Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

The last time a blue-based SFM deck was a thing was GP Denver. After that, it fell off the face of the planet (although Deathblade was cute for a week I suppose). Once TNN is printed, it's not surprising that SFM saw a tremendous uptick as TNN + Equipment = GGPO (as evidenced by tourney results + stream coverage).

Same with UWR Delver. Pre-TNN, it played stuff like Geist of Saint Traft, but that wasn't effective as it died to a blocking 4/5 Goyf and it could be Rough/Tumble, Pyroclasm, etc. So it remained firmly entrenched in tier 2 status. TNN is released and voila!, tier 1 status and it wins a GP.

---

This is what you said in the post that started all this discussion about the performance of "blue-based SFM" post GP Denver.

Other than the months of July (where we still had a blue-based SFM deck - Deathblade, performing well) and August, a blue-based SFM deck (be it Blade Control, Patriot, or Deathblade per TCDecks' categories) has always been Tier 1 according to the TCDeck data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

From Feb-April 2013, Blade Control enjoyed tier 1 status, but once you hit May 2013, you see a very steep decline in Blade Control (I believe this was due to the rising of Jund, could be wrong though). The data backs up what I said; post GP Denver, blue-based SFM decks went from tier 1 to tier 2, then once TNN was released, BOOM, back to tier 1 again overnight.

May 2013 - Position: 4
June 2013 - Position: 11 (tier 2)
July 2013 - Position: 14, tier 2 (as I acknowledged, Deathblade had a nice moment in the sun at position #3 and Patriot is still tier 2, imo at #9)
August 2013 - Position: 18, tier 2 (Patriot #14, Deathblade #17)... sounds firmly tier 2 to me
September 2013 - Position: 24, tier 2 (Patriot is tier 1 this month at #4, Deathblade is tier 2 at #15)
October 2013 - Position: 18, tier 2 (Patriot stays in tier 1 again at #4, Deathblade is tier 2 at #23)
November 2013 (TNN release) - Position: 4 (Patriot is entrenched at #2, Deathblade sees a nominal jump to #17)

So to recap, there's a downward trend for Blade Control of #4 - #11 - #14 - #18 - #24 - #18 - TNN is released and it's #4 again. Patriot is tier 2 in July, then tier 1 around Sept. Deathblade is tier 1 for one month (July), then it's relegated to tier 2 and hasn't left.

---

No, the data shows that blue based SFM decks have pretty much always (with the exception of August) had a deck close to the top, according to TCDeck data.

Second, it also shows that UWR Delver (aka Patriot) was Tier 1 before the printing of TNN. TNN certainly makes these decks stronger, but it isn't the cause of blue based SFM decks going from "fell off the face of the planet" to Tier 1 all of the sudden. You can argue that TNN has brought back Blade Control, certainly, but not the entire blue-based SFM class of decks.

Also a separate point - as HSCK brings up, even if your assertion was true that TNN all of the sudden made these types of decks tier 1, why is that a bad thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

Also, I may have been too harsh when stating that "I don't care". I do care and note what's happening in tier 2 (and even tier 3 if my SB cards can do some splash damage), but my main concern is how to beat the tier 1 decks. If tier 1 is RUG Delver, Elves, Storm combo and Sneak Attack, I'm going to make my maindeck and SB decisions largely based off that. I'm not going to devote 2 SB cards solely for Imperial Painter when I could use those slots to beef up my Sneak Attack matchup; if my SB card hates both decks, great!, but I'm making my decision based off what I expect to see.

Back in April 2013, I attended SCG Milwaukee. I was on Vidi's GP Denver EsperBlade list and I anticiplated seeing RUG Delver (tier 1), Reanimator/TinFins (DTB at the time), Blade Control (tier 1 at the time), and Sneak and Show (tier 1 at the time). I was aware that other tier 1 and tier 2 decks existed, but thought my maindeck was solid enough for whatever, but those matchups I wanted to focus on, so I SBed accordingly.

I played against Esperblade, TinFins, Maverick, RUG Delver, Goblins, Eggs (yep), Burn, Belcher, Dredge. I metagamed correctly for tier 1 and saw 3/4 of the tier 1 decks in my rounds. The other decks I played due to losing (lost to RUG Delver and I deserve to play against Burn I suppose). My maindeck was solid enough to wreck Maverick, Burn, Eggs, Belcher, Esperblade.

EDIT: Great article about TNN, format diversity (perhaps a natual ebb and flow, perhaps not), etc. http://www.channelfireball.com/artic...game-analysis/

Also, as I stated in the other thread, TNN mirrors are just plain unfun for me. If others enjoy having TNN races, great, but I don't. I play with TNN (UW Stoneblade) and against it all of the time and it's far less enjoyable when I win on the back of TNN.

---

You may have seen 3/4 of the decks you were metagaming against, but that also only made up of 3/8 of the decks you played against. I think moreso than any other format, Legacy is one where you need to pay attention to non-Tier 1 decks.

Again, while what you're saying is fine, it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion of streaming coverage not being representative of a tournament's metagame.

Had I won all of my tier 1 matchups, I trust that I wouldn't see any/many tier 2 decks moving forward at that point. Also, nobody goes into a tournament where real money is on the line with the thought "I'm going to lose and face a bunch of tier 2/3/4 decks". I went in with the "I'm going to win this sucker" mentality and SBed accordingly. Obviously, it didn't work out for me, but there's no way you'll ever be able to convince me to pay more attention to tier 2/3 than to tier 1; tier 1 dictates what everybody else can and can't do, not the other way around.

Also, were all those UWR decks running SFM? I recall that many of them were going for the straight tempo plan and didn't include SFM.

EDIT: Went back and looked at the UWR lists and not all of them ran the SFM version. I'd also argue that UWR Delver (SFM or not) was a deck long before July 26-28th 2013. Dustin Taylor top 8'ed a February SCG Open with this: http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=10138&iddeck=73863. Also, if you read this forum's UWR Delver thread (originated right after SCG Edison), you'll see that I was posting about this deck in the beginning pages too, long before July 26-28th 2013.

EDIT: Hahaha, going back and reading everyone's posts in the beginning are funny. Mystic was bad back then because it didn't gel with the gameplan. Now? It's the best thing you can be doing with TNN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

Had I won all of my tier 1 matchups, I trust that I wouldn't see any/many tier 2 decks moving forward at that point. Also, nobody goes into a tournament where real money is on the line with the thought "I'm going to lose and face a bunch of tier 2/3/4 decks". I went in with the "I'm going to win this sucker" mentality and SBed accordingly. Obviously, it didn't work out for me, but there's no way you'll ever be able to convince me to pay more attention to tier 2/3 than to tier 1; tier 1 dictates what everybody else can and can't do, not the other way around.

Also, were all those UWR decks running SFM? I recall that many of them were going for the straight tempo plan and didn't include SFM.

EDIT: Went back and looked at the UWR lists and not all of them ran the SFM version. I'd also argue that UWR Delver (SFM or not) was a deck long before July 26-28th 2013. Dustin Taylor top 8'ed a February SCG Open with this: http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=10138&iddeck=73863. Also, if you read this forum's UWR Delver thread (originated right after SCG Edison), you'll see that I was posting about this deck in the beginning pages too, long before July 26-28th 2013.

EDIT: Hahaha, going back and reading everyone's posts in the beginning are funny. Mystic was bad back then because it didn't gel with the gameplan. Now? It's the best thing you can be doing with TNN.

---

Oh certainly, you aim for the Tier 1 decks. What I'm saying though is that in Legacy, you have to pay more attention to the Tier 2 ones than in other formats due to 1) the larger viable pool of decks we have 2) people's propensity to play their favorite deck / deck they own. A Tier 1 deck in Standard might make up 40% of a tournament. In a Legacy tournament, making up 15% of the field is high for any deck.

I'm not certain how many of the Patriot decks listed on TCDecks were SFM ones (too lazy to go back and look through the individual data), but I'd guess that the majority of the ones post Smith/Fabiano's big win were SFM lists, especially the ones we see in September-November.

I do also recall it being a pure tempo deck, but without SFM as well in it's early iterations. I don't remember it really taking off until SFM became a commonly accepted part of the list though?

It -is- hilarious how much hate people had for SFM back then (really shows how slowly the Legacy community tends to adapt to change, like Tarmogoyf, Delver, etc.). And now that we have TNN, equipment (and SFM by default) is what really makes it scary.

I for one, welcome our new True Named Nemesis overlords. It means less Stifle for me to Storm trigger on them. Nice Trained Armodon, bro!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Esper3k

Oh certainly, you aim for the Tier 1 decks. What I'm saying though is that in Legacy, you have to pay more attention to the Tier 2 ones than in other formats due to 1) the larger viable pool of decks we have 2) people's propensity to play their favorite deck / deck they own. A Tier 1 deck in Standard might make up 40% of a tournament. In a Legacy tournament, making up 15% of the field is high for any deck.

---

Indeed.

The difference between Tier I in Standard and Tier I in Legacy is that the latter decks tend to be in that spot at least in part for their ability to power through most of the Rounds 1-3 Randoms. Legacy Tier I decks tend not to get nearly as inbred as Standard decks can be simply because you will always have to brave the first few rounds of random shit, and if your deck is strong and consistent enough to handle that you will not be in contention for top eight.

The other side of that dynamic is that it's much more possible to metagame in Standard than it is in Legacy. If 70% of the tournament is going to be on one of several known Tier I decks, you can make something a little more narrow and still expect to do well. In Legacy, your glass cannon has got to survive the early rounds, and if you have one randomly bad matchup to some deck that hasn't been good for years or whatever you can find yourself playing in a very different "metagame" than what you'd prepared to fight - stuck in Randoms hell for the rest of the tournament. That's why it's almost always better in Legacy to play a Tier I deck and just muck with the sideboard than to try to bring in something outside the Tier I or Tier 1.5 decks.

That also has implications for cards like TNN that drop right into existing Tier I decks. Sure, you could run something like Pox and have a decent chance against a resolved TNN, but then you're on Pox, and it's not clear that you have a decent match against, well, all the other random shit you have to battle through to get to the top tables and their TNN Mecca. Those messed-up metagame dynamics of Legacy end up amplifying the warping effects of powerful cards, particularly in the big, high-profile tournaments that many players rely on for metagame information and discovery of new tech. It can be a very negative spiral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warai

I think we should give 2 months or so for the meta to adapt and then formulate opinions. Now is way too soon ;)

---

^
This.

Everyone who can is trying to jam this card in their decks so of course were seeing a lot of them and not all the good answers to it yet. Give it time, allow the meta games to adjust. Only then will we be able to determine if the card is indeed too powerful for the format.

It certainly has the format all in a buzz, I do find that somewhat funny.

Legacy can adapt to anything. I think the better question is if the format that emerges as a result is healthier and more enjoyable than before. Or, if the opposite is true. Like it was with Mental Misstep.
I am not saying that TNN and MM are the same, or that TNN must be banned.
All I am saying is that there are certain similarities.
If a significant portion of Legacy players (almost half) dislikes a powerful card enough that they would like to see it gone from the format, as this poll would seem to indicate, then that is an extremely rare event, if nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Technicolor Mage

It certainly has the format all in a buzz, I do find that somewhat funny.

---

Well, you're new. You'll learn.

Two months from now, True-Name Nemesis is still going to be just as ridiculous and just as dumb. I don't see how people think that time is going to somehow alter the card. When you're playing against a Nemesis deck, you still have to beat the rest of the deck. The reason that is so difficult is because the different Nemesis decks hit you from different angles. You can build to beat RUG Delver with Nemesis, but that match plays out differently from Deathblade with Nemesis, which is also different from Bant Nemesis. We honestly haven't even reached the point where dedicated control decks play Nemesis instead of -- or, more likely, in addition to -- Jace, but I suspect we'll be there soon enough. Nemesis is just a big "I win" button more often than not, and the decks that can run it gain so much by doing so. The winning Esperblade list from SCG Oakland was running multiple Supreme Verdicts maindeck, so clearly Nemesis and sweepers aren't mutually exclusive. The best way to fight Nemesis decks will remain going over the top: Playing combo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ESG

Well, you're new. You'll learn.

Two months from now, True-Name Nemesis is still going to be just as ridiculous and just as dumb. I don't see how people think that time is going to somehow alter the card. When you're playing against a Nemesis deck, you still have to beat the rest of the deck. The reason that is so difficult is because the different Nemesis decks hit you from different angles. You can build to beat RUG Delver with Nemesis, but that match plays out differently from Deathblade with Nemesis, which is also different from Bant Nemesis. We honestly haven't even reached the point where dedicated control decks play Nemesis instead of -- or, more likely, in addition to -- Jace, but I suspect we'll be there soon enough. Nemesis is just a big "I win" button more often than not, and the decks that can run it gain so much by doing so. The winning Esperblade list from SCG Oakland was running multiple Supreme Verdicts maindeck, so clearly Nemesis and sweepers aren't mutually exclusive. The best way to fight Nemesis decks will remain going over the top: Playing combo.

---

I agree with all of that.

You can battle TNN but it becomes a battle for equipment and who can get both off the board while having thiers active. Or in control mirros who has resolved more or the last one. What TNN does is it's god for 3 mana against creatures. Except that you don't have to build your deck around it. Your own SFM package and add TNN. There goes your main creature control and clock. Against combo it can probably be the worst card in your deck unless you need a FoW. Sideboard games it most likely won't stay in. But you can beat a combo deck with almost any clock given enough time seeing as they will never put a body down. The rest of the deck gives me that time. TNN and equipment with ways to remove it. That is what decks become centered on. It doesn't effect combo, but it will have an effect on control and aggro decks. StP now becomes worse, so do bolts sweepers will become more desired along with more counterspells and discard.

Out of curiosity, what if instead of banning TNN, they ban SFM? Not advocating this, just opening a thought experiment to everyone. Since it seems the consensus is that a 3/1 for 3 is bad in legacy, but the moment you stick a Jitte on it, it turns unbeatable. So what if ax the enabler? What would that do to the whole meta-warping argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PirateKing

Out of curiosity, what if instead of banning TNN, they ban SFM? Not advocating this, just opening a thought experiment to everyone. Since it seems the consensus is that a 3/1 for 3 is bad in legacy, but the moment you stick a Jitte on it, it turns unbeatable. So what if ax the enabler? What would that do to the whole meta-warping argument?

---

Now that you bring up the point, Wizards could be stupid enought to do it. I would hate to see SFM gone. Sure, it's powerful, but it adds an interesting effect to white. Plus, without SFM, TNN decks would probably just run more equipment to compensate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hof

If a significant portion of Legacy players (almost half) dislikes a powerful card enough that they would like to see it gone from the format, as this poll would seem to indicate, then that is an extremely rare event, if nothing else.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PirateKing

Out of curiosity, what if instead of banning TNN, they ban SFM? Not advocating this, just opening a thought experiment to everyone. Since it seems the consensus is that a 3/1 for 3 is bad in legacy, but the moment you stick a Jitte on it, it turns unbeatable. So what if ax the enabler? What would that do to the whole meta-warping argument?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimmythegreek

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimmythegreek

Essentially its sfm that makes tnn broken not tnn....fact.

---

It's the equipment that combos with a creature that you can't do much with.

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

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

Huh?

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

People seem to be in denial about TNN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

People seem to be in denial about TNN.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

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

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

---

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

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

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