Anyone saying the legacy format is "healthy" is likely of the UW Stoneforge crowd that said the exact same thing when mental misstep was legal.
True-Name Nemesis should have required more than two players for it's ability to come into effect.
Printable View
Anyone saying the legacy format is "healthy" is likely of the UW Stoneforge crowd that said the exact same thing when mental misstep was legal.
True-Name Nemesis should have required more than two players for it's ability to come into effect.
Both Miracles and D&T are pretty well-positioned right now in the MODO meta.Quote:
Originally Posted by EpicLevelCommoner
Now the interesting question is why this doesn't translate well into paper. High skill requirement + mental drain during a long tournament might be a reason.
For the price of three Mox Opals, you can build Manaless Dredge.
I don't play MODO, only paper, but I do now that there are price difference factors between the two. Are the top-dollar cards in Miracles (Duals, Jace, etc) and D&T (Karakas) cheaper on MODO than in paper?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Click on the deck. For every list, you get the option to view both online and Paper prices for said list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
I thought that price might be a factor - but consider that Patriout Delver is about as expensive as Miracles and the Blade decks are significantly more expensive in Paper. D&T is rather "cheap" compared to them.
Yeah, shardless bug is favorable in general against all the tnn or delver decks, it is still a good choice for current meta.Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoFireheart
Liliana can take care of TNN, and they have millions of ways to deal with TNN post board (charm, plague, toxic deluge, etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by EpicLevelCommoner
Shardless also has counters for TNN and BS/Jace to find the hate cards.
Fingers crossedQuote:
Originally Posted by GoblinZ
This is literally the exact same argument that was made (and debunked) for Jund, which is being crushed by TNN decks. Shardless can run TNN itself if necessary though.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoblinZ
The difference is Brainstorm. Shardless BUG runs it, Jund cannot. So Shardless BUG has a higher probability of having the specific, narrow answer needed whereas Jund just crosses it's fingers and hopes to topdeck. Also, having access to maindeck countermagic (Force of Will) is pretty big when it comes to these "jam my TNN?" matchups. Shardless BUG's Force + Brainstorm > anything in Jund, when talking about fighting TNN. Shardless BUG doesn't traditionally run TNN to the best of my knowledge, although I'm sure some silly players tried to cram him in that deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
So... blue. As always.
How has Shardless been performing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Jund is much less consistent and often loses to itself due to bad topdeck in mid and late game. Besides millions of answers to TNN from BUG control, TNN decks usually cannot beat BUG control's huge cards advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
Shardless BUG did quite well in December 2013, finishing 5th out of 49 (although technically 6th once you correct the DeathBlade vs. Deathblade results mistake). This month though? Terrible, currently sitting at 27th out of 31. Don't know why...Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoFireheart
What's so hard to understand, dude? I didn't check your data BY CLICKING EVERY LINK YOU SPAMMED AND COUNTING THE NUMBER OF JUND DECKS FOR EACH MONTH. I simply trusted that you got the numbers right and was done with it. Seen that you're at least a partial asshole, I'm taking anything you write with a spoon of salt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Also, I hope that TNN stays in the meta. As long as Arsenal is so ridiculously butthurt about the fact that his petdeck Maverick is unplayable, I have more fun in Legacy than the last time I 6:0ed for Unlimited Tundra.
I guess I should make tens of fake emails and spam WotC HQ with TTN liebesbriefen.
Stop calling people assholes, asshole. Also, you keep saying 'seen' when you mean to say 'seeing'. Peace! -zilla
I know why: easier to play TNN + SFM while keeping a good combo matchup ala sideboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Okay, we differ greatly on the definition of "aggro" in the context of Legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by EpicLevelCommoner
I like how your definition of "evolve" is actually just playing a completely different deck. BBE Jund is not the same as Jund Nic Fit; it's not "evolution" just because they share the same colors. They are running completely different cards, have completely different strategies, etc. That's like saying Merfolk should "evolve" by cutting all of their creatures and start running stuff like Merchant Scroll, High Tide, Time Spiral, Blue Sun's Zenith... you're just playing High Tide at that point, not Merfolk.Quote:
2) Your point about how answers to TNN kill your own board is laughable, when I clearly stated in the next paragraph (one you didn't quote) that maybe due to non-blue midrange's inability to deal with TNN+SFM.dec, it's time for those non-blue midrange decks to evolve into non-blue/blue-splash control. I even suggested Nic Fit as a well-positioned deck for this format, and I will now suggest the various Stage-Depths control lists as viable contenders. I'm actually surprised Miracles and DnT haven't been doing better since they either have maindeck answers to either TNN or equipment (Terminus, Revoker), so I won't suggest them at the moment.
Once again, what you're advocating isn't a deck "evolving" or "adapting" to the meta, it's just flat out abandoning one deck and moving onto a completely different deck. That's fine, but I don't know why you're trying to claim that Jund just needs to "evolve" when really what you mean is "stop playing BBE Jund, play something else".Quote:
3) Again with the misquotes: I didn't say maindeck Lightning Bolt was stupid; I said it was stupid in conjunction with Punishing Fire in a TNN-heavy meta. I actually can't think of any relevant creatures that can only be killed by Bolt and not Abrupt Decay or Punishing Fire or even Maelstrom Pulse if that's what Jund midrange is willing to run. Also, all creature no burn build? Let me restate that Midrange can't do shit now, and its time for them to evolve into control decks. Drop the creatures that don't provide any utility, drop the reach that can't be recurred effectively, and start putting in more resilient threats and stronger control elements.
The death of non-blue, non-TNN Midrange is a bad thing. Having nothing but various flavors of SFM-TNN (Delver = tempo flavor, Jace = control flavor) dominate while non-blue Midrange can't even sit at the big boy's table is just reducing format diversity. You pointing out that midrange and tempo exist, but in the form of SFM-TNN only, just proves my point. And the format hasn't been "flipped" to non-blue control and SFM-TNN, the format (if you looked at any of the data I presented 5 times in the last three pages) is "play SFM-TNN, play A+B combo, or GTFO".Quote:
And before ya try to say the death of midrange is a bad thing, I'd just like to point out that midrange (and tempo) still exists as SFM+TNN.dec, thus effectively flipping the format on its head and allowing non-blue/blue-splash control to exist in conjunction with blue-heavy tempo/midrange.
I've been on UW Stoneblade since November 1st (GP Denver Esperblade before that) and I've been CRUSHING, so if TNN stays, I just win more. But I'm also smart enough to see that SFM-TNN dominating and pushing non-blue decks out of the meta isn't healthy for the format, which is why I want TNN banned. TNN has reduced format diversity by a great deal. How people think having SFM-TNN be the only competitive Midrange option for Legacy is just beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer
I take it you're probably the guy who'd play Maverick against a combo-infested meta: someone who thinks that just because a deck has done well in the past means that it should always perform well regardless of the meta. If various flavors of non-TNN midrange aren't holding up to snuff in the current meta, then don't play them and don't bitch about how TNN is warping the format because you won't adapt as a player and play a more suitable deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenal
Your data also doesn't take into the account the number of each specific deck during the swiss rounds though. Who's to say that everyone just didn't jump onto the TNN-bandwagon and over-saturate the meta from R1 to Top 8?
It's like you don't even read my posts. I've stated numerous times that I've been on UW Stoneblade (SCG Dallas list to be specific) since November 1st, 2013; yep, I'm definitely the guy still running Illusions-Donate because it was good in the past :rolleyes:. And you know what, people have been playing a more suitable deck for the meta... it's called SFM-TNN. Why? Because it's the best thing you can be doing in Legacy right now; you crush non-TNN decks, you are even with other SFM-TNN decks, you are favored against Storm combo and you are maginally unfavored against A+B combo.Quote:
Originally Posted by EpicLevelCommoner
Also, you were in the "Would you like to see TNN go away" thread when pretty much everyone (except HSCK) agreed that thecouncil's data was going to be the reference point used when citing data. This very website uses thecouncil's data for it's DTB/DTW distinction, but now all of a sudden, the data may not be valid because you don't know the exact number of SFM-TNN players that entered SCG Columbus? Really?
Not so much this.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoblinZ
Mostly this. Shardless is essentially just a Jund deck. You have a few more controlling and a few less aggressive elements, but the game plan of both decks is still the same. Trade removal with their creatures. Trade discard with their hand. Rely on ground pounders and Deathrite to close out the game. Granted, Shardless is much better off than Jund since it has Brainstorm and FoW, but even Jace is pretty flaccid against TNN.Quote:
Originally Posted by EpicLevelCommoner
I speculate that this has something to do with it. I know for a fact that there are a lot of really great Miracles players out there, but taking such a reactive and mentally exhausting deck through 9 rounds of swiss is immensely taxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Another reason occurs to me also... Miracles goes to time a lot more than the average deck. The nature of the beast is simply that even after Miracles establishes control of a game, it can still take quite a few turns to set up a win. Skilled Miracles players compensate for this by playing very quickly. The problem is that many opponents are used to the luxury of being able to play at a moderate to slow pace and never have to worry about the clock. This causes more draws in paper matches. On MTGO however, there is no round clock per say; players have their own chess timers. Therefore, despite Billy taking an extra minute per draw step while trying to figure out how he gets around Counterbalance/Top lock, the MTGO Miracles player is still sitting pretty on his time left for the round.