Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barook
It enables blue decks which leads to a diverse metagame of blue decks. I don't think "Play blue or GTFO!" to be competitive sounds like a healthy format in the long run (I can already hear some people screaming "Play Modern instead if you don't like blue!").
I hear you. I hear you screaming "Play Modern instead if you don't like blue!" Because if WotC ban Brainstorm, there will be one last format where to play Brainstorm.
As a one of.
Brainstorm. It isn't Ancestral Recall. Keep it in Legacy.
But, I quite agree with rest of your post. Esp. the part "play blue or get out of our format" is true. Funny thing is that I'm trying some brews these days, RG Prime Titan and WG Prime Titan, and similar stuff. And everytime I play the deck, even if it works, I'm just saying to myself "Well, it's pretty and all, but isn't it better to just BS into FoW/Stifle/Bolt, gg?" Ok, maybe I brew a bad brew, but reall,y every non-blue deck I tried in past months I just thrown away, be it whatever. Things went so far that I'm selling my stuff and keeping just RUG (I'd keep BURG, but money don't stink), whereas I'm rebuilding and PIMPING my twelve years old casual deck that I will never again play because our group is long dead, yet I still want to own a nice non-blue, non-retarded, non-8thEdition deck.
Quote:
Except Show and Tell was all the way from Urza's Saga, and those creatures in question aren't Blue (except for the odd Jin-Gitaxias in Reanimator)...
Wasn't Show and Tell broken long before the omnomnom6 creature? I'm really asking, I did not play competitively back in early 200x.
I mean, what's the difference between Reanimating/Exhuming a Verdant Froce and Showing it? In first case you need Entomb and it's a two-cards turn2 combo. In second case you need additional Ritual/Petal to make it similarly fast, or you may just play a two-cards turn3 combo with a danger of opponent putting some monster into play. that way or another, there's a huge monster across you.
I'd be surprised if it wasn't played like this in old Type XYZ.
Also, for me it doesn't really matter if SnT is blue or whatever the color, as long as it promotes such thrilling and enjoyable games like "Ponder, no shuffle, Tomb, SnT, gg". At least with storm it is deserved win, or at the very least it looks like deserved win, but Ponder, gg... um sorry.
I thought about few things in past days. As the color pie is blurred and in fact it's about blue can it all - they should definitely print a :u::u: Sinkhole and :u: Bolt - while the rest of colors simulate the pie, why not simply abolish it completely.
In chess there are black and white pawns and knights and those other, and while they differ in color, they can the same. So lets make itlike in chess, keep the nonsense for the flavor text, spread the abilities equally amongst the colors and be done with it.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord Seth
You're right! Which is why every single Blue deck plays it. I mean, there's pretty much no drawback, so there's no reason for anyone who's on color with it to not play it! It's not like there's lots of Blue decks that don't play it, right?
Oh... wait...
Now, it's true that in particular decks, Delver has no real drawback. It fit straight into RUG Threshold, for example. But it truthfully is rather limited in what decks it can actually go into, and to claim it has "almost no drawback" is absolutely inaccurate.
Though I don't know why Delver gets the hate when the actual problem, if there is one, is obviously Brainstorm.
Brainstorm does actually blue things. And library manipulation in general makes Delver strong (see: Ponder/Delver in Standard). Brainstorm just adds to the problem. Plus, hyper-aggressive evasive 1-drops aren't exactly part of the blue color pie unless Maro makes another asspull. Of course you can't jam Delver into any deck. The decks which can break and abuse a card are the problem, not the decks that play fair.
Quote:
Except Show and Tell was all the way from Urza's Saga, and those creatures in question aren't Blue (except for the odd Jin-Gitaxias in Reanimator). It's like whining that Blue Sun's Zenith is off color because it benefits High Tide, which is completely out of Blue. But no one would argue that Blue Sun's Zenith isn't rightfully a Blue card or by itself is too powerful. This is a major stretch on your part.
Show & Tell is a blue card. Show and Tell does not care about the color of "insert Timmy card here". By printing Emrakul, Griselbrand and Omniscience, they made S&T alot stronger and thus promoted playing blue. Sure, stuff like Tin Fins can abuse them, too, but Tin Fins isn't a Tier 1 Deck while S&T is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bed Decks Palyer
Wasn't Show and Tell broken long before the omnomnom6 creature? I'm really asking, I did not play competitively back in early 200x.
I mean, what's the difference between Reanimating/Exhuming a Verdant Froce and Showing it? In first case you need Entomb and it's a two-cards turn2 combo. In second case you need additional Ritual/Petal to make it similarly fast, or you may just play a two-cards turn3 combo with a danger of opponent putting some monster into play. that way or another, there's a huge monster across you.
I'd be surprised if it wasn't played like this in old Type XYZ.
Also, for me it doesn't really matter if SnT is blue or whatever the color, as long as it promotes such thrilling and enjoyable games like "Ponder, no shuffle, Tomb, SnT, gg". At least with storm it is deserved win, or at the very least it looks like deserved win, but Ponder, gg... um sorry.
S&T was abused since Day 1 to put Mind over Matter into play in Academy type decks. As far as Legacy is concerned, only Emrakul, Griselbrand and Omniscience made it into the powerhouse that it is today since they all scream "WIN NOW!".
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bed Decks Palyer
Wasn't Show and Tell broken long before the omnomnom6 creature? I'm really asking, I did not play competitively back in early 200x. I mean, what's the difference between Reanimating/Exhuming a Verdant Froce and Showing it? In first case you need Entomb and it's a two-cards turn2 combo. In second case you need additional Ritual/Petal to make it similarly fast, or you may just play a two-cards turn3 combo with a danger of opponent putting some monster into play. that way or another, there's a huge monster across you.
No. In fact, Show and Tell was considered only fringe playable in Legacy until the past couple of years. What made Show and Tell powerful was that WOTC printed overpowered, game-ending permanents that you could cheat in. Show and Tell is only as good as the best thing you can cheat in. Sure, Verdant Force was a card in the old Extended, but it eats a Swords to Plowshares like any other plant. Just for fun, I searched TC Decks for Show and Tell from 2004 through December 2010 and got zero results. Results begin in January 2011. This doesn't mean the card didn't get played at all; it just means that it basically wasn't on anyone's radar at the time because it wasn't considered playable.
Also, Entomb was banned up until September 2009.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
I remember the breakout tournament being the German Magic 1 in Dec 2009 (2010?) where this guy piloted a homebrew using Show and Tell, Dream Halls and Cruel Ultimatum + Progenitus to 1st place.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barook
Show & Tell is a blue card.
It's also a very old card. You're trying to make the argument about what they've been doing recently. Sure, cards like Emrakul/Griselbrand were printed far more recently... but by themselves they're fine, the complaint is about Show and Tell, a card from long ago.
Quote:
Show and Tell does not care about the color of "insert Timmy card here". By printing Emrakul, Griselbrand and Omniscience, they made S&T alot stronger and thus promoted playing blue. Sure, stuff like Tin Fins can abuse them, too, but Tin Fins isn't a Tier 1 Deck while S&T is.
But this is again all tied back into something they did years and years and years ago.
People always seem to complain about how they printed some card that's good with Show and Tell, but the problem there is Show and Tell, not the new card.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
I am almost certain that Brainstorm was pretty unplayable until Onslaught.
I am also certain Stoneforge Mystic didn't see Legacy play until New Phyrexia. Well it did but everyone disregarded it. Remember the Excalibur thread here on the Source?
Remember when Grindstone and [cards]Helm of Obedience[/card] were in the jank rare bins?
Just because a card wasn't played before, it doesn't mean that it will always suck. Arguing Show and Tell was fine because no one played it back in 2009 doesn't make sense to me.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Simple answer, NO
Its legacy, broken cards are the norm. Giving "fair" decks, aka decks that win by turn dudes sideways, a good creature, that will end the game is good. There are plenty of ways to kill it. Counterspell, discard, edict, Liliana, wrath effects...
It just makes decks go back to the way they were before abrupt decay. now they need that edict again, or more Liliana, and less jace.
True name rarely wins the game. Its the jitte/equipment that is equipped that makes the game end.
"if you can't beat them, join them. or just count to ten"
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
I did some light play testing tonight with some local grinders. I played dark maverick(drs,abrupt decay) vs uwr delver with 2 tnn, and esper stone blade,. 5 games each then another 5 with sideboard
Maverick vs uwr pre board: maverick won 3-2 post board uwr delver won 3-2
Maverick vs esper pre board : maverick won 3-2 post board esper won 4-1
granted, I'm an esper deathblade player, I'm not an expert with this version of maverick so I probably did not play the deck optimally.but I never felt I was behind the whole entire time. Except vs esper. Which is loaded with board wipes. Maverick loses to board wipes regardless if they're playing tnn or not. I feel like this is one of the decks that doesn't care about tnn. I know people like to argue the fact that it's all about combo, or decks that ignore or race tnn.
For fucks sake, it's only a card. There's a lot more to the deck more than that. Try to beat the dek not just the card. If you can't interact with it efficiently, then interact with the other cards. If you're deck simply loses to 1 single card and you can't figure out how to beat or adapt it, then your sheltering your self away from all the possible answers, or youre just being lazy . Elves can beat it, maverick can, affinity can race it , Jund and shardless bug can out value it, I saw death and taxes made a deathblade player look like an idiot with it. 1 creature would not invalidate a whole dek like some of the whiners here claim to be.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barook
S&T was abused since Day 1 to put
Mind over Matter into play in Academy type decks. As far as Legacy is concerned, only Emrakul, Griselbrand and Omniscience made it into the powerhouse that it is today since they all scream "WIN NOW!".
Thanks for the info! I didn't know this. And it surprises me that I didn't think about this combo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ESG
No. In fact, Show and Tell was considered only fringe playable in Legacy until the past couple of years. What made Show and Tell powerful was that WOTC printed overpowered, game-ending permanents that you could cheat in. Show and Tell is only as good as the best thing you can cheat in. Sure, Verdant Force was a card in the old Extended, but it eats a Swords to Plowshares like any other plant. Just for fun, I searched TC Decks for Show and Tell from 2004 through December 2010 and got zero results. Results begin in January 2011. This doesn't mean the card didn't get played at all; it just means that it basically wasn't on anyone's radar at the time because it wasn't considered playable.
Also, Entomb was banned up until September 2009.
I wasn't asking only about Legacy. Thats why I wrote old Type XYZ.
I remember reading some old article on the old (cca those early 200x) Extended and the play Entomb->Verdant Force->Exhume was mentioned. It is of no surprise, seen how the reanimator decks of today work, that SnT popped up on my mind and thus I asked if a similar play SnT->Verdant Force (or whatever the big bad dude) was common. The fact that Verdant Force is bad has nothing to do with SnT been bad, it's a little bit like saying Necropotence is weak, because all that you have drawn are 2/1 clerics. Just off the top of my head I can name Multani, Maro Sorcerer or Akroma, Angel of Wrath or any other huge/huge creature with some kind of protection. Or Dream Halls.
In before the "dude, card XY was banned in Type AlphaBeta from 23 Brumaire An CCX"... I was just asking if SnT seen play in the old times, I'm not rebuilding some ancestral decks, neither am I comparing the power level of Verdant Force and Griselbrand.
The fact that SnT kills by overpowered, game-ending permanents has very little to do with Verdant Force. If that whole strategy (cheating something into play) is wrong, broken and deserves hit by banhammer, what would you rather ban: SnT (enabler) or any of the finishers? Banning SnT solves the problem forever (like banning Necropotence), otoh it completely wrecks one archetype. Banning finishers doesn't solve the problem (esp. considering WotC's - and mainly Maro's - boner for Timmy crap) forever, as there might be another troublesome permanent in the future, but it takes away whole part of the brokeness that SnT allows now. Lets say they ban Omniscience (which is a stupid card SnT or not), Griselbrand (7/7 flying, lifelink, bargain; seriously?) and maybe Iona+Emmy, while keep the SnT so that players may combo with Dream Halls or kill with Inkwell, SSS, Terastodon, Akroma, Sphinx of the Steel Wind or T. Tyrant. SnT would be still pretty powerful but definitely not broken.
In before the "dude, but SnT isn't broken, just learn how to play against it"... I'm not saying it deserves ban or whatever, I'm simply asking what do the people rather see banned in case WotC decides to weaken/kill the deck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord Seth
It's also a very old card. You're trying to make the argument about what they've been doing recently. Sure, cards like Emrakul/Griselbrand were printed far more recently... but by themselves they're fine, the complaint is about Show and Tell, a card from long ago.
But this is again all tied back into something they did years and years and years ago.
People always seem to complain about how they printed some card that's good with Show and Tell, but the problem there is Show and Tell, not the new card.
Depends. Clearly the problem is in their combination.
Snt without anything broken to show is a one-shot Elvish Piper.
Omniscience without a way how to cheat it into play is Wild Evocation. (Btw, it's the penultimate card on cernyrytir.cz list of rare enchantments; I find it funny that the second cheapest rare enchantment is similar to Omni, if not for that, I'd name Field of Souls, of course.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
(nameless one)
Just because a card wasn't played before, it doesn't mean that it will always suck. Arguing Show and Tell was fine because no one played it back in 2009 doesn't make sense to me.
This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deadpool09
For fucks sake, it's only a card. There's a lot more to the deck more than that. Try to beat the dek not just the card. If you can't interact with it efficiently, then interact with the other cards. If you're deck simply loses to 1 single card and you can't figure out how to beat or adapt it, then your sheltering your self away from all the possible answers, or youre just being lazy .
This.
But the card is still ugly.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bed Decks Palyer
But the card is still ugly.
As a card yes, the art on it though is some of the best I have seen on a Merfolk.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
It's amazing how this topic can fill so many pages while the real answer is more than evident...
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
http://i.imgur.com/EnjomVh.jpg
When asking for an opinion, there is not "evident answer".
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zombie
Because it's a metric that does not work. Let's take Elves, for example. From looking at the number of NOs and Glimpses in top8's, maindeck especially, you'd think Elves is a Glimpse deck. Which is wrong because Elves most definitely is a Natural Order deck first and foremost. Those UW Jace decks also probably run more Stoneforges than Jaces. A lot of ANT? Is it Ad Nauseam that is doing well, or Past in Flames? The numbers don't tell us, but an examination of the deck tells us it's a Past in Flames deck. Carsten's "Army of God"? 4 Jace, not a Jace deck. It's an Entreat the Angels deck.
When it's a card you want to see as often as possible (as is in the most cases with cards we watch), counting the numbers the card shows up in is fine.
Again, it's not the only metric you go by, but it's better than trying to subjectively classify a deck as X deck or Y deck, especially when decks these days can go either directions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arsenal
Don't forget Bant Aggro. Check thecouncil's data for Bant Aggro pre-TNN and post-TNN, it's like night and day.
So we have more decks that are rising in performance & popularity again, but do you guys have data on what decks have gotten pushed out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erdvermampfa
It's amazing how this topic can fill so many pages while the real answer is more than evident...
Agreed - should True-Name Nemesis be banned?
Yes: 165 (45.08%)
No: 201 (54.92%)
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Esper3k
So we have more decks that are rising in performance & popularity again, but do you guys have data on what decks have gotten pushed out?
Most non-blue creature-based decks (the only non-blue creature-based decks that are keeping pace are the BGx decks that can run a metric ton of TNN hate). If TNN decks (or decks running TNN in the maindeck and/or sideboard, but not considered TNN decks for whatever reasons) are occupying more of the top slots, then whatever occupied it before TNN was printed has been (or will be) pushed out. Maverick is a great example:
Jan 2013 - 10th
Feb 2013 - 11th
Mar 2013 - 9th
April 2013 - 7th
May 2013 - 8th
June 2013 - 5th
July 2013 - 12th
Aug 2013 - 8th
Sept 2013 - 10th
Oct 2013 - 13th
Nov 2013 - 7th
Dec 2013 - 40th
Maverick's numbers can/will change once the final tally for December is calculated. It could turn out I was wrong and Maverick may get back up to it's Jan-Nov 2013 9th place average, but I highly doubt it. I suspect that Maverick players looked at TNN, said "man, I should just play with TNN Bant" and did just that. No surprise, Bant has gone from a mostly uncharted deck for all of 2013 to 11th place in December 2013 (these numbers will also change, it could very well go back to uncharted status, but again, I highly doubt it).
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arsenal
Most non-blue creature-based decks (the only non-blue creature-based decks that are keeping pace are the BGx decks that can run a metric ton of TNN hate). If TNN decks (or decks running TNN in the maindeck and/or sideboard, but not considered TNN decks for whatever reasons) are occupying more of the top slots, then whatever occupied it before TNN was printed has been (or will be) pushed out. Maverick is a great example:
Jan 2013 - 10th
Feb 2013 - 11th
Mar 2013 - 9th
April 2013 - 7th
May 2013 - 8th
June 2013 - 5th
July 2013 - 12th
Aug 2013 - 8th
Sept 2013 - 10th
Oct 2013 - 13th
Nov 2013 - 7th
Dec 2013 - 40th
Maverick's numbers can/will change once the final tally for December is calculated. It could turn out I was wrong and Maverick may get back up to it's Jan-Nov 2013 9th place average, but I highly doubt it. I suspect that Maverick players looked at TNN, said "man, I should just play with TNN Bant" and did just that. No surprise, Bant has gone from a mostly uncharted deck for all of 2013 to 11th place in December 2013 (these numbers will also change, it could very well go back to uncharted status, but again, I highly doubt it).
So we have 3 decks that moved up (Bant, Deathblade, Blade Control) by the TCDecks denominations and one that looks to be going down significantly right now.
Are there any other decks getting pushed out that your research can show?
Also keep in mind that just because a deck moves up a tier, it doesn't mean that another one gets pushed down since the number of decks at Tier 1 status isn't a static number.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
I remember when abrupt decay was released. Naysayers thought, "welp, that's the death of miracles, counter top decks", now there's no more hard control in legacy". But players adapt. You can misdirect it or venser it. And that's mainboard. Now we have a creature that requires no linear answer, you can counter, discard, board wipe, -1/-1, or just plain race it. Almost all colors have an answer for it or the decks that play it. People are being hysterical, overreacting, and just being too lazy.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
I think the only lazy people are the ones who are not exercising reading comprehension when everyone else is saying that the inability to kill TNN has nothing to do with the criticism against the card because we all understand how -1/-1 sweepers work.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Esper, every time you've requested data, I've provided it to you. However, each time I do, you conclude that the data doesn't matter because the decks aren't TNN enough as they don't run a full playset or there aren't enough decks being pushed out (although losing a major meta player in Maverick, a non-TNN deck, and having it replaced by Bant, a TNN deck, just homogenizes the format further) or that people running fringe stuff maindeck like Celestial Flare, Diabolic Edict doesn't matter because it's only a couple cards.
Re: Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Esper3k
When it's a card you want to see as often as possible (as is in the most cases with cards we watch), counting the numbers the card shows up in is fine.
Again, it's not the only metric you go by, but it's better than trying to subjectively classify a deck as X deck or Y deck, especially when decks these days can go either directions.
How is it better? We can definitely say Elves is an NO deck moreso than a Glimpse deck. We can definitely say that Carsten's Army of God is an Entreat deck even though it runs 3 Entreat 4 Jace because it's built around the card. We can easily say ANT is a Past in Flames deck, and that TES is an Ad Nauseam/Empty the Warrens deck and not really a Past in Flames one, even if both decks play one copy of Flames and Nauseam and 4 cards that tutor for them. It's not subjective, that's how the decks are built to play out and how they play out.
Or we could just give you a pile of random format staples and call it a day, after all the quality of the deck is subjective, too, right?
