Yes.
No.
Anyone in this thread who is like "well yeah TNN is unfun to play with or against and i dont like it, but it shouldn't be banned because [some attempt to make this card game sound like a noble sport of kings]" should really take a step back. Literally no one likes this card, so we as a group of players should make it so we don't play with/against it, and we do that by lobbying to get it banned. Everyone not liking a card is really enough justification to ban it guys, we don't have to have a mathematical proof of a card's negative impact.
That's because TNN had protection from that person. LolOriginally Posted by Tylert
Literally no one likes this card? Says who? Check the poll. Ask the players who play them in their decks. Ask turtenwald.
And I don't get it. People are claiming its warping the format. It's either tnn or combo. No it's not.
Dnt, elves,affinity,rug delver,shardless bug,miracles,ub tezzeret. These are decks that made an appearance in a bunch of tourneys that don't use tnn. Are they combo? No. Do they use tnn? No. I don't think people here understand what warping the format really means. If guys are afraid of a hard to deal with 3/1 creature, then how would justify show and tell, griselbrand, death rite shaman, delver of secrets. I mean look at snow and tell, it forces you to sideboard a 3-5 cards against for you to even have a chance of winning. You wanna talk about unfun? Losing in 3 turns is never fun. But we don't bitch about it the way some of you are bitching about tnn.
Out of the 30 most recent decklists on TheCouncil, ranging from mid-November to December 8th, there are 3 copies of TNN. 3 copies! That's hardly what I would call the "join it" approach.
Also, the meta of December:
- RUG Delver, with 4 tops, not TNN, not Combo
- MUD, with 3 tops, not TNN, not Combo
- Patriot, with 3 tops, TNN
- Goblins, with 3 tops, not TNN, not Combo, and not counter-TNN
- Blade Control, with 2 tops, TNN
- ANT, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo
- Sneak Attack, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo
- OmniTell, with 2 tops, not TNN, Combo
Goblins, lol. RUG without TNN, lol. MUD, lol. For those whining about combo, this meta has a good split. 6 combo decks, 10 aggro decks, 5 control/prison decks.
The poll says majority of players don't want to see the card banned it doesn't say anything about players liking the card. And most people who are against the ban are like "yea the card sucks but I'm a leet, competitive, kick ass player and know how to beat it, so because I'm so damn good at magic I can't justifiably ask for a ban". Let's be honest guys :) What I understand from these arguments is most people consider invulnerability as the only factor for a ban.
I think the closest example to what's wrong with TNN is ante cards. They just don't belong in a constructed, two player environment.
Legacy: Rituals
Vintage: Drains
And you might end up at prom with your mother, which would be weird.
Rest in peace, Grandpa Morphling.
Nemeses Slain:4
Shhhh. If you keep doing that you're liable to win the thread.
Anyway, don't you know Starcity Games top 8 are the only acceptable representations of the "meta?"
We've already been over this - the poll is horribly worded for its intended purpose. We could open another thread with a poll that says:
But it would just result in further childish shitslinging while some people complain about yet another TNN thread and mods would probably close it very soon, so there's no point.Do you like True-Name Nemesis?
[ ]Yes
[ ]No
Edit: How long until we see TAFKAP alters of TNN?
^^^ This!
-I- like TNN...
TheCouncil's tiers as of 12-12-13 8:55am Central:
1.) RUG Delver (lists are running TNN in the SB)
2.) Blade Control (TNN)
3.) MUD (no TNN influence)
4.) Death and Taxes (no TNN influence)
5.) Patriot (TNN)
6.) Miracles (anti-TNN)
7.) ANT (combo)
8.) OmniTell (combo)
Of the top 8 decks, only 4 of them have no TNN influence associated with them (MUD, D&T, ANT, OmniTell). Half TNN influenced, half not. Healthy?
Miracles is played as the anti-TNN deck, or is it simply good against TNN. Miracles' share and space in the meta is the same, it's just good against any deck that wants to win in the red zone anyway. To classify everything as TNN or anti-TNN is just your slant on it, combo decks are combo decks that existed long before TNN as well.
By the way, how many of those are Brainstorm decks?
That's fair. Miracles may not be classified as an anti-TNN deck as it destroys creature-based decks without prejudice. For me, TNN simply isn't fun. I play with it (UW Stoneblade) and against it, and I derive very little enjoyment from winning games where I jammed more TNNs than my opponent and he failed to find his narrow SB answer in time (while showing me a handful of StP and Jace).
Combat was designed specifically for creatures and players to interact. Combat doesn't serve any other purpose. Therefore, when a creature bypasses combat, that's a problem (less interaction). Also, creature removal spells were designed specifically to interact with creatures. Creature removal doesn't serve any other purpose. So when a creature blanks many, many creature removal spells, that too is a problem (less interaction).
The mere existence of "answers" to a problematic card shouldn't justify a card's legality. I mean, EVERY card on the banned list has an answer to it, so why not unban every card?
This question is akin to "How many of those are Fetchland decks?" Brainstorm doesn't impose strategies. It is used as a very efficient tool in a very wide range of strategies. Fast combo (stom), slow control (miracle), tempo (rug). Fetchlands are also used in a wide range of strategies as efficient tools.
I feel like I'm pulling the pin of a grenade posting this :)
Legacy: Rituals
Vintage: Drains
I wouldn't call RUG a TNN deck either. A few might run 1 or 2 in the 75, but it hardly leans on it the way Stoneblade or Patriot decks do.
Really, the only decks right now that I think you can really call a TNN deck (if that) are those two decks and really, Stoneblade cares more about Stoneforge Mystic (as can be seen by lists running 3 TNN instead of the full 4) and UWR is really a Delver deck (again, doesn't need to play the full 4 TNN).
So we're not even seeing decks focused fully around TNN. In every deck we see TNN in, it's complementary to the existing game plan, but not the focal point.
Mental Misstep? Mystical Tutor?
Mental Misstep was certainly one of those cards that you can literally just throw into any deck you wanted to, unlike TNN which can really only be played in heavily blue decks.
MM also had much higher saturation of the format than TNN as well, not to mention the plethora of decks it killed off.
As of yet, we haven't seen TNN kill anything that wasn't already dead before and per our previous conversation, it's brought an archetype (Blade Control) back to the forefront (we can probably argue that it brought new life to Bant decks as well).
Mystical Tutor? Vampiric Tutor? My point is that there are cards on the banned list that (a.) have answers to them (nedleed's argument) and (b.) aren't the focal point of a deck (your argument). And yet, they're banned. Reasons?
EDIT: Also, although you are technically correct in that ANY deck could run Mental Misstep, let's be real, only blue decks actually ran Mental Misstep with any sort of regularity.
I still don't see the actual difference between the two questions. The logical consequence of a desire to see a card gone in MtG is a desire for a ban of it in the respective format. I've said this before but please stop digging too deep in the semantic of the two questions, because they mean the exact same and are just phrased differently. Besides, it really intrigues me what tremendous negative reactions the word 'ban' causes among the players nowadays. It seems that the word is now fairly connoted with negative associations and labels, people who demand a 'ban' are immediately accused of being 'n00b' or 'unwilling to adapt'. My surmise is that this perception has been forced through among the community by those harsh and often aggressive posts we have seen in this thread as well (go play modern!), and it started at the time of the Misstep ban, which was heavily disapproved by some. Since this time, we haven't seen a single ban even though some cards obviously deserved it. The community has grown silent and fatalistic regarding cards that are detrimental to the format, and one of the reason appears to be that people rather avoid being stigmatized as a 'n00b' than demanding a ban of a card.
I find it kind of offensive that you characterize many players as leet. It's not JUST because there are so many answers for it. I'm sure many of the players you call leet fear a ban just because TNN is unpopular. They don't want it to set a negative trend that would make Wizards ban hammer happy in another format. However, as people have previously stated, I could see True-Name banned on the basis of something like "This card was never designed for two player games and therefore does not belong in Legacy." My point is bannings should only really last resort since too many bannings is never healthy for a format.
Ugh, prepare for Ban Brainstorm discussion # 4546735267 ladies and gentlemen.
In regards to Legacy:
Cards like Mystical Tutor (I'd be fine with it being unbanned, btw) and Vampiric Tutor are banned because they make combo decks much stronger, which has always been the biggest fear of Legacy - that combo decks become too powerful to deal with. Just look at the current ban list - barring the ante/dexterity cards, the majority of cards on that list are banned due to combo (things like Earthcraft, Black Vise, and Mind Twist are probably safe to take off too).
A 3/1 for 1UU that fundamentally does nothing but attack or block really well should not be banned in Legacy. That sets a bad precedent for bannings and starts us down a slippery slope we probably don't want to go down.
"Only blue" decks is misleading. MM was played across all archetypes - aggro, aggro/control, control, combo.
I see it as the opposite. When new powerful cards come up, you get people starting threads screaming about the death of Legacy due to <insert Tarmogoyf/Griselbrand/Deathrite Shaman/Abrupt Decay/True-Name Nemesis/etc.>.
In the vast majority of the situations, the format has proven itself resilient enough to deal with them, so all the doomsaying gets old really quick.
Second, calling for the banning of something sets a bad precedent for the format. Quick and easy bannings of cards would not be good for Legacy - just look at what that type of policy has done to Modern. In Modern, it's uncertain what might be the next card banned and it seems to be shifting towards what Extended was - people play it only when a GP / PTQ season is coming up. Better not invest too much in a deck because you never know when WoTC will ban a key card from it! Part of Legacy's appeal is its stability as a format and people's faith that their cards will remain legal in the format for years to come.
Finally, in regards to "Since this time, we haven't seen a single ban even though some cards obviously deserved it.", that's just a matter of opinion. I believe we have too many banned cards as is and would like to see the continued trend of the past few years of slowly removing cards from the ban list and see how the format shakes out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
