Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
I believe a more accurate term to use to describe a ban-worthy card is "polarizing": if a card is so powerful that the format forces you to build and play with it or build and play against it, completely preventing building and playing around it, then it should be banned. Skullclamp and Mental Misstep are examples of polarizing cards.
True-Name Nemesis is nowhere close to that, seeing how the format hasn't really changed outside of TNN being dominant, just like Goyf was the undisputed king of every format it was legal in pre-Green Sun's Zenith.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arsenal
TNN isn't a card you build an entire deck around. You simply slap it into existing strategies/decks and watch them work exponentially better than before. You can continue thinking Blade Control, Patriot, Bant and Deathblade are just Delver/SFM/DRS/GSZ decks, but they are all just trying their best to support TNN (mana ramping him with DRS/Noble, beating opposing TNN with SFM-Equipment, etc).
Also, a card doesn't have to be the focal point in order to be unhealthy. Mental Misstep was added to existing strategies/decks and made them all exponentially better than before. But you should be fine with that because, I mean, they weren't labelled "Mental Misstep decks", right?
I would actually say that the Reid Duke Bant deck and the Blade Control decks are the closest we currently have to dedicated TNN decks.
It's when you try and classify decks like UWR Delver and RUG as TNN decks to fit your anti-TNN agenda is what I take issue with.
True, a card doesn't have to be the focal point of a deck to warrant a ban. Let me know when the numbers of TNNs being played reaches Mental Misstep levels. And of course, you think TNN is on the same power level as Mental Misstep is, right?
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
No, not on the same power level. It's always been the "unfun" factor for me.
Also, why is Blade Control a dedicated TNN deck, but Patriot isn't? Both decks run SFM-Equipment to trump opposing TNNs, Blade Control runs 1-2 maindeck sweepers as a concession to the TNN mirror, and the SCG Dallas list even went so far to run a maindeck Celestial Flare to fight TNN. I'm curious why you think running 3 maindeck TNN in Blade Control = TNN deck, but running 2 maindeck TNN in Patriot = not a TNN deck.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scott
It's not just about decks being pushed out. Some Tier 2 decks/approaches stand no chance in matchups they should, a few Tier 1 decks/color have been pushed ever higher at the top, and there's homogenization. I see that Brainstorm was in 52% of decks in 2011, 62% in 2012, and 70% in the last two months.
Now the interesting question is whether or not TNN is the reason for the BS increase due to more blue decks to play TNN + more combo to ignore TNN.
But 70% is alot. It would be interesting to know how much % of the field a card would have to take to be considered ban-worthy, since this was the argument for Mental Missstep that basically every deck had to run a full playset.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arsenal
No, not on the same power level. It's always been the "unfun" factor for me.
Also, why is Blade Control a dedicated TNN deck, but Patriot isn't? Both decks run SFM-Equipment to trump opposing TNNs, Blade Control runs 1-2 maindeck sweepers as a concession to the TNN mirror, and the SCG Dallas list even went so far to run a maindeck Celestial Flare to fight TNN. I'm curious why you think running 3 maindeck TNN in Blade Control = TNN deck, but running 2 maindeck TNN in Patriot = not a TNN deck.
I said closest thing we have to a dedicated TNN deck. I'm not certain we have actually seen one truly built around it yet.
It all comes down the primary game plan of the deck. Within Stoneblade decks, I would say only the Esper / Deathblade builds these days have a primary plan of controlling the board until you can suit up your TNN and win off the back of it. I would actually call Thomason's UW list a Jace deck more than anything else. The main plan of that deck is to stall and leverage the power of Jace. Sure, it can go with the beat-them-to-death-with-TNN/Batterskull plan, but those pieces are there mainly to protect Jace.
Tempo / Delver decks plan on dropping a quick threat and then disrupting you while their threat kills you. TNN in those decks, as can be seen by their generally low maindeck numbers or being relegated to the sideboard, is their backup plan.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Speaking of experienced players writing about TNN, here's one saying why people shouldn't freak out yet:
http://www.channelfireball.com/artic...fine-stagnant/
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Esper3k
And still misses that there have been a crapton of actually interesting and powerful cards in Commander sets. Stuff that isn't uninteractive, boring crap.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers...3181&type=cardhttp://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers...6260&type=cardhttp://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers...0733&type=card
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers...6559&type=cardhttp://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers...8255&type=card
When I look at these, I see interesting cards that allow for fun things.
When I see this I see a shit that doesn't make the game more fun, but more boring:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers...6562&type=card
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Ignoring SCGs and other tournaments, why not discuss what you've noticed from your LGS tournaments?
Here's what I've noticed:
- Before TNN, we would get an average of 15 players on Monday nights. In the last month, that has dropped to 11 (and thus 3 rounds instead of 4).
- There are a couple of people who have consistently played a TNN deck every Monday since the card came out. Prior to TNN, a friend of mine had come in first 3-4 times in the last half year. He's a decent player, but definitely did not have the same results as he does now - he has placed 1st, 1st, 2nd, and 4th in the last 4 tournaments. He is the only person I know who likes the card - and that is because he enjoys winning.
- Our diverse meta has shrunk - this is because TNN is in a lot of decks and a due to a smaller attendance.
Quite frankly, I think Nemesis is a shining example of a badly designed card. Based on observations at my LGS, I think it should be banned for various reasons including the decline of meta diversity, attendance, and the overall fun factor. Anyone who claims Nemesis is interactive is lying. If this card was designed for multi-player games, then it has no business being in a 1v1 format - just like ante cards were designed for ante games and thus are not allowed in Legacy.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lordofthepit
Actually, the Invitational was won by a Standard deck beating another Standard deck in the finals, which actually strengthens your argument.
Yeah, the SCG Invitational is a special case. What I meant is that the first-place Legacy deck was Omni-Tell; the second-place Legacy deck was Merfolk maxed out on Nemeses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deadpool09
You are so determined to hate tnn that youre basically saying its not ok if one of the most dominating decks in the history of the format (rug) got dethroned. Btw, rug will always be included in the decks to beat as long as the concept of tempo exist. So aside from Jund, what else did tnn obliterated completely? it feels like the haters here are a bunch of terrorist fear mongering the apocalypse that is tnn. STOP SELLING THE FORMAT SHORT. It will stabilize. It is not mental misstep. Jeezus.
Maybe you need a history lesson? Let's grab some quotes from the Mental Misstep thread circa August 2011. (The card was banned a month later.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hollywood
Now that Misstep is here, people are complaining it is warping the format. It isn't 'warping' anything, folks; it's a product of a lack of creativity. There is a huge influx of new players running brews they see listed on Star City's website or by word of mouth from friends, and those folks just pick those decks up and run with them. Legacy is at an all-time low as it pertains to its 'creative' aspect, which is why you see the same decks like NO Rug, Hive Mind, etc. running the gauntlet week in and week out. I still feel the format is fine, though. There are lots of different archetypes winning each week, which is what makes the format great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Shawn
This. People will adjust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TooCloseToTheSun
How is the format not healthy. I think we are getting tunnel vision and are just focusing on the SCG events, there are other tournaments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
daPaule
Anyhow this seems to be an american problem. Everyone likes to join the bus instead of doing something against it ;)
I remain confident that True-Name Nemesis decks will continue to post impressive tournament finishes, just as Mental Misstep proved to be intractable.
I like Caleb, but his latest article spoke about League of Legends the majority of the time, and it didn't exactly stick up for Nemesis. Rather, he opines that all change is good change, from the perspective of a deck builder. Also, this statement is awful, and I couldn't disagree with it more:
"But it's the changes that keep games fresh, whether the pros like it or not. Players at the top have to relearn, temporarily shaking things up and giving new players a chance. Everyone, at all levels, gets to experience that rush of accomplishment over again.
Following this logic, changing the legend rule was good for Magic. Changing it again will also be good for Magic. They could make damage stack again, and that'd be fine too. Not because damage stacking is good or bad for the game, that's mostly irrelevant. A small, arbitrary shift to the game, just to keep people on their toes, has value in itself."
Change for the sake of change, with no reasoning behind it? No thanks.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Esper3k
Isn't that the guy that got survival banned? That's like someone telling you that you're home security is good enough, after robbing your house.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Once again, I'm not advocating banning TNN yet, but the arguments in favor of it have been quite lacking.
Here's why Flash shouldn't be banned: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazin...ol07/welcome#5
I don't think TNN approaches the degeneracy of Survival or Mental Misstep, but the other two are more interactive and skill-intensive cards to play with (as well as being much more fun in the case of Survival). Moreover, TNN is already putting up much better results than Mystical Tutor ever did.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Usualy I like Caleb, but that article seems a little bit off. He indeed talked more about League of Legends than about MTG.
What kind of hosers is Wizards going to print to fix this without banning TNN? Maybe something like this in an EDH product, remember it is supposed to work only for multiplayer games but R&D will simply 'forget' to test it in Legacy:
Stupid dumb red dude 1R
Creature something something
3/1
Haste, First strike
Stupid dumb red dude cannot be countered.
As Stupid dumb red dude enters the battlefield, choose a player controlling an island. That player loses the game.
Be sure to waste your underground sea while it's on the stack! See it even got answers!
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
If you want a red fixer card, it wouldn't be to hard.
1R
Sorcery
deals 2 damage to every creature.
damage cannot be prevented.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nielsie
Usualy I like Caleb, but that article seems a little bit off. He indeed talked more about League of Legends than about MTG.
The only thing LoL and TNN have in common is that neither are very well-designed.
Quote:
Those arguments in mind, I don't think the card will damage Legacy significantly.
...
Deadguy ale is one of the few decks that can maindeck Zealous Persecution on top of Liliana
I scratched my head at that part. So TNN is okay because Deadguy Ale can MD Zealous Persecution now? :eyebrow: What kind of argument is that? Deadguy Ale isn't even a real deck at the moment.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tormod
If you want a red fixer card, it wouldn't be to hard.
1R
Sorcery
deals 2 damage to every creature.
damage cannot be prevented.
That's an amazing idea. It seems like this card should already exist!
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tormod
If you want a red fixer card, it wouldn't be to hard.
1R
Sorcery
deals 2 damage to every creature.
damage cannot be prevented.
Aww come on, red deserves something more juicy than that. If blue can have Brainstorm, Force and now TNN, why can't red have Stupid dumb red dude? My dude would also fix the 2cc cylce :laugh:
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Esper3k
I said closest thing we have to a dedicated TNN deck. I'm not certain we have actually seen one truly built around it yet.
It all comes down the primary game plan of the deck. Within Stoneblade decks, I would say only the Esper / Deathblade builds these days have a primary plan of controlling the board until you can suit up your TNN and win off the back of it. I would actually call Thomason's UW list a Jace deck more than anything else. The main plan of that deck is to stall and leverage the power of Jace. Sure, it can go with the beat-them-to-death-with-TNN/Batterskull plan, but those pieces are there mainly to protect Jace.
Tempo / Delver decks plan on dropping a quick threat and then disrupting you while their threat kills you. TNN in those decks, as can be seen by their generally low maindeck numbers or being relegated to the sideboard, is their backup plan.
Esper, as I (and others) have stated, TNN isn't a card you build an entire deck around. You simply throw it in existing decks and watch them do exponentially better than before.
Your argument is since no deck has been constructed solely around TNN, there are no TNN decks. I strongly disagree as it's quite obvious that the decks currently running TNN do so with TNN at the forefront of their minds. They either are looking to mana-ramp into him to land their TNN before the opponent does (Bant and Deathblade) or they're looking to have the best TNN on the table thanks to SFM-Equipment (Stoneblade, Esperblade, Patriot) or both (Bant and Deathblade).
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arsenal
Esper, as I (and others) have stated, TNN isn't a card you build an entire deck around. You simply throw it in existing decks and watch them do exponentially better than before.
Your argument is since no deck has been constructed solely around TNN, there are no TNN decks. I strongly disagree as it's quite obvious that the decks currently running TNN do so with TNN at the forefront of their minds. They either are looking to mana-ramp into him to land their TNN before the opponent does (Bant and Deathblade) or they're looking to have the best TNN on the table thanks to SFM-Equipment (Stoneblade, Esperblade, Patriot) or both (Bant and Deathblade).
I'm not sure if I'd call these decks TNN.dec, most of them existed before, it's just that they use now-available fully-blue Tarmogoyf Ascetic. The reason why TNN should be disliked is becasue of its ugly design: it's not a creature, at least not usual. It's like having sorcery that would attack; something not even FUT brought, it's more like from Un-sets, as already someone wrote.
EDIT: Please stop quoting ̶R̶i̶c̶o̶ ̶S̶u̶a̶v̶e̶ Esper3k, he is on my ignore list and I actually have to read 3-4 words of one of his posts everytime I scroll down.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
I was actually surprised there isn't a flavor of Pyroclasm that traded 1 damage for a can't be prevented clause. Seems totally reasonable for a :1::r: cost as well. Wipe all x/1s regardless of protection or white based damage redirection tricks.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arsenal
Esper, as I (and others) have stated, TNN isn't a card you build an entire deck around. You simply throw it in existing decks and watch them do exponentially better than before.
Your argument is since no deck has been constructed solely around TNN, there are no TNN decks. I strongly disagree as it's quite obvious that the decks currently running TNN do so with TNN at the forefront of their minds. They either are looking to mana-ramp into him to land their TNN before the opponent does (Bant and Deathblade) or they're looking to have the best TNN on the table thanks to SFM-Equipment (Stoneblade, Esperblade, Patriot) or both (Bant and Deathblade).
And what I'm saying is just because you threw a few into a deck, it doesn't suddenly turn it into a TNN deck like you've been trying to do with UWR Delver and RUG to make TNN look like it's more populous than it is.
For the third time now, I'll say that the closest thing we actually have to a dedicated TNN deck is Reid Duke's Bant list, most Deathblade lists, and most Esper Stoneblade lists. If your primary game plan is to play TNN and suit it up with equipment, it's fine to call that deck a TNN deck. I don't understand why you're trying to argue with me on this point when what you're saying is in agreement with me.
UWR Delver and RUG do not have a primary strategy of riding TNN to victory, thus it is not correct to call them TNN decks. UW/x Miracles sometimes play Vendilion Cliques or Snapcasters, but it's incorrect to call them beatdown decks just because sometimes they can win off of those. The same thing applies here.
