Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

Yeah, I'd like to see TNN nixed because he's the most recent in a sequence of printed mistakes that is fast erasing an entire cluster of archetypes from competitive Legacy play.

First we have the rise of the Show and Tell archetype as the premier combo deck in Legacy, which is notoriously difficult to hate out with all of the different threats various strains of the deck can plop onto the play area. Remember, hatebears were starting to get pretty decent against Storm and Dredge...not perfect, but enough that the aggro/combo matchup would be some miserable 10/90 affair. And looking towards a (now irrelevant) future, hate for Storm and Dredge was likely to gain in power faster than the combo decks themselves; Wizards has quite the hate-boner for both archetypes and the fundamental mechanics that would strengthen them (free shit from the graveyard, fast mana, tutoring, draw-engines*) are unlikely to see power increases. Unlike the Stupid Fucking Fatties that enable Show and Tell decks. We'll probably see more as Wizards pushes the envelope.

Elves supplanting Dredge as the secondary combo threat is also a wee bit of a toughie for aggro to cope with as it's a combo deck that is much harder to hate by a lot of convention means (Thalia, Teeg, every piece of extremely pushed gravehate, etc) that can also adopt a ground and pound game that isn't a goofy gimmick like old SI lists siding in Tomb of Urami or some shit.

Second, Control got Terminus (and, to a lesser extent, Supreme Verdict), making those matchups no longer favorable. I don't have any actual data, but I'd venture a guess that the matchups against say...Miracles are not in favor of the aggro deck.

Now, you have TNN making one of the few matchups where aggro might have had a chance, namely Blue tempo, into a dicey affair. The jury's still out on this one, as TNN could be all hype or some Super Secret Tech™ could be dug up to prop aggro's numbers up. But it still points to growing problem in the Legacy ecosystem.

Namely that the metagame is becoming more rapidly centered around Blue shells and combo decks (or some overlap). This is exacerbating issues of accessibility as well as chewing up the diversity of viable decktypes/playstyles that was one of Legacy's biggest selling points. While no-one doubts the idea that Legacy can self-correct due to the vast cardpool replete with powerful answers, it's less clear whether or not the format comes out for the better after multiple periods of self-correction. The mechanism of self-correction is only so robust against shocks to the system, and Wizards has been dumping a ton of awful (and powerful) cards into the Legacy pool...how many more Delvers/Griselbrands/TNNs will it take to make the format so bad that uber-Spikes finally wake up and realize bans aren't necessarily a bad thing?


*That aren't also in the category "Stupid Fucking Fatties"

[menace13]

If they unbanned survival people would just use it to get 4 TNNs into play.

No, don't be stupid. That's the SB plan.

[Arsenal]

If decreased interaction with opponents is your only criteria, then following your line of thinking, all combo decks should be banned? At what point do you draw what looks to be a pretty arbitrary line?

You misunderstand. I want to interact with my opponent, therefore, I play with fair decks. I'm fine if my opponent chooses to play with combo. In fact, if you're constructing an entire deck just so that your 1 or 2 engine pieces work, then more power to you. Again, I want to interact, what my opponent wants to do is up to him. It's actually not too far from danyul's explanation.

[Barook]

I think the problem is that they design cards for eternal formats without developing and testing them.

Yeah, that's pretty much part of the problem.

"Hey, look, we care about you! We made some cards for Legacy!"
"Did you test them?"
"Nope, no time for that."
"But some of them ruin the format!"
"Oopsy Daisy, have another overpowered blue card that definitely does not belong to the blue color pie instead. Have a nice day!"

[Tormod]

Cowards can't block warriors!

[bjholmes3]

I wish that Griselbrand was printed blue.

Nonsense aside, can someone please provide me a list of prominent archetypes that have been defeated by TNN? I could fly to the moon with all the hot air that's been blown on this subject. I don't believe that TNN has killed anything that was any sort of alive in the first place, and I challenge someone to show me otherwise. Kindly do me the courtesy of a thought out post, not a nonsensical text wall of circumstantial and subjective drivel.

As for those lamenting the so-called death of the combat step, those claims are ludicrous. Any Legacy aggro deck without either a blazing fast clock or evasive beaters is doomed to fail, TNN or not. Brews littered with pathetic mediocre creatures have no place here. Furthermore, TNN is only one creature, and he can only attack OR block at any given time. Further board development aside, he functions the same as any massive creature would; either he attacks and you don't block, or he doesn't attack, and you don't either. Just like in Standard when the opponent pops down Big Daddy. Except TNN is weaker than Big Daddy. If your creatures can't race a tempo/control with TNN's clock, you aren't doing aggro right to begin with.

Lastly, WHY is there such a big push on fair // unfair decks? This whole concept is ridiculous and contrary to the very nature of the format we play. If you only want fair decks, play Standard. Otherwise, keep that nonsense to yourself. That's a reason to choose a deck for yourself, not a reason for a card to be banned.

[DLifshitz]

I wish that Griselbrand was printed blue.

Nonsense aside, can someone please provide me a list of prominent archetypes that have been defeated by TNN? I could fly to the moon with all the hot air that's been blown on this subject. I don't believe that TNN has killed anything that was any sort of alive in the first place, and I challenge someone to show me otherwise. Kindly do me the courtesy of a thought out post, not a nonsensical text wall of circumstantial and subjective drivel.

In terms of statistics (http://www.mtgdecks.net), it's pushed down midrange and/or board control decks like Jund, Shardless BUG and Aggro Loam (the modern 4-color version was doing pretty well). I wouldn't say those decks have become completely nonviable, and people still play them, especially the former two, but they're definitely on the downsurge.

I also expect that Maverick will die for a second time sometime soon, and some neat decks (Team Italia, Haterade: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...k-hate-package, Junk) that aim to attack on the ground will go with it, because it's so difficult to punch through TNN on the ground.

[Illusions]

I was mulling over this some more today and wanted to make note of another point of why I liked TNN:

Over much of the history of MTG, non-creature spells have traditionally been more powerful than creature spells. Nowadays, WoTC has been trying to push the envelope of creatures. Even looking past Tarmogoyf, look at the great 1-drops and 2-drops we have available to us today - Delver of Secrets, Deathrite Shaman, Goblin Guide, Stoneforge Mystic, Young Pyromancer, etc. Legacy, given that our card pool spans the history of MTG, is still dominated by spells (Brainstorm, StP, Lightning Bolt, Dark Ritual, LED, Show & Tell, Force of Will, Thoughtseize, etc.). I mean really - our "aggro" decks are ones that run 12 creatures and 30 spells?

However, if you look at the creatures that regularly see play, we have a real lack of powerful creatures in the 3 drop slot. Yes, even Knight of the Reliquary is generally too weak these days.

In TNN, we get a creature that isn't huge, but is great at doing what the two functions creatures basically do: attacking and blocking. Nothing else.

WoTC has given us a 3 drop creature that manages to be Legacy playable (I'd go as far as to say it'll eventually become a staple), yet does not enable some sort of combo. I actually find that somewhat impressive.

What does our community go and do? Start complaining about it!

And people wonder why WoTC doesn't cater to us more...

Actually, as individual creatures get stronger, tempo gets better relative to pure aggro, because it's able to maintain high threat density and pressure whilst still having access to powerful proactive abilities. The reason tempo is so incredibly good in legacy now is because the creatures are so powerful, and as they get better, other strategies will probably have a tough time keeping up (in fact, I would argue they already are). Without those creatures, tempo decks just wouldn't be as good, because it would be much harder to ride a single busted creature to victory. By contrast, there is a limit as to how fast and powerful an aggro deck can be.

I mean, pure aggro will likely never be a thing in legacy again, because it follows the exact same strategy as fast combo. Both combo and aggro are highly proactive decks that aim to kill an opponent before they get to play magic. The difference is, combo can feasibly win the game on turn one or two, whereas there is a hard limit on how quickly an aggro deck can win. Turn three seems to be about the limit, though infect decks (aggro-combo) can do it turn two. If you're playing a highly proactive deck that isn't grinding out massive card advantage, combo does everything that pure aggro does, but better. It's harder to shut down, and it's faster.

On the other hand, with incredibly strong creatures, you can play a highly reactive strategy, but retain the power and consistency of aggro decks. You get the best of both worlds. As a result of how good creatures have become (and you only really need a few), tempo is by far the most consistent strategy in the format. Personally, I think the power of creatures has long since outstripped the power of non-creature spells; the reason spells get played more in legacy is because they have much more flexibility, and you don't actually need that many good creatures to win the game. Most of the time, one will do. In contrast, not being able to react to the highly proactive and powerful strategies that both combo and creatures represent, is a sure path to losing.

[Nielsie]

Goblins is also dead. It put up some good results over the summer but now with TNN it looks very hard for Goblins. I also believe that RUG will fade out. Many people will keep trying to play it, even try to play their own TNN but soon they will realize it's simply better to switch the green pieces for white pieces.

I think the big problem with TNN is Jitte. Before, Jitte was always equiped on a creature you could kill when it attacked or block and then use some sac effect on your blocker to negate the counters. For example Goblins was troubled with Jitte but it could use Skirk Prospector or Siege-Gang to blow up the blocking goblin or use Gempalm Incinerator to kill the carrier, giving you more time to find, tutor and set up something to destroy the jitte.

With TNN it's impossible to interact with the Jitte carrier and that just makes it now pointless to play any midrange strategy that is not itself using TNN and Jitte. Why bother with Maverick, Goblins, Jund, etc? Your combo matches are not great, now your other matchups are terrible too. I would like an answer to that question: Why bother playing a non TNN midrange strategy?

If TNN should be banned, it's because he substracts from the meta-game. Granted Maverick and Goblins are not played in big numbers but the strategies were viable before TNN and gave appeal to the format. What TNN does is transform Legacy into Modern. Have you ever played Modern? Every round is the same, you play against: Tron, Affinity, BGx, Splinter Twin or UW control. Simply boring, not one round you will feel suprised with your opponent's deck. It's almost at the point of rock, paper, scissors.

I guess there are 3 options to consider: ban TNN, Jitte or Stoneforge
- Stoneforge: you would destroy a whole batch of other decks in the splash damage while TNN decks would just run Jitte as a 4 of. Horrible solution...
- Jitte: could be a solution. Many people already don't like this card in Legacy. TNN decks can be raced or swarmed by other aggro or midrange strategies without seeing their creatures get killed by Jitte counters.
- TNN: we would return to the metagame before TNN. Not a bad thing because there was a lot more variation and openess in the format. The most important TNN decks (blade control and UWR) already are viable decks without TNN so they aren't hurt that much either. The only problematic thing if it happens right now: it would set a precedent for banning a new card too quickly.

[Arsenal]

As for those lamenting the so-called death of the combat step, those claims are ludicrous. Any Legacy aggro deck without either a blazing fast clock or evasive beaters is doomed to fail, TNN or not. Brews littered with pathetic mediocre creatures have no place here. Furthermore, TNN is only one creature, and he can only attack OR block at any given time. Further board development aside, he functions the same as any massive creature would; either he attacks and you don't block, or he doesn't attack, and you don't either. Just like in Standard when the opponent pops down Big Daddy. Except TNN is weaker than Big Daddy. If your creatures can't race a tempo/control with TNN's clock, you aren't doing aggro right to begin with.

Lastly, WHY is there such a big push on fair // unfair decks? This whole concept is ridiculous and contrary to the very nature of the format we play. If you only want fair decks, play Standard. Otherwise, keep that nonsense to yourself. That's a reason to choose a deck for yourself, not a reason for a card to be banned.

First, aggro hasn't been a thing for a long time. And the aggro decks that do exist are firmly entrenched in tier 2/3 (Infect? Zoo? Lol). I suppose to clear this up, what are you classifying as "aggro"?

Second, decks running creatures that aren't "blazing fast" and with no evasion are doomed to fail? Wow... so a FIVE turn clock (not exactly "blazing" imo) with no evasion fits your description perfectly, yet, Tarmogoyf is still the king of Legacy. Pretty sure decks running Goyf are doing A-okay.

Third, your view of combat doesn't even make any sense. If my opponent is attacking with a creature, large or small, and I control an untapped creature, it allows me make a decision (don't block, take the damage or block, combat damage dealt, then play Bolt on his dude to try to finish it off, cast a removal spell, etc). I interact with my opponent and his creature if I so choose. With TNN, that decision has been taken away me. That potential interaction is now no longer part of the game. And what do you mean "or he doesn't attack, and you don't either"? If my opponent is sitting on a 4/5 Goyf and I have a 2/2 Geist, I can most certainly choose to attack. This now allows my opponent to make a decision to either interact with my Geist or not. We're talking about COMBAT, a phase designed solely for creatures and players to interact. I'm playing with fair decks because I want to interact with my opponent on the stack and on the battlefield. When I play with TNN, it takes some of that potential interaction away from the game.

Finally, I love your "go play [FORMAT] if you don't like Legacy!" attitude. That solves everything. Thanks, never thought of that.

[Esper3k]

Third, your view of combat doesn't even make any sense. If my opponent is attacking with a creature, large or small, and I control an untapped creature, it allows me make a decision (don't block, take the damage or block, combat damage dealt, then play Bolt on his dude to try to finish it off, cast a removal spell, etc). I interact with my opponent and his creature if I so choose. With TNN, that decision has been taken away me. That potential interaction is now no longer part of the game. And what do you mean "or he doesn't attack, and you don't either"? If my opponent is sitting on a 4/5 Goyf and I have a 2/2 Geist, I can most certainly choose to attack. This now allows my opponent to make a decision to either interact with my Geist or not. We're talking about COMBAT, a phase designed solely for creatures and players to interact. I'm playing with fair decks because I want to interact with my opponent on the stack and on the battlefield. When I play with TNN, it takes some of that potential interaction away from the game.

If you're trying to maximize interaction with your opponent, I hope you don't play any creatures that can be bigger than theirs, have evasion of their own, have shroud/hexproof/protection/regeneration, or are large enough to survive Lightning Bolts.

Any of that stuff would reduce interaction.

Again, it's a pretty arbitrary criteria.

Finally, if you're only concerned about your own deck and not your opponent's, then you can just not play TNN if you don't like it.

[Arsenal]

If you're trying to maximize interaction with your opponent, I hope you don't play any creatures that can be bigger than theirs, have evasion of their own, have shroud/hexproof/protection/regeneration, or are large enough to survive Lightning Bolts.

Any of that stuff would reduce interaction.

Again, it's a pretty arbitrary criteria.

Finally, if you're only concerned about your own deck and not your opponent's, then you can just not play TNN if you don't like it.

I play with SFM (no evasion, dies to Bolt, doesn't do much in combat), Clique (evasive flier, dies to Bolt, can sometimes protect itself via ETB trigger, dies to everything in combat), Snapcaster Mage (no evasion, dies to Bolt, dies to everything in combat) and TNN. I think I've maximized the potential for interaction with/for my opponent, TNN excluded of course.

I've already noted that I could just not run TNN, but then I'd just lose (more) to other decks that do run TNN. So I pretty much have to run it in my deck if I want to keep pace with other fair decks running TNN.

EDIT: Also, your criteria for banning a card doesn't apply to some currently banned cards, yet they remained banned.

[Esper3k]

I play with SFM (no evasion, dies to Bolt, doesn't do much in combat), Clique (evasive flier, dies to Bolt, can sometimes protect itself), Snapcaster Mage (no evasion, dies to Bolt, doesn't do a whole lot in combat usually) and TNN. I think I've maximized the potential for interaction with/for my opponent, TNN excluded of course.

I've already noted that I could just not run TNN, but then I'd just lose (more) to other decks that do run TNN. So I pretty much have to run it in my deck if I want to keep pace with other fair decks running TNN.

Ah but by playing all those 2-for-1 creatures, you've reduced the value of your opponent's interaction with them.

By playing removal, you reduce your opponent's interaction with you.

By playing countermagic, you reduce your opponent's interaction with you.

By playing evasive creatures, you reduce your opponent's interaction with you.

I'm not saying reducing your opponent's interaction with you is a bad thing - how much you want to allow your opponent to interact with you is up to each player to decide. However, if you think you're somehow allowing maximum interaction with your opponent, you're deluding yourself.

Carsten Kotter recently had a great article about the misnomer of being a "fair" deck in Legacy that does a good job explaining how even the "fair" decks do "unfair" things.

[Arsenal]

Maybe, maybe not. If I resolve Snapcaster Mage and target my StP with the ETB trigger, my opponent now interacts with me/it by activating his Deathrite Shaman/Scavenging Ooze in response. If I resolve my SFM and announce the ETB trigger, my opponent now interacts with me/it by casting Stifle. Your interaction criteria was my creatures can't be bigger than my opponent's (which they usually aren't), dies to Bolt (which all of them do), and doesn't have evasion (Clique does only, nobody else does); TNN excluded or course. Now it's changed. Please list what your full list of interaction criteria is.

Playing removal doesn't reduce interaction, playing removal is interaction. And I play exactly 2 evasive creatures in my deck outside of TNN. I could easily shave those 2 Cliques and make them something else (2 Ponder, etc).

[Esper3k]

Maybe, maybe not. If I resolve Snapcaster Mage and target my StP with the ETB trigger, my opponent now interacts with me/it by activating his Deathrite Shaman/Scavenging Ooze in response. If I resolve my SFM and announce the ETB trigger, my opponent now interacts with me/it by casting Stifle. Your interaction criteria was my creatures can't be bigger than my opponent's (which they usually aren't), dies to Bolt (which all of them do), and doesn't have evasion (Clique does only, nobody else does); TNN excluded or course. Now it's changed. Please list what your full list of interaction criteria is.

Playing removal doesn't reduce interaction, playing removal is interaction. And I play exactly 2 evasive creatures in my deck outside of TNN. I could easily shave those 2 Cliques and make them something else (2 Ponder, etc).

Your opponent plays Tarmogoyf. You StP it. Your opponent plays Tarmogoyf #2. You flash in SCM, flash back StP on their Tarmogoyf. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

You play Stoneforge Mystic on turn 2 and get Batterskull. Your opponent has neither a counterspell nor removal spell. You SFM in the Batterskull and bash in their brains with your recurring Serra Angel. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

You Thoughtseize away one of their threats on t1. On T3, you SCM back Thoughtseize and take their other threat. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

"Interaction" is completely arbitrary. That's the point.

[Arsenal]

Your opponent plays Tarmogoyf. You StP it. Your opponent plays Tarmogoyf #2. You flash in SCM, flash back StP on their Tarmogoyf. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

You play Stoneforge Mystic on turn 2 and get Batterskull. Your opponent has neither a counterspell nor removal spell. You SFM in the Batterskull and bash in their brains with your recurring Serra Angel. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

You Thoughtseize away one of their threats on t1. On T3, you SCM back Thoughtseize and take their other threat. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

"Interaction" is completely arbitrary. That's the point.

Compare your Tarmogoyf example to: My opponent plays TNN. I'm holding the aforementioned StP and SCM. My opponent plays TNN #2. I'm still holding the aforementioned StP and SCM..... which example had more interaction?

And the difference with your SFM example and TNN is that if my opponent draws into a creature removal (or artifact removal if SBed) spell, he can maybe get back in the game. Maybe he doesn't, but there's a chance and he now has options/choices/decisions staring down a SFM + Batterskull. If I play TNN on turn 3 and my opponent doesn't have the counterspell (he can have as many StPs as he wants), I just bash his brains in with my 3/1 dude while he sits on removal, his largely irrelevant creatures can't block, etc. Which example yielded more interaction?

I don't run Thoughtseize, I'm on UW Blade Control (SCG Dallas list).

[Star|Scream]

Your opponent plays Tarmogoyf. You StP it. Your opponent plays Tarmogoyf #2. You flash in SCM, flash back StP on their Tarmogoyf. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

You play Stoneforge Mystic on turn 2 and get Batterskull. Your opponent has neither a counterspell nor removal spell. You SFM in the Batterskull and bash in their brains with your recurring Serra Angel. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

You Thoughtseize away one of their threats on t1. On T3, you SCM back Thoughtseize and take their other threat. I'm sure your opponent feels like they had a great amount of interaction with you.

"Interaction" is completely arbitrary. That's the point.

In all fairness I think most people agree that interaction is being able to alter the opponent's gameplan through hand manipulation, counterspells, removal, or attacking and blocking. With that definition TNN does remove a lot of interaction from the game.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be banned.

[Arsenal]

Right, that's what my definition of "interaction" is. Maybe Esper and I have been disagreeing because he has a completely different definition. What is your definition of "interaction", Esper?

[Admiral_Arzar]

In all fairness I think most people agree that interaction is being able to alter the opponent's gameplan through hand manipulation, counterspells, removal, or attacking and blocking. With that definition TNN does remove a lot of interaction from the game.

This is accurate. Countering someone's spell doesn't "reduce interaction" - it is the very definition of interaction (c'mon Esper, you know better than that lol). Casting turn one Ad Nauseam followed by a billion spells and a Tendrils is non-interactive because all but one of the spells you are playing don't care that you have an opponent in front of you. They are forced to interact (Force of Will) or die. Because most Legacy decks play ways to interact with storm combo, storm itself must play interactive cards (Cabal Therapy, Duress, Silence, etc. are all interactive because they directly screw with your opponent's gameplan) in order to keep up.

[Esper3k]

Compare your Tarmogoyf example to: My opponent plays TNN. I'm holding the aforementioned StP and SCM. My opponent plays TNN #2. I'm still holding the aforementioned StP and SCM..... which example had more interaction?

And the difference with your SFM example and TNN is that if my opponent draws into a creature removal (or artifact removal if SBed) spell, he can maybe get back in the game. Maybe he doesn't, but there's a chance and he now has options/choices/decisions staring down a SFM + Batterskull. If I play TNN on turn 3 and my opponent doesn't have the counterspell (he can have as many StPs as he wants), I just bash his brains in with my 3/1 dude while he sits on removal, his largely irrelevant creatures can't block, etc. Which example yielded more interaction?

I don't run Thoughtseize, I'm on UW Blade Control (SCG Dallas list).

Again, you haven't made a case why "interaction" should be on such a pedestal that it should be maximized at all times (which you yourself admit, you do not do).

If you're playing the SCG Dallas list, you're playing Jaces - again, a very noninteractive card (Planeswalkers are notoriously difficult to interact with).

Right, that's what my definition of "interaction" is. Maybe Esper and I have been disagreeing because he has a completely different definition. What is your definition of "interaction", Esper?

No, I'm calling you out for saying that you want maximum interaction with your opponent, but then go on to play cards that reduce interaction with your opponent.

You say you're fine with opponents playing combo and combo being in the format, but then you want to turn around and ban a creature that's far more interactive than combo decks. So why is TNN bannable, but combo isn't?

This is accurate. Countering someone's spell doesn't "reduce interaction" - it is the very definition of interaction (c'mon Esper, you know better than that lol). Casting turn one Ad Nauseam followed by a billion spells and a Tendrils is non-interactive because all but one of the spells you are playing don't care that you have an opponent in front of you. They are forced to interact (Force of Will) or die. Because most Legacy decks play ways to interact with storm combo, storm itself must play interactive cards (Cabal Therapy, Duress, Silence, etc. are all interactive because they directly screw with your opponent's gameplan) in order to keep up.

You ever talk to those players who hate blue control decks because they get all their stuff countered by their opponents and can't do anything? Ask them how interactive of a match they felt that was?

Combo is of course generally the least interactive of deck archetypes since it generally ignores your opponent, but heavy permission decks that just stifle your opponent also reduce interaction.

Of course, by the definition of being able to alter the opponent's gameplan through hand manipulation, counterspells, removal, or attacking and blocking, TNN of course has less interaction than most other creatures, but let's take a look at the different parts of that particular definition:

Hand Manipulation: TNN can be interacted with through hand disruption. Check.
Counterspells: TNN can certainly be countered. On top of that, it's a creature that can be countered by REB/Pyroblast, a commonly played cheap counterspell that will likely be online well before TNN can be cast (unlike say a T1 Delver). It's also a 3 drop spell, which in a format of Stifle/Wasteland/Daze, can be difficult to cast to say the least.
Removal: He's got all the bonuses of Hexproof plus protection from damage. Pretty good, but not unbeatable. Most of the sweepers still get him and he's particularly susceptible to cards like Golgari Charm and Zealous Persecution.
Attacking/Blocking: He's also great here, no doubt about it. Again, not unbeatable as any form of evasion pretty much gets past him (other than the rare blue Intimidate guys) and he's not exactly a fast clock as a 3 drop, 3 power guy.

So while he certainly does reduce interaction, to me, it hasn't been shown why this particular level of interaction is somehow unacceptable and warrants a ban.