Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?

[Higgs]

@Dragonslayer_90
Sorry if it came off that way, it was intended to be a friendly banter actually. I don't feel that strong about the whole issue to start insulting people online :) I think Erdvermampfa put it better than I did. Asking for a ban is, in my view, kind of stigmatized because honestly someone does it everytime a new good card is printed. But I think we shouldn't only think in terms of beatability in this case. Yes the card is beatable but if you are saying "I can beat it but I wished it hadn't been printed" it means you think the card is just not good for the health of the game. Simple as that. That's what I think anyway.

[Star|Scream]

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.

I can't see how anyone could possibly dispute what you just wrote, so I imagine they will just ignore it and change the subject.

[Dice_Box]

Don't get me started on parallel universes and alternative timelines :)

Don't worry, the Dr will save us. After all his very name was the Nemesis the Silence tried to stop being spoken.

[catmint]

I am usually always against bannings and would like to see a couple of things come of the banned list. Nemesis has so far not been as format warping as many expected although she did really make an impact if you think about it. Lingering Souls and Geist are gone. Fair non blue decks like Death and taxes and Jund are hurt significantly. Overall I think format diversity will suffer.

That arguments aside (it is too early to make a call and also a topic where people have different opinions). What I don't like about the card is that I think it should not exist in the first place. If I would be a wizard shareholder I would love this. It is the ideal way to print money and squeeze out the legacy community. Baleful Strix and Ooze have been similar but those where very cool cards, unique and the appropriate powerlevel.

But printing "monoblue overpowered/uninteractive/stupid spell" is just so lazy and ridiculous. And the reasoning they gave: "designed for commander" (how about different card text to make it not viable in a 2 player game) or "white has protection from colors - blue from other stuff" (ähm... wtf) just makes me angry cause this is basically saying "f**k you - we don't care about your stupid format, just show me the money".

Saying this it would be an even bigger "fuck you" if they ban the card after 6-12 months when the legacy community made their commander packs sell like water in the desert, but I would still like to pretend this never happened or does not exist.

So summing up I don't hate the impact on the format (yet) and still enjoy legacy very much, but I hate what the card represents in terms of wizards policy.... or at least what I interpret to be wizards policy concerning legacy (you never know... they might be really that stupid or careless).

[Arsenal]

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazin...tg/daily/ld/96

From the article:

The fascinating thing about the aforementioned agreement is that it seemed that the people who were part of the gentleman's agreement were having more fun than the people who weren't. Whether or not they were aware that there was anything special going on, they were experiencing a better variety of decks and a higher quantity of recognizable baseline Magic gameplay—even though they were still playing with nearly every Magic card that has been printed. We saw the world they had made, and we liked it. We liked it so much more than the competitive world that had Mystical Tutor decks that we decided to give that happier world to everyone.

Although they touched on the combo power issue (by using a Flash deck as an example, no less), they indicated that the "fun factor" and returning to "recognizable baseline Magic gameplay" as the main reasons Mystical Tutor was banned. Using this criteria, I would argue that TNN has sucked some of the "fun" out of Magic (less stack and battlefield interaction) and it definitely has circumvented specific pillars of recognizable baseline Magic gameplay (like, oh say, making the entire combat phase virtually irrelevant).

[Esper3k]

I can't see how anyone could possibly dispute what you just wrote, so I imagine they will just ignore it and change the subject.

Heh thanks for the compliment. I don't mind being proven wrong (ok, we all do!), but if someone's going to do it, it's going to take some hard evidence to do it, not nebulous arguments like "unfun", "uninteractive", "it killed X deck (that was already previously dead)", "it's stifling the format" (we're not seeing any evidence of this yet), "wwaaah it's blue" (umm... ok...).

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazin...tg/daily/ld/96

From the article:



Although they touched on the combo power issue (by using a Flash deck as an example, no less), they indicated that the "fun factor" and returning to "recognizable baseline Magic gameplay" as the main reasons Mystical Tutor was banned. Using this criteria, I would argue that TNN has sucked some of the "fun" out of Magic (less stack and battlefield interaction) and it definitely has circumvented specific pillars of recognizable baseline Magic gameplay (like, oh say, making the entire combat phase virtually irrelevant).

Really, you're quoting the infamous Tom LaPille article? On -this- board? :)

[Arsenal]

Really, you're quoting the infamous Tom LaPille article? In -this- forum? :)

Well, that's the only official Wizards documentation into the Mystical Tutor banning. Is there something else that Wizards has stated/released that is contrary to the article I posted?

[Lord Seth]

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazin...tg/daily/ld/96

From the article:



Although they touched on the combo power issue (by using a Flash deck as an example, no less), they indicated that the "fun factor" and returning to "recognizable baseline Magic gameplay" as the main reasons Mystical Tutor was banned. Using this criteria, I would argue that TNN has sucked some of the "fun" out of Magic (less stack and battlefield interaction) and it definitely has circumvented specific pillars of recognizable baseline Magic gameplay (like, oh say, making the entire combat phase virtually irrelevant).

All right everyone, you know what you do: If you want True-Name Nemesis gone, make a gentleman's agreement with as many people as possible to not play it!

[Esper3k]

Well, that's the only official Wizards documentation into the Mystical Tutor banning. Is there something else that Wizards has stated/released that is contrary to the article I posted?

Here's the explanation to why Mental Misstep was banned, by Erik Lauer

Force of Will has long been thought of as a card that helps keep combination decks in check in Legacy and Vintage. However, it doesn't directly help decks that aren't playing blue. One idea that was floated was creating a similar card that could be played in nonblue decks. When Phyrexian mana was designed, it was an opportunity to create such a card. R&D wanted a card that could help fight combination decks, and could also fight blue decks by countering cards such as Brainstorm. Clearly printing a card like this has a lot of risk, but there is also the potential for helping the format a lot. The risk is mitigated, because if it turns out poorly, the DCI can ban the card.

Unfortunately, it turned out poorly. Looking at high-level tournaments, instead of results having blue and nonblue decks playing Mental Misstep, there are more blue decks than ever. The DCI is banning Mental Misstep, with the hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep.

While it does not directly contradict LaPille's article, this one is shorter but seems to be more based on actual data and evidence than perception based topics like "fun" and "gentleman's agreement".

As the Mental Misstep banning is the much more recent of the two, we can only assume that it is the approach they would most likely follow.

Both announcements talk about combo decks being a concern, which again TNN has little impact on.

[PirateKing]

Reasons for banning are one time use only, or follow some karmaic reincarnation cycle that lasts decades. Any time you try and follow whatever ban logic is applied to formats, you run yourself in circles. Off a cliff.
To say Mystical Tutor was banned for reason X, the same reason TNN should be banned, ends up being more an sign of why they won't ban it.

[Star|Scream]

Heh thanks for the compliment. I don't mind being proven wrong (ok, we all do!), but if someone's going to do it, it's going to take some hard evidence to do it, not nebulous arguments like "unfun", "uninteractive", "it killed X deck (that was already previously dead)", "it's stifling the format" (we're not seeing any evidence of this yet), "wwaaah it's blue" (umm... ok...).



Really, you're quoting the infamous Tom LaPille article? On -this- board? :)

I see he both ignored it AND changed the subject :)

[Arsenal]

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.

True, it attacks and blocks... because it's a creature. No one is disputing that TNN is/isn't a creature. But you're leaving out that as a creature, it invalidates many, many cards (current and future) specifically designed to deal with... creatures. Also, although it uses the combat phase to do it's business, it prevents other creatures from interacting with it within that same phase. Reducing an entire phase of Magic to something it clearly wasn't intended for isn't something we should be championing.

And my response to MM being played in blue was to address your statement that TNN is only played in blue. You stated that MM could go in any deck, I then pointed out that MM primarily saw play in blue decks and not really in non-blue decks.

EDIT: What "hard evidence" do you need in order to consider having TNN banned? Tournament penetration? What specific data would satisfy you?

[Dragonslayer_90]

@Dragonslayer_90
Sorry if it came off that way, it was intended to be a friendly banter actually. I don't feel that strong about the whole issue to start insulting people online :) I think Erdvermampfa put it better than I did. Asking for a ban is, in my view, kind of stigmatized because honestly someone does it everytime a new good card is printed. But I think we shouldn't only think in terms of beatability in this case. Yes the card is beatable but if you are saying "I can beat it but I wished it hadn't been printed" it means you think the card is just not good for the health of the game. Simple as that. That's what I think anyway.

I see man. Well, I hope I didn't come off as an asshole as well. Just kind of tired of people calling for a ban when we need more time to see how the format with TNN in it. I can see where you and Erdvermampfa are coming on the health "argument", but I think there is a fine line between banning a card for the health of the format and being too punitive with bans. I hate to bring up modern again but that's just the best example. There are cards banned in that format that makes me want to puke. Wizards banned Wild Nacatl so that there could be more options for aggro than just Natcatl Zoo. Welp, still waiting for those options to turn up. RG Zoo was a thing for a little when Gatecrash came out, but that deck went to Tier 2 status in a short while. Probably because Modern is Midrange Heaven.

I am usually always against bannings and would like to see a couple of things come of the banned list. Nemesis has so far not been as format warping as many expected although she did really make an impact if you think about it. Lingering Souls and Geist are gone. Fair non blue decks like Death and taxes and Jund are hurt significantly. Overall I think format diversity will suffer.

Lingering Souls had already stopped being played long before True-Name Nemesis entered the format. Geist I can see, but really he was only played in UWR so it's not like being better than Geist pushed out a lot of decks. In fact True-Name made UWR better. Death and Taxes seems to be one of the best non-blue decks to play still. You will usually see at least one D&T list in recent Top 8s or 16s. Elves is putting up similar results. Jund? I don't really know. I think that deck stopped being good before TNN entered the format so I'm not sure if it was necessarily pushed out because of TNN

[Tormod]

Mystical Tutor was banned in December 2010. They plan blocks something like 3 to 6 years in advance, (I'm not sure exactly how far in advance)
Miracle Mechanic was introduced in Innistrad block 2011-2012

OF COURSE Wizards ISN'T going to let the cat out of the bag and say "We have this new miracle mechanic coming out, that will give blue the ability to time walk consistently with Mystical tutor, so we're banning it advance."

[Esper3k]

True, it attacks and blocks... because it's a creature. No one is disputing that TNN is/isn't a creature. But you're leaving out that as a creature, it invalidates many, many cards (current and future) specifically designed to deal with... creatures. Also, although it uses the combat phase to do it's business, it prevents other creatures from interacting with it within that same phase. Reducing an entire phase of Magic to something it clearly wasn't intended for isn't something we should be championing.

And my response to MM being played in blue was to address your statement that TNN is only played in blue. You stated that MM could go in any deck, I then pointed out that MM primarily saw play in blue decks and not really in non-blue decks.

Who cares if it invalidates spot removal? Invisible Stalker is unblockable and hexproof, but no one wants to see it banned in Legacy. Progenitus has more protections than TNN, but no one is calling for its ban either. Thrun is both uncounterable and survives most sweepers that would take out TNN.

Fundamentally, in Legacy, the trend for banning creatures has generally been only in the case of one-card combo enablers, such as Hermit Druid.

Just because a creature requires something other than Swords to Plowshares or Lightning Bolt to deal with isn't a reason to ban it.

Re Mental Misstep: It saw play in blue decks and in non-blue decks. TNN can only be played in blue decks and heavy blue decks at that. For all the claims of oppressing the format, TNN is seeing nowhere near the numbers that MM saw before its banning.

[Barook]

Who cares if it invalidates spot removal? Invisible Stalker is unblockable and hexproof, but no one wants to see it banned in Legacy. Progenitus has more protections than TNN, but no one is calling for its ban either. Thrun is both uncounterable and survives most sweepers that would take out TNN.

- Stalker is a 20-turn clock and can't act as indestructible wall

- Progenitus is brutal, but requires more resources (normal case would be NO since S&T has better targets). It could also be raced by a Batterskull, while TNN just sits back as a wall, waiting for his buddy to arrive who beats you down then.

- Thrun also costs more mana and has alot of mana upkeep both in combat and against sweepers - I wouldn't underestimate that. And he can be chump-blocked to hell - have fun against those 4/5 Goyfs.

[Arsenal]

Who cares if it invalidates spot removal? Invisible Stalker is unblockable and hexproof, but no one wants to see it banned in Legacy. Progenitus has more protections than TNN, but no one is calling for its ban either. Thrun is both uncounterable and survives most sweepers that would take out TNN.

Fundamentally, in Legacy, the trend for banning creatures has generally been only in the case of one-card combo enablers, such as Hermit Druid.

Just because a creature requires something other than Swords to Plowshares or Lightning Bolt to deal with isn't a reason to ban it.

Re Mental Misstep: It saw play in blue decks and in non-blue decks. TNN can only be played in blue decks and heavy blue decks at that. For all the claims of oppressing the format, TNN is seeing nowhere near the numbers that MM saw before its banning.

It doesn't just invalidate spot removal, it invalidates spot removal + non-combat damage + sidesteps many key facets of the combat phase. And your argument that because there are non-StP and non-Bolt answers for TNN can also be applied to virtually every card on the banned list, so I don't really get what you point is.

[davelin]

Maybe TNN should be banned, maybe it shouldn't. But can't we just wait more than 6 weeks before declaring it as warping the format or oppressive?

[FTW]

Heh thanks for the compliment. I don't mind being proven wrong (ok, we all do!), but if someone's going to do it, it's going to take some hard evidence to do it, not nebulous arguments like "unfun", "uninteractive", "it killed X deck (that was already previously dead)", "it's stifling the format" (we're not seeing any evidence of this yet), "wwaaah it's blue" (umm... ok...).

As further proof of the strength of your argument (or the weakness of theirs), I make reference to another card that fits all those descriptors but is nowhere near banworthy. This card is blue (wahhh), subjectively unfun and uninteractive (if you're not playing blue), kills some linear deck strategies (Belcher, Cheerios, Spanish Inquisition, etc.), and most especially can be found Stifleing the format... har har har...

Anyway, disadvantages of TNN:
- can be countered, unlike Troll Ascetic. if only people played blue in Legacy. wait...
- dies to Pox.dec
- dies to Deed, EE, Ratchet Bomb, and other cmc-based stuff
- dies to Supreme Verdict (hi Landstill?), Wrath, even Nausea
- held off by prison.dec
- cannot be searched for with Natural Order (Proggy) or GSZ (Thrun), meaning you need to run multiples for any consistency, limiting decks it slides into smoothly
- in opening hand, loses race with opening hand Delver
- loses race with burn.dec
- strictly worse than Vendilion Clique vs combo
- loses to Wasteland+Port+manascrew
- can't block Goblin Piledriver. have fun blocking Goblin Matron instead
- comes out the same turn NO PRO could pop a Natural Order, easily loses that race

In a nutshell, the card is just a creature that turns sideways. It's very beatable. Yes, it's better than a lot of other creatures that just turn sideways, much like Tarmogoyf and Delver of Secrets were when they were released, and plenty of people whined for their bannings too, but that's just power creep. It doesn't have any broken interactions with the game (e.g. annihilate 6 or draw 14 cards). It's just a better, linear, slow beater. There are many ways to play around it. The biggest thing it could do is shift the meta towards decks that can either handle it better or don't care about it. There are many of those decks. Meh.

[Arsenal]

So, if a card has answers, then it should not be banned?