But that is exactly what a good card does. If youre not playing it youre worse off, and bad in comparision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzra
TNN is just scratching the surface now in terms of seeing play. It will get worse.
Printable View
But that is exactly what a good card does. If youre not playing it youre worse off, and bad in comparision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzra
TNN is just scratching the surface now in terms of seeing play. It will get worse.
Sorry if there were otter thoughts following, but I stopped right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by akatsuki
Troll Ascetic is in 27% of top decks because ppl love to play new cards. Also, they don't know how to fight them.
If you ban BS from Legacy, there will be one/two last format(s) where you may play it. As a one of. Ppl like to play BS. Please, keep it in format.
I suppose that's an argument for not banning Brainstorm (people like to play it).
On the other hand, the argument that BS makes blue decks good instead of making non-blue decks bad is a laughable argument. If something makes A better, things that are not A lose out. Can't believe that's even necessary to be explained.
Just as a thought experiment though, I was arguing that if Brainstorm were gone, non-blue decks would be relatively better, and blue decks would still be fine as they have Force of Will and other very powerful cantrips. Combo decks would also survive due to Preordain and a greater difficulty in finding answers to combo.
Also, of those supposed "answers to Brainstorm" that were listed many of them are plain unplayable (Uba Mask) and others force you to sacrifice the consistency in your deck that Brainstorm provides (Chalice of the Void). Most of them are just too plain expensive (mana cost-wise) to be highly competitive.
If we were to use the Mental Misstep argument (ubiquity), Brainstorm should be banned. If we were to use the diversity argument, it's likely Brainstorm should be banned. If we were to use the power level argument, Brainstorm should be banned. If we were to use a popularity of Legacy/fun argument, we should keep Brainstorm.
I think it slowly crystallizes who the real offender is (Brainstorm).
Unplayable in not the correct word. They simply are less played.Quote:
Originally Posted by akatsuki
Uba mask is actually amazing. Its potential is unrealized. Id say the majority of magic players dont know what it does.
It really hurts control and combo.
It turns the game into a use it or lose it strategy. combo decks cant sculpt a good hand. Many wont be able to win once it hits play unless they have a good opening hand.
It turns off sneak attack / show and tell because the "drawn cards" are not in your hand.
Control decks loose some control aspects
Makes it difficult to pitch a blue card to fow.
It hurts most cantrips.
Enables ensnaring bridge
Ill have to read the oracle but i dont think you can cast miracles with it in play.
Interacts with sylvan library.
And im sure theres many more.
Legacy is a format where 4 mana spells need to win you the game or effectively do that, or synergize with the rest of your deck. I suppose I could see Uba Mask in a MUD deck, but I don't think it's anything that the deck needs as it already does fine vs. combo. Let me just go through each of those cards.
chalice of the void (inconsistent deck)
chains of mephistopheles (I actually like this card a lot. Too bad it's expensive money-wise)
notion thief (this card is fine, but it is a four-drop. This is good in midrange/control vs. midrange/control, not to mention it's used IN brainstorm decks)
uba mask
meddling mage (this is played in Brainstorm decks....)
trinisphere (inconsistent deck)
nether void (costs 4, inconsistent deck)
thalia (this is the one highly competitive answer)
Lodestone Golem (inconsistent deck)
sphere of resistance (inconsistent deck)
thorn of ameythest (inconsistent deck)
I mean most of these cards that you mentioned are played in MUD, which is an okay, powerful but inconsistent deck. It's just impossible to argue that Brainstorm/Ponder aren't the best consistency engines in Legacy, and over long tournaments, consistency is the most important thing. Decks without these cards need some way to make up that consistency (GSZ, Faithless Looting) or have a ton of raw power or stall tactics (Thalia, Chalice of the Void).
Those decks are all playable, but you can't argue that they are putting up nearly as many results as Brainstorm decks.
Not even close to true. MM was in almost every deck, even non-blue decks. From my memory the only notable competitive deck that didn't always play 4 MM was dredge. Brainstorm is not as ubiquitous as MM was and saying it is makes your laughable argument even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by akatsuki
Brainstorm isn't going to get banned. The format would shrink so dramatically (players would leave) if that happened and I have the faith that enough people at wotc know that to keep the card around.
This is really the only thing that needs to be said in brainstorm's defense. The card isn't keeping any other decks out of the format, it is just a utility card that is used because it is the best utility card for its job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzra
I agree with you completely that Uba Mask is an incredible and powerful magic card... in edh. As a 4-mana "do-nothing" permanent though it's obviously not viable in this format. But I really do love the mask, it's out of control with Wheel of Fortune effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by apple713
You forgot Enchantress. Man until people figured out Hive Mind Enchantress was a sick metagame deck since combo basically stopped existing.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderwaterGuy
Sky still falling.
As someone who plays vintage: True-Name Nemesis is more annoying than seeing an opponent play a time walk and an Oath of Druids in the same turn off of a forbidden orchard, black lotus, and 2 moxes with force of will and misdirection backup.
Does that make the card broken? Maybe.
TNN is just not magic the gathering. I mean, I don't understand why judges aren't giving game losses for incomplete decklists when they see that there. The card is literally a yugioh card but with -2997 power and -999 toughness.
for those of you who don't play yugioh, I am going to put into perspective on how bad the power creep is, and why this card's power creep scares me:
There are 5 cards that do the following (in magic terms0:
You may discard a card instead of paying this card's mana cost. If this card is in the graveyard, you may search your library once, or discard a card to return this card to your hand. You may exile 2 cards from your graveyard to get the following effect: destroy target permanent. You may use this effect while it is in the graveyard, and it may exile itself.
if this card is exiled you may search your library for a card that shares a creature type with this card.
P/T: 7/5
True-Name Nemesis scares me because it feels close to that level of non-interactivity. It is a degenerate card, and should be banned in order to avoid cards with further non-interactivity being printed to deal with it.
Now you people are discussing of banning good cantrips. I see a pattern here. Hello again, modern.
If people really quit because Brainstorm was banned, that is really sad and overall childish. Brainstorm is by far the most powerful card in Legacy. It seems as if there are some reading comprehension problems, nobody said Brainstorm was as heavily played as Misstep.
I kind of think there actually are decks that are unplayable because of how powerful and overall consistent every blue deck is, we just never had the chance to see them.
I think it's pretty laughable that some people actually think that a ban of Brainstorm would destroy deck lists left and right. Blue decks would simply run another quality cantrip. Blue would be a bit less dominant as a color since you can't simply BS for an answer like a trained monkey whenever a problem occurs or go Recall with a fetchland.
The only interactions that would actually suffer would be Cascade and Miracles.
Brainstorm is not a problem card. Merfolk doesn't play it.
There. Problem solved. Blue deck that doesn't play Brainstorm. Next question?
Also, there are a lot of non-blue decks in this format. I mean, if you look at modern a majority of the decks run red or green because the cards in those colours are very good in modern. It's the same in legacy but for blue and black.
Why are a few people trying to turn this thread about TNN into "ban Brainstorm" debate number 487 on these boards?
This accomplishes nothing. No, in fact it makes the whole thread worthless. Is that the point?
I was going to say something similar. Is there a moderator that can reign this thread in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hof
I play a lot of TNN mirrors and the games that TNN resolves (either/both sides) doesn't even feel like Magic to me. I would gladly eat the $100 I spent on my playset if it gets banned. It just is not fun for me when I have a TNN and I'm beating my opponent, not because I'm craftier or better, but because TNN is overpowered in a lot of matchups.
You beat a lot of opponents with a lot of different decks by not being craftier or better, TNN is pretty low on the list of auto-wins. As non-interactive as it is it's hilarious it only really fits in really interactive decks.
Yeah this thread for crying about a card that has been out for a month has been totally ruined. It's like "Who threw trash on my garbage? Now it's all worthless!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Hof
Yup. Because every thread about new cards are nothing but garbage, and people whining. Actually, having a discussion about a card that is only a month old is just a waste of time, because we will know so much more once all the facts are in. Much better to derail such threads with repeats of arguments about a 20 year old card that has already been debated four trillion times.Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbiteitholmes
Actually, that's exactly it - TNN makes previously interactive decks a lot less interactive, pushing Legacy as a whole towards non-interactivity. That's not the direction most of us want the format to go in.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK