Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Higgs
That's a leap of logic there. I'm saying convincing people why something is unfun is not practical. Banning a card because people feel it is unfun is quite doable, and has been apparently done in the past (based on the Sphere example).
Again, if you read the quoted text from Forsythe, he makes no mention of fun for Trinisphere's restriction in Vintage. The quoted text says it's "ridiculous", not unfun. As others have stated, the reason Trinisphere is ridiculously powerful in Vintage is because you have decks that can play 5 Black Lotuses and easily generate 3+ mana on T1 in a format that's dominated by 0 and 1 drops.
I don't think it's a far stretch to ask someone to justify to me their reasons for wanting to ban someone. If someone says a card is oppressing the format, I'll ask them to give me numbers to prove it. If someone says something is too powerful, I'll ask them to show me. If someone says it's "unfun", I'll say convince me why it's to such a degree that it requires a banning, especially over other generally accepted more "unfun" cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zombie
TNN doesn't do combat. It's a clock and a planeswalker assassination device. Could as well read "{T}: TNN deals damage equal to it's power to target player or Planeswalker). Play this ability only as a sorcery." and not much would be different. It doesn't swing in the red zone as far as most cards are concerned.
It's a 7 turn clock and why do we care that it can beat up Planeswalkers?
For Umezawa's Jitte, the card that most people agree is what makes TNN most powerful, it dealing combat damage most certainly matters.
It's a combat creature because it does only what every creature does - it only attacks or it blocks (of course, it does them both very well), ie combat.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
In all my testing and playing events over the last month True-Name has proven to be a fine card and nothing worthy of panic. But that's me, I've actually played with and against the card.
I'm really wondering if anyone who actually has strong opinions against it has actually played with the card. Because it seems that they havent.
A lot of Esper's responses echo my thoughts but I don't have the effort to voice them. It may come across that Esper isn't reading their responses but it also comes across that there is this vocal minority hasn't even tested or played with the card that are throwing around the words ban, broken, format warping, unfun...
How do you argue with people who have made their mind up about a card when they haven't even played with or against it?
Their arguments aren't based on facts, just some nonsense paranoia.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zombie
Canadian is not a dedicated TNN deck. If any pack TNN, they typically do it in the side, not the main.
According to thecouncil, the top 5 decks are Sneak Attack, Shardless BUG, Blade Control, Deathblade, and Patriot. RUG Delver is not top 5 currently.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bjholmes3
About statements regarding TNN taking away the combat step, a part of Magic "wholly devoted to interaction of players by means of creatures":
Consider the name of the game. Magic. Implying, you know, spells, sorcery, exciting Gandalf stuff. There is much more to this game than simple creatures bashing each other's brains in (or out, as the case may be). Granted, combat is indeed a major part of the Magic experience, but so are the main phases, upkeep, and end phases, in which combat is a non-component and spells are the way battle is fought. What TNN does to the combat step, Chalice of the Void does to the rest of the turn. What have you to say about things like Silence, Orim's Chant, counters, discard, Trinisphere, etc.? These take away a part of Magic solely devoted to players casting spells and "interacting" with each other. :rolleyes:
You can agree that there are different degrees of interactivity though, right? TNN can be interacted with on the stack and with moderately good non-targeted removal like edicts and sweepers. It's a creature permanent that also operates with near-impunity through combat. Your examples of CotV and Trinisphere can be interacted with on the stack, with removal including targeted removal, they don't take part in a phase in which it's untouchable, and they have to fit into a deck built around them. Silence, Orim's Chant, counters, and discard don't stick around and can be fully interacted with at the only time in which they're active. Meanwhile, TNN can be slotted in most anywhere without forcing a deckbuilder to make concessions for its abilities, usually reduces the combat phase to a spectator sport, is in blue somehow, and presents a much more mindless experience than simply stopping an opponent from casting spells for a turn, making their spells cost more, removing a card from their hand, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tormod
In all my testing and playing events over the last month True-Name has proven to be a fine card and nothing worthy of panic. But that's me, I've actually played with and against the card.
I'm really wondering if anyone who actually has strong opinions against it has actually played with the card. Because it seems that they havent.
A lot of Esper's responses echo my thoughts but I don't have the effort to voice them. It may come across that Esper isn't reading their responses but it also comes across that there is this vocal minority hasn't even tested or played with the card that are throwing around the words ban, broken, format warping, unfun...
How do you argue with people who have made their mind up about a card when they haven't even played with or against it?
Their arguments aren't based on facts, just some nonsense paranoia.
You've posted the claim a few times that people who don't like TNN haven't played in Legacy games involving it. Is this based on facts?
Carsten Kotter wrote similar things in his article and he's certainly experienced.
*Whoever gives me a civil response gets a high five.*
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scott
You've posted the claim a few times that people who don't like TNN haven't played in Legacy games involving it. Is this based on facts?
Carsten Kotter wrote similar things in his article and he's certainly experienced.
*Whoever gives me a civil response gets a high five.*
The vocal minority of this thread against TNN hasn't refuted the absence of play testing, and they are welcome to do so.
Carsten wrote similar things a month ago to appeal to his audience but clearly his conclusion was that True-Name Nemesis isn't worthy of a ban.
Do I get a high five?
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Tormod, I've been on UW Stoneblade (pre-TNN and post-TNN) and have tested extensively against all kinds of decks. I can provide dated posts from the Blade Control thread and the Tourney results thread if you'd like verification.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scott
You can agree that there are different degrees of interactivity though, right? TNN can be interacted with on the stack and with moderately good non-targeted removal like edicts and sweepers. It's a creature permanent that also operates with near-impunity through combat. Your examples of CotV and Trinisphere can be interacted with on the stack, with removal including targeted removal, they don't take part in a phase in which it's untouchable, and they have to fit into a deck built around them. Silence, Orim's Chant, counters, and discard don't stick around and can be fully interacted with at the only time in which they're active. Meanwhile, TNN can be slotted in most anywhere without forcing a deckbuilder to make concessions for its abilities, usually reduces the combat phase to a spectator sport, is in blue somehow, and presents a much more mindless experience than simply stopping an opponent from casting spells for a turn, making their spells cost more, removing a card from their hand, etc.
Certainly there are different degrees of interactivity. Chalice/Sphere/Trinisphere effects affect interactivity by making certain spells harder to play or unplayable (due to not having enough mana to cast them). Removal that affects them is already of a much smaller subset of played cards that affect creatures. Again, being a noncreature permanent already means they ignore the combat step.
While TNN is a better fit in most Legacy decks, that's in part because creatures in general are easier to play in most decks, similar to how easy it is to fit a Tarmogoyf into most green decks if you want to. Even with how powerful TNN is, it still sees more play as a 1-3 of than as a 4-of in decks that play it, so it's hardly (currently) an auto-include for blue decks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scott
You've posted the claim a few times that people who don't like TNN haven't played in Legacy games involving it. Is this based on facts?
Carsten Kotter wrote similar things in his article and he's certainly experienced.
*Whoever gives me a civil response gets a high five.*
While Carsten Kotter certainly said similar things in his article, he also was not advocating a ban on TNN either, specifically stating that he believes it is not broken in the traditional sense of the word.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tormod
The vocal minority of this thread against TNN hasn't refuted the absence of play testing, and they are welcome to do so.
Carsten wrote similar things a month ago to appeal to his audience but clearly his conclusion was that True-Name Nemesis isn't worthy of a ban.
Do I get a high five?
His full quote for reference:
Quote:
So does True-Name Nemesis need the banhammer treatment? I don't think it does; however, I'd much enjoy seeing it happen. Yes, it's going to further limit what you can do in the format and will make blue an even more dominant color than it already is, but it won't be able to actually dominate the format itself. There are enough decks out there that can go over the top of it or ignore most of its special talents to make sure of that. There are also enough answers out there to build decks that will successfully deal with it for those willing to move in that direction.
What True-Name Nemesis does however is to force a massive shift in the Legacy metagame, one that goes in a direction most players won't be too happy with. There will be more blue, more combo, and hard control; there will be fewer midrange decks, and the games between them will include significantly more one-sided blowouts. In short, the format will be worse but probably still by far the most diverse and skill-testing one there is.
Basically, he echoes what most (from what I've seen, not the minority that you say) Legacy players think: In the way that the ban list is usually used, against format domination and such, it wouldn't get banned, but they dislike the card and what it may do to the format, and wouldn't be unhappy if it got banned.
And yes! You pass--the underhandedness of "to appeal to his audience" keeps you from a unanimous vote--but you've earned it.
EDIT: Redemption for Esper3k and high fives to him/her too.
http://magiccards.info/scans/en/dka/92.jpg
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
That flavor text describes this thread incredibly well.
Latest Metagame Analysis (12/17/13 @ 2:00 pm UTC)
Info taken from The Council
- Sneak Attack, 9 tops, 0 copies of TNN
- BUG Control, 9 tops, 1 copy of TNN
- Deathblade, 8 tops, 30 copies of TNN
- Patriot, 7 tops, 18 copies of TNN
- Blade Control, 7 tops, 18 copies of TNN
- Death & Taxes, 6 tops, 0 copies of TNN
- Team America, 5 tops, 0 copies of TNN
- Nic Fit, 5 tops, 0 copies of TNN
With recent activity, TNN has seen a marked increase in play.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tormod
The vocal minority of this thread against TNN hasn't refuted the absence of play testing, and they are welcome to do so.
According to the poll results, 45% want a ban. I wouldn't really call that a "vocal minority" in the way that phrase is usually applied.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Admiral_Arzar
According to the poll results, 45% want a ban. I wouldn't really call that a "vocal minority" in the way that phrase is usually applied.
Keep in mind that there is a significant proportion of posters (like myself) who wouldn't mind if TNN disappeared, but don't want it banned until we've had more time to see the long-term effect that it has on the format.
I think TNN is actively bad for the format, but I'm not advocating for a ban right now.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lordofthepit
Keep in mind that there is a significant proportion of posters (like myself) who wouldn't mind if TNN disappeared, but don't want it banned until we've had more time to see the long-term effect that it has on the format.
I think TNN is actively bad for the format, but I'm not advocating for a ban right now.
This is actually my position as well, although I voted "yes" because I would like to see the card banned eventually...not immediately though, this ain't Memory Jar.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Admiral_Arzar
This is actually my position as well, although I voted "yes" because I would like to see the card banned eventually...not immediately though, this ain't Memory Jar.
I would much rather have memory jar in the format *wink* *wink*.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dontbiteitholmes
Yeah again you can't really compare the unfun of a 3/1 pro-you creature to the unfun of never being able to play a spell for a game of Magic that lasts 5+ turns.
As an occasional Vintage MUD player I can say with some certainty that turn 1 Trinisphere almost feels like an autowin unless they are playing the mirror or Dredge. I almost feel bad when it sticks because it certainly doesn't seem like fun for the other person.
A lot of the "unfun" criticisms mirror those that were expressed about Trinisphere. Power level is obviously a different metric. I have also seen people playing TNN grumble or apologize when they drop it into play or say something to the effect of, "This is so dumb." This is similar to your niggling of unpleasant feelings when you drop a Trinisphere and lock your opponent out. I've never heard anyone apologize for blasting someone with a lethal Tendrils on Turn 1 or playing a Turn 1 Show and Tell or playing a Turn 1 Blood Moon, even though these plays all effectively made those games into Solitaire. People actually find True-Name Nemesis more disagreeable and more unfun than those scenarios, which is why they make an in-game apology like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Esper3k
Where did the quote on the banning mention fun?
Posting it again and bolding it for you, Esper3k.
The official explanation from Aaron Forsythe in 2005:
"Trinisphere is a nasty card, no bones about it. It does ridiculous things in Vintage, especially combined with Mishra's Workshop. As I've said in a previous column, we almost restricted it before it was even released.
Now that it has been floating around for a while, the Vintage crowd understands that the card does good things for the format, and bad things to the format. While it does serve a role of keeping combo decks in check, it also randomly destroys people on turn one, with little recourse other than Force of Will. And those games end up labeled with that heinous word—unfun. Not just “I lost” unfun, but “Why did I even come here to play?” unfun. The power level of the card is no jokes either, which is a big reason why I don't feel bad about its restriction.
Vintage, like the other formats with large card pools, always runs the risk of becoming non-interactive, meaning the games are little more than both players “goldfishing” to see who can win first."
He is citing two reasons for the card's banning: "Unfun" to play against and power level. One of these is widely regarded to apply to True-Name Nemesis. Power level is the issue that people are more divided on, with some feeling that the card is overpowered and others feeling it is not overpowered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bjholmes3
:data:
With recent activity, TNN has seen a marked increase in play.
This is an example of format warping, the beginnings of format dominance. It's also important to note that True-Name Nemesis has been in every champion's list from each major U.S. tourney since GP D.C. except for the SCG Invitational, which was won by combo (Omni-Tell), beating a TNN deck in the finals, and SCG Providence, which was won by combo (Sneak and Show), beating a TNN deck in the finals.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ESG
It's also important to note that True-Name Nemesis has been in every champion's list from each major U.S. tourney since GP D.C. except for the SCG Invitational, which was won by combo (Omni-Tell), beating a TNN deck in the finals, and SCG Providence, which was won by combo (Sneak and Show), beating a TNN deck in the finals.
Actually, the Invitational was won by a Standard deck beating another Standard deck in the finals, which actually strengthens your argument. I would look up which Standard decks were involved, except those words don't mean anything to me and don't really affect your argument.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ESG
This is an example of format warping, the beginnings of format dominance. It's also important to note that True-Name Nemesis has been in every champion's list from each major U.S. tourney since GP D.C. except for the SCG Invitational, which was won by combo (Omni-Tell), beating a TNN deck in the finals, and SCG Providence, which was won by combo (Sneak and Show), beating a TNN deck in the finals.
It was also in the SCG Dallas-winning list (UW Stoneblade), beating combo (ANT). But the Top 8 of the Invitational actually played Standard, so Omnitell didn't actually beat a TNN deck in the finals.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lordofthepit
Keep in mind that there is a significant proportion of posters (like myself) who wouldn't mind if TNN disappeared, but don't want it banned until we've had more time to see the long-term effect that it has on the format.
I think TNN is actively bad for the format, but I'm not advocating for a ban right now.
I am sure there are people like myself who have not voted too while having a strong opinion. Personally, I want the card gone, gone but not banned. Erated to give protection from a Commander I like.
I will not vote because yes I want the card gone, but I am fearful of the precedent banning it will do. Still I hate the very precedent this card sets too.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
The issue is exacerbated beyond whether TNN is good or not. The best aggro color is now blue, which also happens to run Force of Will in almost all (>95%?) of variations. This makes the blue aggro deck (Delver, TNN, Daze, etc) better at large against the metagame than non-blue decks. This reduces the variety of decks viable and polarizes the format into "decks that have the best chance fighting TNN fairly, and decks that ignore TNN".
This is clearly not desirable for any given format. Cards that limit meaningful deck choices is a justifiable reason to ban said cards.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arsenal
If you're looking to build a creature-based deck, the only two questions that matter are "how can I best support running TNN?" and "can I beat TNN without running TNN of my own?" Obviously, this doesn't apply to combo decks as they don't care about TNN at all.
Koby, prepare to be told how wrong you are...
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arsenal
Koby, prepare to be told how wrong you are...
Running TNN is a way to fight TNN fairly. As we can clearly see from GP DC coverage, the best way to beat TNN is to have one more copy of the card in play than your opponent.
