All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by testing32

So, you see a top 16 with 13 unique decks (the one with 3 was ANT), 4 total copies of TNN and still claim that TNN is warping the format?

---

Into decks that either run TNN or ignore TNN. I can see why he says that, all the decks fit the criteria for that in the top 8 and a vast majority of them in the top 16.

Having said that, I'm a fan of the #10 deck B/W Aggro. What a meta call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPoJohnson

Into decks that either run TNN or ignore TNN. I can see why he says that, all the decks fit the criteria for that in the top 8 and a vast majority of them in the top 16.

Having said that, I'm a fan of the #10 deck B/W Aggro. What a meta call.

---

With 7/16 being non-combo non-TNN decks? I'm not buying it.

Which 7 do you see? I see RUG (always a strong deck).

The others either combo so they don't care, or run many answers to it.

And BUG is strong against most TNN decks.

Of course you run answers to it. Doesn't mean you don't care about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPoJohnson

Into decks that either run TNN or ignore TNN. I can see why he says that, all the decks fit the criteria for that in the top 8 and a vast majority of them in the top 16.

Having said that, I'm a fan of the #10 deck B/W Aggro. What a meta call.

---

Shardless and RUG both care about TNN, don't play past it (combo/enough fliers) and don't run TNN themselves. Shardless does okay against TNN because even if answering TNN is worse than playing it or playing past it, Shardless is consistent and the natural shell for all the best TNN hate. And it's seen a big decline for a reason. Still, let's not claim it is a no-care deck, because it isn't one. It's just the one that comes closest to successfully caring about the bloody fish.

Shardless natural strategy is to create a ton of card advantage and clog up the board with tons of creatures to stall and overwhelm the opponent. Golgari Charm is not a good card in shardless because they cascade and run 1/1 deathtouch themselves. Liliana can be played but, the cmc3 slot is already pretty full and you if you still want to run jace (which you should) there is not really a lot of space unless you make the deck even more clunky. To run Liliana to great effect you need to keep the board on the other side clear, however shardless usually has only 4 decay to remove creatures but makes up for it with tons of bodies.

So in my opinion: No, shardless does not have the room for the best tools against TNN and neither is their natural strategy good vs. TNN because all of those random bodies do not matter. Hence the decline in Shardless makes sense and it cares A LOT about TNN:

BUG Delvers natural strategy on the other hand does well against TNN because it does evasive damage while doing a better job to keep the board clear -> so liliana and golgari charm can be played to a better effect. Still I would not go as far as to say "they don't care about TNN". They do care, but their strategy matches up well.

So in terms of BUG, Nemesis seems to have produced a shift in the meta, but as soon as one BUG deck stays Tier 1, this is a point in favor of TNN beeing "ok".

It's incredible that you quote my post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

Um... that Top 8 is 75% running TNN or not caring about TNN at all. RUG Delver and Shardless BUG are the only two decks not on the "run TNN or don't care about TNN at all" plan.

---

and reply with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by testing32

So, you see a top 16 with 13 unique decks (the one with 3 was ANT), 4 total copies of TNN and still claim that TNN is warping the format?

---

You do realize that I said nothing re: the top 16 as HSCK and I agreed that we'd only be discussing/analyzing top 8 data from the 33+ player tourneys. If that has since changed without me knowing, I'll gladly start including all the #9-16 TNN decks that I've been mining from these tourney results.

Also, what I said is absolutely correct. 75% of the TOP 8 (TOP 8, TOP 8, TOP 8... just so you don't strawman me again) either is running TNN or not caring about TNN at all.

________________________________________________________________________________________


Zombie did a nice job summarizing my thoughts on the meta pre-TNN and post-TNN just a page back:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombie

This whole thing is absurdly hard to parse, and really tries to force objective criteria on a thing that is inherently a subjective thing largely gauged by gut feeling, from what I can understand.

On the first paragraph, consider that before TNN, there wasn't really a "beat this card or ignore it if you want to succeed" type of dynamic anywhere. The format was more defined by strategic approaches than any individual cards. It was far more fruitful to think "I want to play grindy midrange", and from there you had many choices - Shardless, Jund, Deathblade. Fringe players like Maverick and Goblins play a lot like that, as do Elves when they're in a fair mood. Same with tempo and combo archetypes. You see what the meta is like and build to prey on a high-level strategic tendency.

The current meta feels a lot different because TNN is so absurdly good. It's low-investment, slots into existing decks easily and trivially takes over games when it lands, contorting them to be about the abominable fish and nothing else. It by itself drives out a lot of decks from the format, and then has two nasty side effects from the proliferation of Show and Tell that is both good vs. TNN and somewhat preyed upon by all the Hymn decks TNN drove out of the format. The extra SB space TNN allows the Stoneforge decks helped drive Storm out.

We may still have top 8 lists with a lot of different names, but the format dynamic is completely different, it's way more constrained, and the farce-like games involving TNN and Show and Tell become more and more common. Many of the decks driven out were nonblue.

This change in the nature of the format is what people object to, and to the dullness of the games involving the damnable fish. (Whether SnT is thrown in depends on who you ask - IMNSHO they are both part and parcel of the cancer eating away at the format)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catmint

Shardless natural strategy is to create a ton of card advantage and clog up the board with tons of creatures to stall and overwhelm the opponent. Golgari Charm is not a good card in shardless because they cascade and run 1/1 deathtouch themselves. Liliana can be played but, the cmc3 slot is already pretty full and you if you still want to run jace (which you should) there is not really a lot of space unless you make the deck even more clunky. To run Liliana to great effect you need to keep the board on the other side clear, however shardless usually has only 4 decay to remove creatures but makes up for it with tons of bodies.

---

Golgari Charm is not useless nor terrible in Shardless. The -1/-1 hitting your birds isn't a big deal. Relevant enchantments it can destroy:


Counterbalance
Rest in Peace
Sneak Attack
Blood Moon
Spirit of the Labyrinth


Note that the regeneration effect protects your guys from Supreme Verdict as well. Also, being black it runs all of the right cards that can actually kill TNN.

True-Name Nemesis is the Adolf Hitler of Legacy. Most hate it, but many players are still drawn in by its power and charisma. The powers that be refuse to acknowledge the truth of its aggressive and despotic designs and pursue a policy of appeasement and adaptation. Meanwhile, it invades and conquers the format deck by deck and simultaneously exterminates what it deems to be "inferior" archetypes. The format - and the world - will never be the same, for this will not end without untold misery and destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

Golgari Charm is not useless nor terrible in Shardless. The -1/-1 hitting your birds isn't a big deal. Relevant enchantments it can destroy:


Counterbalance
Rest in Peace
Sneak Attack
Blood Moon
Spirit of the Labyrinth


Note that the regeneration effect protects your guys from Supreme Verdict as well. Also, being black it runs all of the right cards that can actually kill TNN.

---

Of course it is not useless nor terrible. However it is not at it's best due to the reasons I specified.

More importantly: Kudos @ Admiral! I hope nobody is offended by comparing the holocaust to the a new magic card, but it is very funny I think. :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catmint

More importantly: Kudos @ Admiral! I hope nobody is offended by comparing the holocaust to the a new magic card, but it is very funny I think. :laugh:

---

I was going for dark humor and meant no offense. If anyone is offended let me know and I will delete the post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar

I was going for dark humor and meant no offense. If anyone is offended let me know and I will delete the post.

---

I think you should delete it. (I'm not Jewish, but it shouldn't matter if I am or not.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shawon

I think you should delete it. (I'm not Jewish, but it shouldn't matter if I am or not.)

---

He should not. The analogy is both apt and funny.

I know how certain people on the Source love Bob Huang's metagame analysis well in his most recent article he mentions that he finds the format to be stale at the moment. So while there aren't necessarily the raw figures to point to TNN to say its format warping (although he does point out that now 9 decks make up more percentage of the metagame than 11 did prior to TNN), it certainly doesn't make the format more fun to play or watch.

I'm not understanding his methodology. His previous article stated that he used only 129+ player tourneys, but in this most recent article, he states that he's using 100+ player tourneys. This change is important as he's comparing two "eras" against each other, but he used two different sets of data (8 round 129+ player tourneys vs. 7 round 100+ player tourneys). The change in his floor and then his comparison between the two doesn't make sense. Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

I'm not understanding his methodology. His previous article stated that he used only 129+ player tourneys, but in this most recent article, he states that he's using 100+ player tourneys. This change is important as he's comparing two "eras" against each other, but he used two different sets of data (8 round 129+ player tourneys vs. 7 round 100+ player tourneys). The change in his floor and then his comparison between the two doesn't make sense. Thoughts?

---

The data fit the analysis he wanted to make a little better? I'm not sure why such a change would occur.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar

True-Name Nemesis is the Adolf Hitler of Legacy. Most hate it, but many players are still drawn in by its power and charisma. The powers that be refuse to acknowledge the truth of its aggressive and despotic designs and pursue a policy of appeasement and adaptation. Meanwhile, it invades and conquers the format deck by deck and simultaneously exterminates what it deems to be "inferior" archetypes. The format - and the world - will never be the same, for this will not end without untold misery and destruction.

---

Does this mean that SFM has to crash planes into Pearl Harbor before WoTC will take action?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zilla

Does this mean that SFM has to crash planes into Pearl Harbor before WoTC will take action?

---

They would ban SFM and demand SFMs as part of tournament entry fees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zilla

Does this mean that SFM has to crash planes into Pearl Harbor before WoTC will take action?

---

I think Tojo/SFM has already crashed plenty of Batterskulls into the harbor of Legacy, the question is whether WoTC has the spine to declare war against the Axis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar

True-Name Nemesis is the Adolf Hitler of Legacy.

---

Where are the alters with brown uniform, swastika and Hitler beard?