Yes.
No.
I think the sentiments against TNN are the same as when Goyf came out and it killed all of those decks that we don't even remember anymore. Does anyone remember the refrain of Goyf killing Goblins? Now it's TNN right?
Yup, we'll just need cards with abilities like "After blockers have been declared, choose a single non-flying, attacking creature an opponent controls. Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt by that creature. CARDNAME deals damage equal to its power to the chosen creature and it deals damage equal to its power to CARDNAME. That damage can't be prevented".Originally Posted by HSCK
Or spells. Imagine that. "Choose a single creature in play. CARDNAME deals 3 damage to that creature. The damage can't be prevented."
Yeah, I guess the game will return to sanity at some point. Or perhaps we'll all be casting one-mana 15/15 Deathkittens and the notion of an ugly, uninteractive piece of shit strong enough to make you play it or play an ignore-it strategy seems quaint and old-fashioned.
That is to say, there is a fundamental difference between Tarmogoyf and True-Shit. Tarmogoyf dies to removal that isn't torturously specific. It also happens to be the exact same thing that keeps Delver and DRS tolerable. They die to all the things ever printed.
Except it's still a 3/1 for 3. I have no idea why people still want it banned.
Because it's not a 3/1 for 3. Saying that is as disingenuous as saying DRS is just a 1/2 for 1 or that Delver is just a 1/1.
I'd hardly call the black "target player sacrifices a creature" removal specific. You do lose control over which creature dies first, but your other removal is still good against their other creatures, so if you're playing BUG and staring down SFM and TNN, a Liliana activation followed by Innocent Blood/Diabolic Edict does the job for 1B. This is just one of many scenarios and isn't even remotely absurd or much of your deck to give you both cards over the period of say, 2 turns.
More importantly though, I don't see the "play it or ignore it" metagame that keeps being brought up. UW Miracles has seen its fortunes improve somewhat, but other than that there hasn't been any significant change in the meta or the top tier of decks beyond what was already happening without TNN. It's a bit early to say for sure, but preliminary results strongly suggest that he made existing good decks better at the expense of their weaker cards in the same slot (most vividly replacing Geist) rather than spawning decks built around him that are forcing a major restructuring of deckbuilding principles or of viable archetypes. Absent both of those criteria there is no argument for banning.
Last edited by btm10; 12-14-2013 at 05:12 PM.
Sorry, an invincible 3/1 for 3...that needs equipment or a very aggressive tempo shell to be a decent player in the meta. That's certainly oppressive and ban worthy right? Or is it just design that means it should?
Nemesis does NOT NEED TO GO.
I repeat -- True-Name Nemesis DOES NOT NEED TO GO.
Why are we so concerned with a card that kills with a much, MUCH slower clock than decks like Belcher and Storm?
Because it completely takes away one of the key aspects in Magic: Interaction. It sure is exciting to see two TNN decks bash each other's head in.
Other people just choose to play combo because they don't want to interact with it. So TNN actually promotes other non-interactive decks which is also a bad side effect.
Really? Well they're just bad players to begin with if that's the case. That's a lame excuse for being too lazy to play around tnn and board properly against it.
I'm curious how many people who support/like TNN don't own any, and vice-versa.
I actually don't care about Nemesis, mostly because I play Miracles. But I do own them, in case I wanna play Blade and stuff.
Greetings
I play multiple decks, some have tnn, some don't. I own more than one deck, so my stance on tnn is not affected by whether tnn "invalidates" any of my decks.
See my previous post, to say TNN completely takes away interaction is pretty hyperbolic.
I'm not sure if "don't care of TNN" is support or not, but for your opinion poll:
- don't care
- don't have
I do not own TNN.
I support not banning them, and I also don't own them.
I also play combo, so I don't care about TNN.
I own four copies of True-Name Nemesis and have the pieces for Esper Stoneblade/Deathblade and UWR Delver. I preferred pre-TNN Legacy (yes, even if that format was the one where Shardless BUG was besting Stoneforge Mystic decks) but I don't believe that TNN should be banned.
I own a playset of TNN and I'm looking to pick up another set. I don't think it needs to be banned right now, but it is a horrible addition to the format, and I wouldn't shed any tears if it did get banned.
I know several of the most vocal critics of TNN on this thread also own at least a playset.
I play combo so I can largely ignore it. Still hate the card's guts.
I also don't understand several people (not necessarily in this thread) asking me why I dislike the card if it improves my win percentages.
WTF kind of logic is that. We don't get paid to play, we play for fun. Other people do, too. I had good enough matchups previously, wth should I want people who like to play on the board have a miserable time because I win a couple games more? It makes no damn sense to me.
Only 3 MD TNN in the 7-1 lists for SCG Invi lists and a wide array of archetypes, but the format's still TNN vs. anti-TNN right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
