All B/R update speculation.

[Megadeus]

Is Echo of Eon not sufficient ?

Blue will still be dominating the field, but it will definitely produce a new tier 1 deck.

Not sufficient for what? Card has been legal a couple weeks and I haven't seen a deck with the card dominating yet

[mistercakes]

I think he means the ability to mull better into LED + echo hands for consistency.

[H]

Not sufficient for what? Card has been legal a couple weeks and I haven't seen a deck with the card dominating yet

I think Echo is decent, but Wrenn and Six will likely have more lasting, long-term impact on the format at this moment.

[Dice_Box]

I am all for killing a 3 drop blue card. TNN, you are the weakest link... go die.

[alvoi]

I am all for killing a 3 drop blue card. TNN, you are the weakest link... go die.

Yeah, that's a card too wrong to be legal. I hope it will be banned soon

[H]

It sure is convenient that the criterion for Banning something is: "that it is that which does not appeal to my taste."

Other wise, things sure would be ambiguous...

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

It sure is convenient that the criterion for Banning something is: "that it is that which does not appeal to my taste."

Other wise, things sure would be ambiguous...

You're right, we should use objective measures and ban brainstorm.

[H]

You're right, we should use objective measures and ban brainstorm.

Mmm, yeah, lets do this again for a few hundred more pages.

What are these "objective measures" and how/when do we employ them, pray tell?

[Mr. Safety]

Meh, I'm pretty happy with the shakeup that Modern Horizons and War of the Spark are putting into Legacy. I genuinely believe we'll eventually get Earthcraft and Mind Twist unbanned, SFM and others in Modern, once nobody really cares to discuss the banlist anymore. We're close to that now with the new mulligan rule and powerful new sets.

[H]

We're close to that now with the new mulligan rule and powerful new sets.

It's my hypothesis that the London Mulligan will shift "consistency" from "Cantrip-derived" to "Cantrip-derived proportional to game length." Which, I think is really what it likely "makes sense to be." That is, the logic of answering the question of, "why more "threats" vs. consistency-generative-things to find threats?"

It won't be a massive shift, but I have not seen why as a massive shift is necessitated.

Obviously results will substantiate this or not, we'll see as it goes along.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Mmm, yeah, lets do this again for a few hundred more pages.

What are these "objective measures" and how/when do we employ them, pray tell?

Scroll back a few pages from the last time that quote from MaRo was posted. Brainstorm should be banned, but it never will be because it turns out banning isn't an objective science and all about the fee fees.

[H]

Scroll back a few pages from the last time that quote from MaRo was posted. Brainstorm should be banned, but it never will be because it turns out banning isn't an objective science and all about the fee fees.

Well, then scroll back a few more pages and see that I already said that it cannot be of any "one mode" or even just of two, or three.

[Dice_Box]

It sure is convenient that the criterion for Banning something is: "that it is that which does not appeal to my taste."

Other wise, things sure would be ambiguous...

Oh I am aware that the card is not egregious enough on its own to eat a ban and likely never will. That does not mean I do not think it should be legal to play against. Cards have eaten bans in the past because they are not enjoyable to play against and TNN fits that bill. Granted those bannings where in Modern.

To flesh out my point though, I feel the cards effect upon the game is not just about taste, it has a negative impact upon the games in which it is in play. Its massive reduction in interactivity is rather anathema to the way we are use to playing and I have not seen many people who find the change from the normal flow it inflicts to be positive.

In plain speak, if it dodges all of your creatures and your Swords, its not a lot of fun to play against.

[H]

To flesh out my point though, I feel the cards effect upon the game is not just about taste, it has a negative impact upon the games in which it is in play. Its massive reduction in interactivity is rather anathema to the way we are use to playing and I have not seen many people who find the change from the normal flow it inflicts to be positive.

Ironically enough, all of that applies to Tendril of Agony, in my mind, to a greater degree. And to some extent every Storm card ever printed. Except the fact that Storm is "old" and so we are "used to it." That sort of appeal to a sort "Historicism," that is, in the sense of simply having been as a justification for why it should be, is, to put it flatly, nonsense though.

As a matter of fact, I have never once advocated for a ban on Tendrils or any Storm card, nor would I ever. Nor should I ever.

TNN is a shit card and a shit design. It, however, is not ban worthy as far as I can tell, because I do, categorically, reject the notion of "banning for taste." I don't refute that it has, or might have occurred as a reason for something, but I think that is a shit policy, or at least a flatly terrible rationale to do anything in-and-of itself.

[Dice_Box]

Ironically enough, all of that applies to Tendril of Agony, in my mind, to a greater degree.

I disagree. One of the cards is a three drop that asks little of the player other than be in Blue and want creatures, the other asks you to build your whole shell around the card and then take massive risks in game against a lot of wide and varied sideboard hate.

[Watersaw]

Ironically enough, all of that applies to Tendril of Agony, in my mind, to a greater degree. And to some extent every Storm card ever printed. Except the fact that Storm is "old" and so we are "used to it." That sort of appeal to a sort "Historicism," that is, in the sense of simply having been as a justification for why it should be, is, to put it flatly, nonsense though.

As a matter of fact, I have never once advocated for a ban on Tendrils or any Storm card, nor would I ever. Nor should I ever.

TNN is a shit card and a shit design. It, however, is not ban worthy as far as I can tell, because I do, categorically, reject the notion of "banning for taste." I don't refute that it has, or might have occurred as a reason for something, but I think that is a shit policy, or at least a flatly terrible rationale to do anything in-and-of itself.

I think this is actually a good point. The viability of any strategy is inversely proportionate to you opponent's ability to meaningfully interact. I'm absolutely in love with Enchantress builds, there are a lot of cards that might as well not have text against the deck. You know what sucks? When Abrupt Decay and Narset are all over the place and suddenly I have to care about what my opponent is doing.

At what point does this become "unfun" enough to warrant a ban and does a hyper-focused shell excuse that? Hell if I know, but it does suck that the best 3-drop creature costs 1UU.

[H]

I disagree. One of the cards is a three drop that asks little of the player other than be in Blue and want creatures, the other asks you to build your whole shell around the card and then take massive risks in game against a lot of wide and varied sideboard hate.

There are not a "variety" of answers to remove a True-Name? Of course there are, from Edicts, to wraths and sweepers of various kinds (and other things too).

The fact of Storms "build around" nature seems like a total non sequitur. What does it relate here? That a Storm deck needs a Storm card as it's pay-off? That is nothing but a tautology.

There are plenty of decks that have little access to "good" sideboard hate for Storm, because of color restraints or simply the lack of ability to land them in time for them to be relevant. We simply say, "that is a bad match-up" and move on with our lives. Why? Because what you already pointed out, this appeal to the "historical" nature of Storm having been as a justification for being.

If I play something like Death and Taxes, or whatever, I can safely assume that I can and likely will lose on turn one to Storm some amount of time, regardless of what I sideboard (yes, even with Mindbreak Traps). Now, with Death and Taxes again, I too can assume that I can and will lose to True-Name some amount of time, yet, I am afforded (in all likelyhood) a vast amount of time to attempt to "prevent" this outcome, or even to simply try to "race it." "Hard to interact with" is a relative term, as a matter of course, and so claiming that a creature that does not interact with most spells or abilities is bad, where a spell which most spells or abilities don't interact with is fine is a very creative stance to me, to say the least.

You can try to twist the nature and interpretation of what "interaction" means to suit your own thesis at will. But that doesn't make it more a more factual claim. I find it hard to do the sort of metal gymnastics required to imagine that True-Name "warps" the nature of how a Magic game plays out more than Storm does. At the very least, I guess we could see it as "analogous" (there could be no equivalence, as the cards are so dissimilar), but to say that True-Name is more so takes a stance I have no idea how to begin to understand.

But hey, you do whatever sort of thing appeases your notion of "reason" and I'll do mine.

[H]

I think this is actually a good point. The viability of any strategy is inversely proportionate to you opponent's ability to meaningfully interact. I'm absolutely in love with Enchantress builds, there are a lot of cards that might as well not have text against the deck. You know what sucks? When Abrupt Decay and Narset are all over the place and suddenly I have to care about what my opponent is doing.

At what point does this become "unfun" enough to warrant a ban and does a hyper-focused shell excuse that? Hell if I know, but it does suck that the best 3-drop creature costs 1UU.

Well, if we imagine things to be a sort of "Rock-Paper-Scissors" match, True-Name certainly does violate a certain sense we might have, in being "unfair." "I've included "Rock" (removal) in my deck, why am I lose to Scissors (creatures)?" But what makes Magic at all interesting, perhaps to a mistaken notion of mine, is that is is not a "Rock-Paper-Scissors" match. Even Nimble Mongoose is played for this very reason, it just does not "violate" other seeming senses of "symmetry."

But Storm (and other strategies that "force" interaction on a "narrow" axis) are much the same in this regard, if not more so. But again, people are very apt (myself included) toward confirmation bias and the notion that things they "like" or "don't mind" are justifiable, where things they don't "are not justifiable."

[Dice_Box]

There are not a "variety" of answers to remove a True-Name? Of course there are, from Edicts, to wraths and sweepers of various kinds (and other things too).

Is there really? If your in the wrong colours your answers are really really limited. Red and Green have very few outs, white has a few dedicated ones. So if your in Black or Blue your ok? Thats not great for open gameplay. Unlike Storm that can get really badly hurt by colourless cards.

The fact of Storms "build around" nature seems like a total non sequitur. What does it relate here? That a Storm deck needs a Storm card as it's pay-off? That is nothing but a tautology.

Its a point about ease of use casing the issue with TNN. Progen is much much more powerful and does much the same thing as TNN, but if Elves lands it you do not feel overly cheated. You have to put in work to pull off that effect. TNN asks very little of its players, that is part of what makes it so painful. ANT asks for you to jump though a ton of hoops, thus changing the feels when someone dies to it.

There are plenty of decks that have little access to "good" sideboard hate for Storm, because of color restraints or simply the lack of ability to land them in time for them to be relevant. We simply say, "that is a bad match-up" and move on with our lives. Why? Because what you already pointed out, this appeal to the "historical" nature of Storm having been as a justification for being.

Sphere, 3 Ball, Thorn, Chalice, Thalia, Eidolon, Force, Discard and grave hate are all very common answers to the deck. Well maybe not that common for Eidolon. Still, most colours have an answer that sees rather wide play. Not just two colours. Also there is a wide range of colourless answers that Storm will bring in bounce effects to adapt to.

If I play something like Death and Taxes, or whatever, I can safely assume that I can and likely will lose on turn one to Storm some amount of time, regardless of what I sideboard (yes, even with Mindbreak Traps). Now, with Death and Taxes again, I too can assume that I can and will lose to True-Name some amount of time, yet, I am afforded (in all likelyhood) a vast amount of time to attempt to "prevent" this outcome, or even to simply try to "race it." "Hard to interact with" is a relative term, as a matter of course, and so claiming that a creature that does not interact with most spells or abilities is bad, where a spell which most spells or abilities don't interact with is fine is a very creative stance to me, to say the least.

DnT I find has a decent ability to race a lot of the decks with TNN, but again, Its not Blue or Black so... sucks to be you I guess.

You can try to twist the nature and interpretation of what "interaction" means to suit your own thesis at will. But that doesn't make it more a more factual claim. I find it hard to do the sort of metal gymnastics required to imagine that True-Name "warps" the nature of how a Magic game plays out more than Storm does. At the very least, I guess we could see it as "analogous" (there could be no equivalence, as the cards are so dissimilar), but to say that True-Name is more so takes a stance I have no idea how to begin to understand.

Twist? Twist? Really? I was thinking everything was fun as a talk up until this but really... I am not the first to state this card lacks interaction, is hard to interact with or makes the games that it hits the table far far less enjoyable because it lacks interaction. I am not the first, nor am I the only person to make this claim and it is correct. TNN reduces overall interaction to "Can you make me sac it or can you counter it? No, then race me." Personally I find your claim that I am twisting a words FACTUAL meaning rather insulting.

Also look up and find the line where I said it was not doing enough to get banned. Maybe you should read what I write before you start insulting me.

[Michael Keller]

I'm okay with Mind Twist in Legacy. I mean, it's a discard spell. It requires an investment, and honestly, if you're looking to play the discard game and tap out to play a sorcery speed spell for >3 mana (which is also the equivalent of Hymn at three mana), is it really that big of a deal?