large array of different archetypes represented, so TNN doesn't seem to have ruined the game either. Curious, it looks like none of the subject matter of this thread is much of a big deal after all...

[Megadeus]

They should make a rule that every deck must have at least one trading post

[davelin]

this is the mindless crap I'm talking bout.

1) brainstorm lends it flexibility to multiple decks making them viable
2) removing brainstorm doesn't increase variance. Increasing the odds of mulliganing reduces the skill required. You now just have to get lucky.

Blue is played the most because it reduces the luck factor and rewards the skill factor.

Relax, I'm just saying there are arguments to be made that removing Brainstorm from the format doesn't make it significantly less skillful, rather than shifts will probably occur which the more skillful players will adapt to. I don't think anyone (even :gasp: you!) can definitively predict what the meta of viable decks would look like if Brainstorm was banned.

If Brainstorm increases flexibility and smooths out draws, doesn't removing it increase variance. I didn't say mulliganing decisions are the only factor either. Don't speak about "mindless crap" without having an open mind yourself.

[apple713]

Relax, I'm just saying there are arguments to be made that removing Brainstorm from the format doesn't make it significantly less skillful, rather than shifts will probably occur which the more skillful players will adapt to. I don't think anyone (even :gasp: you!) can definitively predict what the meta of viable decks would look like if Brainstorm was banned.

If Brainstorm increases flexibility and smooths out draws, doesn't removing it increase variance. I didn't say mulliganing decisions are the only factor either. Don't speak about "mindless crap" without having an open mind yourself.

variance is an unfortunate burden of MTG. By increasing variance (in an extreme case) both players might as well determine the match results with best 2 out of 3 coin flips. typically the best players in mtg play the decks with the least variance. What i would imagine happening is that by reducing the number of decks with a low variance level, the few decks that remain get over played. Thus resulting in 2 types of decks (similar to the standard stone blade meta) either play with it or against it...


This post only goes on to prove this three needs to be closed. There is nothing more to discuss about TNN that hasn't already been said. I think we hit the ban brainstorm mark 20 pages back....

[Barook]

2) removing brainstorm doesn't increase variance. Increasing the odds of mulliganing reduces the skill required. You now just have to get lucky.

Blue is played the most because it reduces the luck factor and rewards the skill factor.
There are two sides of a coin. Brainstorm can be skill-testing, but how is brainstorming right into the answer you need at instant speed not luck? We wouldn't have endless Brainstorm arguments of Wizards got their heads of their asses and printed some MD-able Brainstorm hate that actually punishes you for playing Brainstorm. Stuff like Thalia or CotV simply don't get the job done. Think Notion Thief, except cheaper, being playable in multiple maindecks and symmetrical so you can't just slam Brainstorm + Brainstorm hate into the same deck and laugh at your opponent, like many other anti-blue cards end up best utilized in blue decks.

To be fair, Brainstorm percentage has "normalized" to 65% at the end of the month, back from the insane 70+% earlier this month.

One interesting thing to observe on MODO that the release of TNN (which gets results, as expected) lead to a rise of Painter Stone decks.

[pointicus]

They already printed brainstorm hate that is symmetrical, its called chains of mephistopheles.

[Erdvermampfa]

Shall I create a separate poll that addresses the whole Brainstorm issue?

[Barook]

They already printed brainstorm hate that is symmetrical, its called chains of mephistopheles.
Except Chains isn't maindeckable (barely even sideboardable, if anything, a few decks run it as 1-of) and costs 200$ a piece (to answer a 2$ common). If Chains was the answer, it would see way more play.

Call me when they print a :1::b: Chains guy with Deathtouch or other combat-relevant abilities that you can run in your main deck.


Shall I create a separate poll that addresses the whole Brainstorm issue?
For what? All it would result in would be more flaming until the mods close it down.

[davelin]

What i would imagine happening is that by reducing the number of decks with a low variance level, the few decks that remain get over played.

I don't understand why removing Brainstorm couldn't increase the number of "low variance" decks, not decrease it. Couldn't making blue-based decks less powerful, result in a more varied meta?

[UnderwaterGuy]

I don't understand why removing Brainstorm couldn't increase the number of "low variance" decks, not decrease it. Couldn't making blue-based decks less powerful, result in a more varied meta?

I think you are misinterpreting what we mean by "variance". It doesn't mean variation or variety of decks, it's a statistical measure and what we mean is that Brainstorm reduces the variance of magic games because decks playing the card have much more consistency. They are less likely to lose games simply because of mana screw or flood because they have the ability to see more cards. Personally, I think that's a fantastic thing to have in the game. It's a game, it should be fun and interesting, the less legacy games are decided by luck the better.

I have never heard an explanation for why a card as valuable as Brainstorm should be banned except for "I hate blue decks".

[Zombie]

There's something maybe to be said about the instant speed doing nasty things to discard, but good cantrips absolutely should stay in blue.
They just need to print more cards like Looting and Green Sun.

[davelin]

I think you are misinterpreting what we mean by "variance". It doesn't mean variation or variety of decks, it's a statistical measure and what we mean is that Brainstorm reduces the variance of magic games because decks playing the card have much more consistency. They are less likely to lose games simply because of mana screw or flood because they have the ability to see more cards. Personally, I think that's a fantastic thing to have in the game. It's a game, it should be fun and interesting, the less legacy games are decided by luck the better.

I have never heard an explanation for why a card as valuable as Brainstorm should be banned except for "I hate blue decks".

I understand what you mean by variance. I also 100% agree that Brainstorm decks are much more consistent than non-Brainstorm decks in general. Couldn't removing Brainstorm level the playing field in terms of consistency between blue and non-blue decks thus increasing the number of viable decks in the meta?

[Barook]

I think you are misinterpreting what we mean by "variance". It doesn't mean variation or variety of decks, it's a statistical measure and what we mean is that Brainstorm reduces the variance of magic games because decks playing the card have much more consistency. They are less likely to lose games simply because of mana screw or flood because they have the ability to see more cards. Personally, I think that's a fantastic thing to have in the game. It's a game, it should be fun and interesting, the less legacy games are decided by luck the better.

I have never heard an explanation for why a card as valuable as Brainstorm should be banned except for "I hate blue decks".
You already stated reason yourself - blue decks with Brainstorm are significantly more consistent than non-blue decks which do not have said tools available. What's the the point of running decks without Brainstorm then? There's little to no drawback to NOT running Brainstorm, especially since the hate against it doesn't do jackshit. It's already the most-played card by a wide margin for the reasons you stated.


I don't understand why removing Brainstorm couldn't increase the number of "low variance" decks, not decrease it. Couldn't making blue-based decks less powerful, result in a more varied meta?
We'll never know unless a bunch of people would agree to run a large-scale field test with various decks under the assumption "Brainstorm is banned" and see how deck viability changes. Everything else are just speculations with a very shaky base since neither arguments can be proven right without hard data.

Call it "The Brainstorm Experiment" or whatever and see how it goes. But I doubt that it would get enough people to get any valuable data out of it.

[UnderwaterGuy]

You already stated reason yourself - blue decks with Brainstorm are significantly more consistent than non-blue decks which do not have said tools available. What's the the point of running decks without Brainstorm then? There's little to no drawback to NOT running Brainstorm, especially since the hate against it doesn't do jackshit. It's already the most-played card by a wide margin for the reasons you stated.

What it does is good for the game; it's what makes the game fun. If you and others (and wotc) think that consistency is the big problem between blue and non-blue then we could make new cards (Like GSZ, which was extremely effective) that provide similar functionality to non-blue decks. How can you hate a color so much that you'd want to hurt the entire game just so that less people play blue decks?

[Gheizen64]

Brainstorm is currently overrepresented mostly because of TNN. Also, while i don't particularly like the card and i find most of the arguments defending it retarded (SKILL INTENSIVE CARD VARIANCE WOW, blue has 10 thousand cantrips, play portent and it's way more skill intensive, just weaker in power level, by that definition a card that perfectly stack your deck is skill intensive and reduce variance no shit, it's all about the power level), TNN is just an horrible card to play with, against, or even watch. I seriously can't stand this piece of shit designed card. Goyf was bad already especially since it rapidly developed in Goyf standstills (not that this matter anymore with cards like DRS and others making goyf much much weaker that it once was), but this is ten times worse.

[davelin]

What it does is good for the game; it's what makes the game fun. If you and others (and wotc) think that consistency is the big problem between blue and non-blue then we could make new cards (Like GSZ, which was extremely effective) that provide similar functionality to non-blue decks. How can you hate a color so much that you'd want to hurt the entire game just so that less people play blue decks?

Hyperbolic much? Having a thought experiment about Brainstorm doesnt mean we hate blue or want people to have less fun.

[EpicLevelCommoner]

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?15217-Obligatory-shitty-card-creation-thread&p=777433&viewfull=1#post777433

Now, the question is, would this actually make non-blue decks more viable?

[Einherjer]

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?15217-Obligatory-shitty-card-creation-thread&p=777433&viewfull=1#post777433

Now, the question is, would this actually make non-blue decks more viable?

...when you thought it couldn't get any worse....

[uncletiggy]

Its safe to say blue needs nerfed it shouldnt have the best planeswalkers the best consistancy the best beaters and the best hate in the form of counter magic the color pie may as well not exsist blurring the lines is one thing but go blue or go home is not a healthy meta the poll should be does blue need nerfed or not crying out over one card will never get a reaction once the best tnn deck is tuned something will need done the same way mental misstep got the hammer. I was only curious what a meta would look like without brainstorm I adore putting two thunderous wraths on top then casting portent targeting my opponent in my u/r delver and wouldn't want to see that go away

[TsumiBand]

I feel like there would be much better hate cards for Blue drawing in existence if Brainstorm were a legitimate problem. I mean, I'd love love love to see a 2/1 WB creature with 'Hexproof, Chains of Mephistopheles' scrawled across its text box, because it would give one the means of gunning for card drawing in a meaningful way - but honestly it kind of seems like, if it were going to happen, it would have already.

The raw effect of simply having more game pieces than your opponent is virtually always better in every game you can think of (please maybe don't introduce corner cases where less is more; YES this is a generalization, but I don't want to go down a totally different rabbit hole). In The Beginning - it was well-known that Ancestral Recall was entirely unfair, but Dr. Garfield and Co. did not envision anyone taking the game seriously enough or having as much popularity as it does - or even that people would have the means or drive to acquire multiples (even before the 4-of rule was a rule). I could cite sources but it's all just sort of 'out there'; see the "Is This Game Skill or Luck-Based" thread for a video that expresses similar sentiment direct from Garfield himself.

Brainstorm is the cheapest, most playable, and most widely used card as a means to this end. For all the decks that it works well with, and all the plays it enables -- and even for as often as the Eternal community bemoans WotC's ability to print for the format -- I find it incredibly unlikely that such an effect would be allowed to exist without some kind of uber-hate or banning occurring long before now. That may be an error in logic along the lines of an appeal to authority ("if they don't have a problem, neither do I") but given their awareness of what card drawing means to Magic, I really strongly doubt that Brainstorm is nearly as damning as people make it out to be.

Yes - it works wonders with Miracles, and sometimes one simply topdecks all the things after casting it and stacking their deck appropriately. There's an amount of Chicken v. Egg that can be argued in any of these cases, similar to Vengevine + SotF or S&T + any creature with CMC 4 or higher. Card drawing is a little harder to shoehorn in this way, though; the effect is so basic that it doesn't really synergize with just one particular strategy. It *could* be used in concert with Miracles, sure, but it can also be used to bolster aggro-control or combo - and its color restriction isn't exactly a Big Fucking Deal. Lots of decks could make room for card drawing, as they do for other effects. How often does someone start on the early stages of brewing and go, "This deck could use Effect X. What are my four weakest cards?", and then turn around and include a format staple? How often does one simply analyze their pile and then realize that it needs more acceleration/removal/discard/burn, and then turn around and just add Deathrite Shaman/Swords to Plowshares/Thoughtseize/Lightning Bolt? What sets card drawing and Brainstorm apart from that decision making process? It's just another fundamental game effect.

[Dice_Box]

Its safe to say blue needs nerfed it shouldnt have the best planeswalkers the best consistancy the best beaters and the best hate in the form of counter magic the color pie may as well not exsist blurring the lines is one thing but go blue or go home is not a healthy meta the poll should be does blue need nerfed or not crying out over one card will never get a reaction once the best tnn deck is tuned something will need done the same way mental misstep got the hammer. I was only curious what a meta would look like without brainstorm I adore putting two thunderous wraths on top then casting portent targeting my opponent in my u/r delver and wouldn't want to see that go away
For the love of God and all that is holly, USE FULL STOPS MAN!

[apple713]

There are two sides of a coin. Brainstorm can be skill-testing, but how is brainstorming right into the answer you need at instant speed not luck? We wouldn't have endless Brainstorm arguments of Wizards got their heads of their asses and printed some MD-able Brainstorm hate that actually punishes you for playing Brainstorm. Stuff like Thalia or CotV simply don't get the job done. Think Notion Thief, except cheaper, being playable in multiple maindecks and symmetrical so you can't just slam Brainstorm + Brainstorm hate into the same deck and laugh at your opponent, like many other anti-blue cards end up best utilized in blue decks.

To be fair, Brainstorm percentage has "normalized" to 65% at the end of the month, back from the insane 70+% earlier this month.

One interesting thing to observe on MODO that the release of TNN (which gets results, as expected) lead to a rise of Painter Stone decks.

lets say your brainstorm was a tutor instead. would tutoring into the perfect card make that skill for including that perfect answer in the deck or luck for drawing it? Its skill. You built a deck that functions at a higher consistency than other and has answers for a wide range of situations. Unfortunately all the good tutors have been banned and brainstorm is next in line.


I think you are misinterpreting what we mean by "variance". It doesn't mean variation or variety of decks, it's a statistical measure and what we mean is that Brainstorm reduces the variance of magic games because decks playing the card have much more consistency. They are less likely to lose games simply because of mana screw or flood because they have the ability to see more cards. Personally, I think that's a fantastic thing to have in the game. It's a game, it should be fun and interesting, the less legacy games are decided by luck the better.

I have never heard an explanation for why a card as valuable as Brainstorm should be banned except for "I hate blue decks".

This is a great explanation to under waters' misunderstanding


I understand what you mean by variance. I also 100% agree that Brainstorm decks are much more consistent than non-Brainstorm decks in general. Couldn't removing Brainstorm level the playing field in terms of consistency between blue and non-blue decks thus increasing the number of viable decks in the meta?

The goal shouldn't be to take power away from blue, it should be to increase power of other colors. You can't just ban brainstorm and say "ok we're good now". You would also have to take away ponder and preordain.

The better solution is to print cards in the other 4 colors that improve consistency like brainstorm does for blue.


You already stated reason yourself - blue decks with Brainstorm are significantly more consistent than non-blue decks which do not have said tools available. What's the the point of running decks without Brainstorm then? There's little to no drawback to NOT running Brainstorm, especially since the hate against it doesn't do jackshit. It's already the most-played card by a wide margin for the reasons you stated.


We'll never know unless a bunch of people would agree to run a large-scale field test with various decks under the assumption "Brainstorm is banned" and see how deck viability changes. Everything else are just speculations with a very shaky base since neither arguments can be proven right without hard data.

Call it "The Brainstorm Experiment" or whatever and see how it goes. But I doubt that it would get enough people to get any valuable data out of it.

They could test this on online magic where they hold a tournament with experimental ban lists. WOTC seems like a poorly ran company so it's unlikely we'll get much help from them. They have little quality control for printing cards, they have an even smaller amount of internal testing before they release cards, and they have almost 0 support for legacy nor do they care to. They have monetized mtgo into something terrible and seemingly pointless. Its incredibly unpolished, has poor interface, and well the list could go on.

They need a new CEO of WOTC that is a professional and can shape up the company. For being one of hasbro's largest income contributors its run very poorly.

[Lemnear]

[QUOTE=TsumiBand;777441]I feel like there would be much better hate cards for Blue drawing in existence if Brainstorm were a legitimate problem. I mean, I'd love love love to see a 2/1 WB creature with 'Hexproof, Chains of Mephistopheles' scrawled across its text box, because it would give one the means of gunning for card drawing in a meaningful way - but honestly it kind of seems like, if it were going to happen, it would have already.[QUOTE]

Just one moment here.

Are you discussing the lack of interactivity of TNN in this thread while suggesting Hexproof-Creatures, that hate out half of the metagame?

[nedleeds]

I feel like there would be much better hate cards for Blue drawing in existence if Brainstorm were not played in nearly every deck that doesn't play Chalice of the Void on 1.

It's the same dichotomy that exists with Null Rod in Vintage. Very powerful but you are giving up the most powerful accelerants to hedge and in many cases it just isn't worth it.

[nedleeds]

You already stated reason yourself - blue decks with Brainstorm are significantly more consistent than non-blue decks which do not have said tools available. What's the the point of running decks without Brainstorm then? There's little to no drawback to NOT running Brainstorm, especially since the hate against it doesn't do jackshit. It's already the most-played card by a wide margin for the reasons you stated.


Correct.

Saying "I don't want Brainstorm banned because I like the card" is fine, it's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Just like I can say, "I want Necropotence unbanned because I like the card" and despite the incredulity of my opinion it's still my opinion. You can run out ideas like, 'every deck will run necro' etc. which are the same arguments being thrown at your beloved cantrip.

The skill intensive line is a favorite one of mine because it implies that one of the ban criteria is that a card that's hard to use should be allowed to exist because of it's depth. Sweet! Meet Yawgmoth's Will! Brainstorm is hardly the most skill intensive card in the format but your heroes at SCG would have you believe that. In fact sans Brainstorm cards like Ponder and Preordain would have to stand alone and the decision making required to choose would be tougher (if you didn't have a Brainstorm in hand to scoop the other 'good card'). You'd actually have to consider the math involved with shuffling and getting a 4 of in the blind. Having a Brainstorm makes those cards trivial to use.

Brainstorm makes targeted discard (an as skillful magic task as resolving a Brainstorm) a miserable effort in the middleing turns (2-4).

Brainstorm supercharges other powerful cards like Stoneforge Mystic, Lion's Eye Diamond, <all fetches>. This is the pitiful argument charged at Survival (which by the way ... is really good with ... Brainstorm).

By fact Brainstorm removes much of the skill in deck building (which basically nobody does anyway, so maybe it's moot), since if you have Island and fetchlands and no (Chalice on 1 or Chains) there are no common reasons not to run it. Only the most threat dense no fetch blue decks that tap out during their turn would eschew it (see: Merfolk).

By fact Brainstorm removes much of the risk or decision making during mulliganing as it and a fetchland can effectively unmulligan your hand. This alone would merit ban consideration compared to some of the refuse that sits on the banned list currently.

It's ubiquity and efficiency aren't debatable. It's power level isn't much more debatable. So to sit here and actually debate a 1UU 3/1 that doesn't win the game upon entering the battlefield being ban worthy while Brainstorm runs rampant is laughable.

OK I'm ready for somebody bring up lands as ban candidates in defense of brainstorm ... :laugh:

[Megadeus]

Ban the fecthlands. They are the true offenders. Not only do you get a free shuffle, you also get insane mana fixing

[EpicLevelCommoner]

Ban basic Islands.

[Dice_Box]

I personally feel like this thread has run its course and we are now just making a duplicate of the Ban list thread. I would suggest that the discussions be taken there and this thread be closed. I believe on TNN, anyone that has something to say has now said it and it is up to the meta and later DCI to decide what becomes of the card.

Dice.

[nedleeds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Koi-LGMkguo

[Erdvermampfa]

I thought it was already common knowledge that Brainstorm clearly deserved a ban if it wasn't considered an absolute 'pillar' of the format? And of course, it's more than obvious that Show and Tell had to go first if we had any prospects of Wizards caring about the format, but I think they already missed the opportunity when the commotion about these two cards was at its peak. All we can do is preventing other shit to establish in the format, hence all this campaigning against True-Name Nemesis.

[Zilla]

Given that TNN has been menioned only once in the last two pages of this thread, I'm going to go ahead and close it. There's already a thread for endless Brainstorm ban discussion (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?14662-All-B-R-update-speculation), so take it over there. You can discuss TNN there too if you want.