Yes.
No.
I believe a more accurate term to use to describe a ban-worthy card is "polarizing": if a card is so powerful that the format forces you to build and play with it or build and play against it, completely preventing building and playing around it, then it should be banned. Skullclamp and Mental Misstep are examples of polarizing cards.
True-Name Nemesis is nowhere close to that, seeing how the format hasn't really changed outside of TNN being dominant, just like Goyf was the undisputed king of every format it was legal in pre-Green Sun's Zenith.
I would actually say that the Reid Duke Bant deck and the Blade Control decks are the closest we currently have to dedicated TNN decks.
It's when you try and classify decks like UWR Delver and RUG as TNN decks to fit your anti-TNN agenda is what I take issue with.
True, a card doesn't have to be the focal point of a deck to warrant a ban. Let me know when the numbers of TNNs being played reaches Mental Misstep levels. And of course, you think TNN is on the same power level as Mental Misstep is, right?
No, not on the same power level. It's always been the "unfun" factor for me.
Also, why is Blade Control a dedicated TNN deck, but Patriot isn't? Both decks run SFM-Equipment to trump opposing TNNs, Blade Control runs 1-2 maindeck sweepers as a concession to the TNN mirror, and the SCG Dallas list even went so far to run a maindeck Celestial Flare to fight TNN. I'm curious why you think running 3 maindeck TNN in Blade Control = TNN deck, but running 2 maindeck TNN in Patriot = not a TNN deck.
Now the interesting question is whether or not TNN is the reason for the BS increase due to more blue decks to play TNN + more combo to ignore TNN.
But 70% is alot. It would be interesting to know how much % of the field a card would have to take to be considered ban-worthy, since this was the argument for Mental Missstep that basically every deck had to run a full playset.
I said closest thing we have to a dedicated TNN deck. I'm not certain we have actually seen one truly built around it yet.
It all comes down the primary game plan of the deck. Within Stoneblade decks, I would say only the Esper / Deathblade builds these days have a primary plan of controlling the board until you can suit up your TNN and win off the back of it. I would actually call Thomason's UW list a Jace deck more than anything else. The main plan of that deck is to stall and leverage the power of Jace. Sure, it can go with the beat-them-to-death-with-TNN/Batterskull plan, but those pieces are there mainly to protect Jace.
Tempo / Delver decks plan on dropping a quick threat and then disrupting you while their threat kills you. TNN in those decks, as can be seen by their generally low maindeck numbers or being relegated to the sideboard, is their backup plan.
Speaking of experienced players writing about TNN, here's one saying why people shouldn't freak out yet:
http://www.channelfireball.com/artic...fine-stagnant/
And still misses that there have been a crapton of actually interesting and powerful cards in Commander sets. Stuff that isn't uninteractive, boring crap.
When I look at these, I see interesting cards that allow for fun things.
When I see this I see a shit that doesn't make the game more fun, but more boring:
![]()
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Ignoring SCGs and other tournaments, why not discuss what you've noticed from your LGS tournaments?
Here's what I've noticed:
- Before TNN, we would get an average of 15 players on Monday nights. In the last month, that has dropped to 11 (and thus 3 rounds instead of 4).
- There are a couple of people who have consistently played a TNN deck every Monday since the card came out. Prior to TNN, a friend of mine had come in first 3-4 times in the last half year. He's a decent player, but definitely did not have the same results as he does now - he has placed 1st, 1st, 2nd, and 4th in the last 4 tournaments. He is the only person I know who likes the card - and that is because he enjoys winning.
- Our diverse meta has shrunk - this is because TNN is in a lot of decks and a due to a smaller attendance.
Quite frankly, I think Nemesis is a shining example of a badly designed card. Based on observations at my LGS, I think it should be banned for various reasons including the decline of meta diversity, attendance, and the overall fun factor. Anyone who claims Nemesis is interactive is lying. If this card was designed for multi-player games, then it has no business being in a 1v1 format - just like ante cards were designed for ante games and thus are not allowed in Legacy.
Yeah, the SCG Invitational is a special case. What I meant is that the first-place Legacy deck was Omni-Tell; the second-place Legacy deck was Merfolk maxed out on Nemeses.
Maybe you need a history lesson? Let's grab some quotes from the Mental Misstep thread circa August 2011. (The card was banned a month later.)
I remain confident that True-Name Nemesis decks will continue to post impressive tournament finishes, just as Mental Misstep proved to be intractable.
I like Caleb, but his latest article spoke about League of Legends the majority of the time, and it didn't exactly stick up for Nemesis. Rather, he opines that all change is good change, from the perspective of a deck builder. Also, this statement is awful, and I couldn't disagree with it more:
"But it's the changes that keep games fresh, whether the pros like it or not. Players at the top have to relearn, temporarily shaking things up and giving new players a chance. Everyone, at all levels, gets to experience that rush of accomplishment over again.
Following this logic, changing the legend rule was good for Magic. Changing it again will also be good for Magic. They could make damage stack again, and that'd be fine too. Not because damage stacking is good or bad for the game, that's mostly irrelevant. A small, arbitrary shift to the game, just to keep people on their toes, has value in itself."
Change for the sake of change, with no reasoning behind it? No thanks.
Once again, I'm not advocating banning TNN yet, but the arguments in favor of it have been quite lacking.
Here's why Flash shouldn't be banned: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazin...ol07/welcome#5
I don't think TNN approaches the degeneracy of Survival or Mental Misstep, but the other two are more interactive and skill-intensive cards to play with (as well as being much more fun in the case of Survival). Moreover, TNN is already putting up much better results than Mystical Tutor ever did.
Usualy I like Caleb, but that article seems a little bit off. He indeed talked more about League of Legends than about MTG.
What kind of hosers is Wizards going to print to fix this without banning TNN? Maybe something like this in an EDH product, remember it is supposed to work only for multiplayer games but R&D will simply 'forget' to test it in Legacy:
Stupid dumb red dude 1R
Creature something something
3/1
Haste, First strike
Stupid dumb red dude cannot be countered.
As Stupid dumb red dude enters the battlefield, choose a player controlling an island. That player loses the game.
Be sure to waste your underground sea while it's on the stack! See it even got answers!
If you want a red fixer card, it wouldn't be to hard.
1R
Sorcery
deals 2 damage to every creature.
damage cannot be prevented.
The only thing LoL and TNN have in common is that neither are very well-designed.
I scratched my head at that part. So TNN is okay because Deadguy Ale can MD Zealous Persecution now?Those arguments in mind, I don't think the card will damage Legacy significantly.
...
Deadguy ale is one of the few decks that can maindeck Zealous Persecution on top of LilianaWhat kind of argument is that? Deadguy Ale isn't even a real deck at the moment.
Esper, as I (and others) have stated, TNN isn't a card you build an entire deck around. You simply throw it in existing decks and watch them do exponentially better than before.
Your argument is since no deck has been constructed solely around TNN, there are no TNN decks. I strongly disagree as it's quite obvious that the decks currently running TNN do so with TNN at the forefront of their minds. They either are looking to mana-ramp into him to land their TNN before the opponent does (Bant and Deathblade) or they're looking to have the best TNN on the table thanks to SFM-Equipment (Stoneblade, Esperblade, Patriot) or both (Bant and Deathblade).
I'm not sure if I'd call these decks TNN.dec, most of them existed before, it's just that they use now-available fully-blue Tarmogoyf Ascetic. The reason why TNN should be disliked is becasue of its ugly design: it's not a creature, at least not usual. It's like having sorcery that would attack; something not even FUT brought, it's more like from Un-sets, as already someone wrote.
EDIT: Please stop quoting ̶R̶i̶c̶o̶ ̶S̶u̶a̶v̶e̶ Esper3k, he is on my ignore list and I actually have to read 3-4 words of one of his posts everytime I scroll down.
I was actually surprised there isn't a flavor of Pyroclasm that traded 1 damage for a can't be prevented clause. Seems totally reasonable for acost as well. Wipe all x/1s regardless of protection or white based damage redirection tricks.
And what I'm saying is just because you threw a few into a deck, it doesn't suddenly turn it into a TNN deck like you've been trying to do with UWR Delver and RUG to make TNN look like it's more populous than it is.
For the third time now, I'll say that the closest thing we actually have to a dedicated TNN deck is Reid Duke's Bant list, most Deathblade lists, and most Esper Stoneblade lists. If your primary game plan is to play TNN and suit it up with equipment, it's fine to call that deck a TNN deck. I don't understand why you're trying to argue with me on this point when what you're saying is in agreement with me.
UWR Delver and RUG do not have a primary strategy of riding TNN to victory, thus it is not correct to call them TNN decks. UW/x Miracles sometimes play Vendilion Cliques or Snapcasters, but it's incorrect to call them beatdown decks just because sometimes they can win off of those. The same thing applies here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)