Printable View
I don't want to push this point further but that's what I'm thinking as well. Just because you can Aven Mindcensor in response to Tinker doesn't mean that Tinker is an OK card in Legacy. Or just because you can Notien Thief against Necro doesn't mean Necro is an OK card. There are perfectly fine arguments here for not banning TNN but to me they all end up focusing on the fact that you can answer TNN.
Necro doesn't actually draw cards but point made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgs
Can I have Necro?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Welp, since Disenchant exists, sure!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
Only on a 7/7 demon with lifelink, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
I am saying the arguments for banning it are similar to the whining to ban Tarmogoyf when it was printed. Sure, it is a powerful creature. It is ultimately just a creature that turns sideways and improves your matchups against other creature strategies involved turning ground dorks sideways. That is actually a fairly big difference from just being answerable. There is no precedent to ban a card on such grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Perhaps I should not have given further examples. I was just trying to demonstrate that a "protection from everything"-like effect on a 3/1 body is by no means broken. Not only is it answerable but plenty of Legacy decks can shrug it off without changing their deck configurations, very different from these silly Necro and other examples.
So... because TNN is a creature, and because other creatures are not banned, TNN shouldn't be banned?
The default is that a card is not banned. The better question is... why SHOULD it be banned? Because it is better than many other creatures? Because it can win the game on turn 9 if opponent cracked 2 fetches and can't counter it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
People were arguing it should be banned because it is tough to answer. Hence I was showing it is quite answerable. Necro and Tinker were not banned because they were tough to answer, they were banned because they do broken overpowered things, so then being answerable isn't a counter argument. TNN does not do broken overpowered things. It does not warp the format. It is sufficiently answerable. Do you have a good reason to ban it?
It really boils down to the decreased interaction I have with my opponents. I'm playing a fair deck because I want to interact with my opponent, TNN takes that option away from me. In many fair vs. fair games I've played, once I have TNN resolved, it no longer becomes me interacting with him, the game devolves into me watching him furiously dig for his TNN answer; likewise for the reverse. I suppose I could just not run TNN, but then I'd lose to other fair decks playing TNN, so I pretty much have to run him in order to keep pace.
Also, just conceptually, it's a terrible card that doesn't do anything to add to the game (it simply takes away interactions and possible lines of play instead). I really hope that TNN is an abberation and won't see other similar cards.
If decreased interaction with opponents is your only criteria, then following your line of thinking, all combo decks should be banned? At what point do you draw what looks to be a pretty arbitrary line?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
To me, it simply has not been proven that TNN:
1) Enables any sort of consistent, 1 card combo.
2) There is a lack of answers to it in the format.
3) Oppressed/Saturated the format to the point where either everyone has to play a deck built around it or play a deck specifically designed to beat it.
Arguments like "unfun" and "noninteractive" are completely subjective and purely dependent the player.
I have plenty of fun playing TNN and against it. When playing against it, I find that I have no shortage of interaction with it.
This just occurred to me, so please don't hurt me for not entirely thinking it through...but what if people's problems with TNN stem from the "Sirlin Positioning" that it forces upon them? I'm referring to this article when I say that. Lemme clarify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esper3k
People play combo because they want to interact as little as possible. People play fair because they want to interact as much as possible. Let's just assume these to be true for the sake of argument.
Now, people's troubles with TNN occur when, while playing a fair deck, they resolve a TNN and suddenly they feel like they are playing a combo deck in the sense that now they don't have to interact if they don't want to. Now you have forced a "fair" player into a gamestate where they feel like a "combo" player, and this weird feeling makes them uncomfortable because this is not how they intended to play the game. (I'm making a lot of assumptions here) This forced perspective shift feels to them, somewhat broken and wrong. If they had signed up to play broken shit ala combo from the start, then they would have perhaps gotten over this feeling from the moment they sleeved up their decks. But they didn't sign up for this combo mumbo jumbo. They wanted to play fair. And now that they are slamming TNNs, they just feel gross about it.
Am I psychoanalyzing too much here? I am huh? I gotta cut that shit out.
Does this resonate with anybody?
I think the card is kinda stupid either way but I'm apathetic about the whole thing. I'll let tournament results sort it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esper3k
I was mulling over this some more today and wanted to make note of another point of why I liked TNN:
Over much of the history of MTG, non-creature spells have traditionally been more powerful than creature spells. Nowadays, WoTC has been trying to push the envelope of creatures. Even looking past Tarmogoyf, look at the great 1-drops and 2-drops we have available to us today - Delver of Secrets, Deathrite Shaman, Goblin Guide, Stoneforge Mystic, Young Pyromancer, etc. Legacy, given that our card pool spans the history of MTG, is still dominated by spells (Brainstorm, StP, Lightning Bolt, Dark Ritual, LED, Show & Tell, Force of Will, Thoughtseize, etc.). I mean really - our "aggro" decks are ones that run 12 creatures and 30 spells?
However, if you look at the creatures that regularly see play, we have a real lack of powerful creatures in the 3 drop slot. Yes, even Knight of the Reliquary is generally too weak these days.
In TNN, we get a creature that isn't huge, but is great at doing what the two functions creatures basically do: attacking and blocking. Nothing else.
WoTC has given us a 3 drop creature that manages to be Legacy playable (I'd go as far as to say it'll eventually become a staple), yet does not enable some sort of combo. I actually find that somewhat impressive.
What does our community go and do? Start complaining about it!
And people wonder why WoTC doesn't cater to us more...
But TNN is never going to change that back. I'd say that TNN has probably ensured that we will never ever see a high creature count aggro deck (ie zoo) again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esper3k
wotc has given us multiple fun/interesting creatures that became playable in Legacy. Even in the past year we've gotten Young Pyromancer and Deathrite Shaman. With Snapcaster, Thalia, and more all being pretty recent. We didn't need to have threads that took over the entire forum arguing about cards like those but they've still added a lot to creature decks and none of them are combo pieces. I don't think that a powerful new creature has to be controversial or polarizing.
The biggest problem with TNN is that it pretty much removes all incentive to play non-blue "fair" decks. Prior to to TNN, you could play decks like Jund and Maverick because the beat up on the "fair" blue decks which made up a sizable portion of the meta. Now, TNN really shores up the match ups for the the blue decks, they're now at least even and not 70/30 or 60/40 as they have been in the past. But since these other midrange decks don't have blue, they're soft to combo but that was fine because you had other good match ups. Now they lost their good match ups but their bad match ups are still bad and combo is on the upswing since its one of the best ways of beating TNN, by not caring about it. So now what is the point in playing any of these decks? You're soft to combo and even against most of the rest of the field, that does not seem like a winning deck.
Plus now that TNN is really starting to take off people are playing things like MD Supreme Verdict which is bad for the aggressive decks that could try and swarm the TNN decks. I think its very likely that over the next few months TNN will warp the format, turning the format into TNN decks, decks that don't care about TNN, and anti-TNN decks.
thank you. Ban Vengevine 2014!Quote:
Originally Posted by pirateking
1)Printing Cards that are legacy legal but not modern legal is just not a good idea.
I would argue that reprinting scavenging ooze for the other formats is just as, if not more detrimental than printing True Name Nemesis for only legacy and vintage. This gives the perception that the legacy format becomes a testing ground for modern.
2) If people would stop being so magic racist and see everything as colorless, powerful cards with innate abilities in traditionally opposing colors could all hold hands and share. Tim was a blue card, Grim Lavamancer stole it. So where's my blue lightning bolt?
True-Name Nemesis wasn't printed for only Legacy and Vintage. It was also printed for Commander. In fact, Commander was the format it was printed for; the fact it was legal in Legacy and Vintage was just a side effect. Similarly, when Scavenging Ooze was reprinted, it was reprinted for Standard, with the side effect of introducing it into Modern. I doubt they were thinking "this is okay in Legacy, let's put it in Modern." Most likely they were thinking "well, this card is in demand and worth something and wouldn't break Standard, and it could be interesting in Standard, so why not put it into Standard?" Which I agree with; I thought the card was quite interesting in Standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by luckme10
If they unbanned survival people would just use it to get 4 TNNs into play.
I definitely do not believe this. Wotc intentionally includes some new cards in precons that are designed and intended to be staples or at least playables in formats other than the format the precon is targeted at. They almost always do this and it makes sense since all they need to do is throw one interesting card into some precons (Flusterstorm, Ooze, Toxic Deluge, Unexpectedly Absent, TNN, Baleful Strix, Shardless Agent) and then an entire different audience will buy them. Those cards I listed are not made for the casual audience that the rest of the precon is made for. 59/60 cards (or 99/100) sell the product to casuals and the 1 other card sells it to people like us. It's their strategy and it's a pretty good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Seth
I think the problem is that they design cards for eternal formats without developing and testing them.