Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?

[Esper3k]

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 a cost as well. Wipe all x/1s regardless of protection or white based damage redirection tricks.

Given that we're starting to get spells like Skullcrack, it wouldn't surprise me to see something like that come up in an upcoming set.

[PirateKing]

UWR Delver and RUG do not have a primary strategy of riding TNN to victory...

I agree except I've started to see some UWr Delver builds at my LGS that are TNN decks; early Delver, follow with TNN to throw a sword on found with SFM. Red seems to be MD Lightning Bolt with SB REB and Grim Lavamancer. They call it American Delver, and it seems to fit your criteria for a TNN deck.

EDIT: To clarify, they seem to have eschewed the traditional Batterskull/Jitte package for MD swords and have 4 TNN. I haven't had a chance to go through it completely to see what other changes there are. But it is a TNN take on UWR different from popular lists seem elsewhere.

[Feaor]

I would say to just ignore him, I don't think its particularly relevant or interesting to have discussions on semantics like what exactly is interactive and what does it mean to be an X deck, especially the later as the argument of the people claiming that X deck is not a TNN deck will at some point boil down to a No True Scotsman argument.

TNN isn't even a build around card, its a goodstuff card that happens to synergize with other goodstuff cards, i.e. Stoneforge Mystic. I would say that any deck that's playing both of these cards is a TNN deck even though its plan isn't exclusively to suit up TNN and smash.

[Esper3k]

I agree except I've started to see some UWr Delver builds at my LGS that are TNN decks; early Delver, follow with TNN to throw a sword on found with SFM. Red seems to be MD Lightning Bolt with SB REB and Grim Lavamancer. They call it American Delver, and it seems to fit your criteria for a TNN deck.

EDIT: To clarify, they seem to have eschewed the traditional Batterskull/Jitte package for MD swords and have 4 TNN. I haven't had a chance to go through it completely to see what other changes there are. But it is a TNN take on UWR different from popular lists seem elsewhere.

Sure, if your primary game plan is to drop a TNN and ride it to victory, you're a TNN deck. From what you are describing, a UWR deck that plays 4 TNN and tries to control the board until you can play one then suit it up would certainly fit that criteria.

But really, calling RUG Delver a "TNN deck" just because they have 1-2 in the sideboard?

I think if the more correct way to look at the amount a card is being played is looking at the actual numbers of the card showing up in T8's, not how many "TNN decks" there are. As you can see, the number of "TNN decks" can be manipulated by how you classify them, but the copies of a card being played is 1) more difficult to falsify 2) gives you a more accurate picture of how much the card is actually being used.

[Arsenal]

But really, calling RUG Delver a "TNN deck" just because they have 1-2 in the sideboard?

I don't recall stating RUG Delver was a TNN deck, only that RUG Delver was running TNN in the sideboard (which is a poor long term solution, but that's for a different thread). If I did state that RUG Delver was a TNN deck, I apologize and retract that statement. I do recall stating that Bant, Deathblade, Blade Control (Esper and UW) and Patriot are TNN decks though.

[EpicLevelCommoner]

I can just see it now: a year from now, True-Name will be on the banlist while Iona and Proggy and Emralulz and Bargainbrand continue to be the most non-interactive cards in the format, effectively costing 2U with a card called Show and Tell.

And as the aspiring new legacy players that some of us try to get into the format sit across from their first opponent and have their face eaten off by any number of those, they'll be scratching their heads wondering why the hell the legacy community pushed to have TNN banned over S&T.

To be fair, I can see the unfun perspective: Protection from a chosen opponent turns off a lot of interaction such as blocking and spot removal. But so does "protection from all colored spells and omnomnom 6", "pay 7 draw 7 Force/Daze", and "sorry, the color of the spell you're trying to cast is not available at this time. please leave a message and we'll get back to you as soon as possible. thank you."

[Esper3k]

I don't recall stating RUG Delver was a TNN deck, only that RUG Delver was running TNN in the sideboard (which is a poor long term solution, but that's for a different thread). If I did state that RUG Delver was a TNN deck, I apologize and retract that statement. I do recall stating that Bant, Deathblade, Blade Control (Esper and UW) and Patriot are TNN decks though.

I think we're in agreement on the classification of most Bant, Deathblade, Esper Stoneblade as TNN decks.

The main point of contention I think we're talking about here is UW (which I believe is more a Jace deck as the primary plan of that deck is to set up and protect Jace to leverage his card advantage) and UWR Delver (who has the standard tempo deck plan of riding Delver to victory while disrupting you) as TNN decks.

Again, why even bother with classifying a deck as a TNN deck or not? Why not look at the actual numbers of TNNs being played in T8's compared to other cards?

[Arsenal]

Why not look at the actual numbers of TNNs being played in T8's compared to other cards?

http://www.tcdecks.net/mostplayedcar...s=12&anio=2013

Because using that metric doesn't make much sense. I've read countless times how people want Show and Tell, Griselbrand, etc banned, but if you're going solely off the numbers, they're not banworthy. Essentially, there are reasons why cards get banned that have nothing to do with numbers.

[Esper3k]

http://www.tcdecks.net/mostplayedcar...s=12&anio=2013

Because using that metric doesn't make much sense. I've read countless times how people want Show and Tell, Griselbrand, etc banned, but if you're going solely off the numbers, they're not banworthy.

I would argue that it makes plenty of sense. I don't see how someone can argue that a card is dominating a format if it actually isn't seeing much play compared to other cards. I'm not advocating using numbers as the only criteria, but it should be a large part of it if someone is going to be making any sort of dominating / oppressing the format argument.

To dredge up the Brainstorm argument, the very reason -for- banning it is because it's all over the place. It's also much more playable across multiple deck archetypes than pretty much any other card in Legacy.

Bringing up Show & Tell is a bad example for me since I'm one of those people who don't think it should be banned. Again, I would argue that if it's as dominating as people claim it is, then we'd see more of it. It's certainly a card that any deck playing it wants as a 4-of.

Part of my problem with people who want TNN banned, but don't want things like Brainstorm, StP, Stoneforge Mystic, Deathrite Shaman banned is that those cards see more play across more decks and are arguably more powerful than TNN, so I see a real disconnect in people's arguments there.

Too bad we can't get a list of the most played cards without fetch/dual lands on it. That information would be more interesting.

[TsumiBand]

Part of my problem with people who want TNN banned, but don't want things like Brainstorm, StP, Stoneforge Mystic, Deathrite Shaman banned is that those cards see more play across more decks and are arguably more powerful than TNN, so I see a real disconnect in people's arguments there.

See, I understood that argument to be based on the idea that the cards you mentioned enable more decks than they push out. Like, Swords to Plowshares has been giving White decks the means to handle all manner of shitty creature for years; but it doesn't keep creatures out. StP is not the reason people don't play aggro. The latest set of BG good cards have sprung up all over the place, and so maybe DRS is actually giving Noble Hierarch a mid-life crisis, but it hasn't been received as something which limits more strategies than it promotes. I don't think Brainstorm in and of itself is precluding decks from existing, despite the part where it says "draw three cards" on it.

Perhaps it is unfair to say that True-Name Nemesis does this, and perhaps it is just a fad card for now, hence it shows up in several Top 8s and people are gunning for it, so the metagame is a little bit 'too meta' or whatever that means. As much as I don't like the card personally, or maybe do not like that Blue has such solid aggressive creatures that 'just fly' or 'just beat'… I do not think there is enough data to say for sure whether or not this card is actually as over the top as it reads.

Skullcrack is a good call, as it just-so-happens to bork protection and be 3 damage for 2 mana. It isn't quite the kind of burn we typically enjoy, but making the case that unpreventable damage does beat up protection here and there (who doesn't want to see someone go "nice Progenitus, Skullcrack into Blasphemous Act FTW") may become more compelling if TNN proves itself to be too ubiquitous. If there were a playable 'damage cant be prevented' list, that's probably close to the top of it.

[Feaor]

Not to derail the thread but Brainstorm isn't going to get banned because shockingly its a card people enjoy playing, in fact either Aaron Forsythe or MaRo went on the record at legacy event earlier this year or last year explicitly stating this. Cards like Brainstorm enable decks rather than push decks out, the reason we can have tempo decks that play as few as 18 lands is because Brainstorm exists. TNN on the other hand enables a few decks and pushes out every deck that wants to attack on the ground that can't effectively deal with it. This is shockingly similar to MM, it enabled a few decks like Stoneblade and NO RUG and pushed out every deck that wanted to resolve a bunch of 1 mana spells, granted I don't think its quite on the same level yet but it does seem like the potential is there. Also people were hilariously defending MM until the bitter end despite seeing top 16's where 13 decks were NO RUG or Stoneblade variants.

[Zombie]

Again, why even bother with classifying a deck as a TNN deck or not? Why not look at the actual numbers of TNNs being played in T8's compared to other cards?

Because it's a metric that does not work. Let's take Elves, for example. From looking at the number of NOs and Glimpses in top8's, maindeck especially, you'd think Elves is a Glimpse deck. Which is wrong because Elves most definitely is a Natural Order deck first and foremost. Those UW Jace decks also probably run more Stoneforges than Jaces. A lot of ANT? Is it Ad Nauseam that is doing well, or Past in Flames? The numbers don't tell us, but an examination of the deck tells us it's a Past in Flames deck. Carsten's "Army of God"? 4 Jace, not a Jace deck. It's an Entreat the Angels deck.

[Finn]

Folks, I asked the "stupid question" if there was evidence that Nemesis had pushed out decks. I see no convincing data or arguments to support the premise that it has done so more than any other strong card that we commonly see. As such, this is now an argument of "I don't like it." Well, I don't either, but it is an entirely stupid conversation to have for 40 pages. Can someone please lock this thread so that we can argue about something with an end goal.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Folks, I asked the "stupid question" if there was evidence that Nemesis had pushed out decks. I see no convincing data or arguments to support the premise that it has done so more than any other strong card that we commonly see. As such, this is now an argument of "I don't like it." Well, I don't either, but it is an entirely stupid conversation to have for 40 pages. Can someone please lock this thread.

I think it's too early to definitively say whether or not it has pushed anything out. My personal opinion is that it is simply another nail in the coffin of non-blue aggro (previous nails including Batterskull, Terminus, Griselbrand, etc.) but those decks were already in decline due to the aforementioned cards and the strategies they enable.

[Koby]

Folks, I asked the "stupid question" if there was evidence that Nemesis had pushed out decks. I see no convincing data or arguments to support the premise that it has done so more than any other strong card that we commonly see. As such, this is now an argument of "I don't like it." Well, I don't either, but it is an entirely stupid conversation to have for 40 pages. Can someone please lock this thread so that we can argue about something with an end goal.

I think it's too early to definitively say whether or not it has pushed anything out. My personal opinion is that it is simply another nail in the coffin of non-blue aggro (previous nails including Batterskull, Terminus, Griselbrand, etc.) but those decks were already in decline due to the aforementioned cards and the strategies they enable.

I agree with A_A that it's too early to notice at the macro level. I don't think there is a discrete deck that has been departed as a result of TNN being introduced. However, I suspect (and will need to verify with more tournament results) that diversity in the decks with Top finishes are becoming more homogenized. It might even be completely unrelated to TNN, as this tends to happen whenever there are high profile Legacy events (GP:DC, SCG Invitational, etc). Questions to keep in mind:

1. Is the variety of the top 50% 70% of well placing decks changing to fewer decks?
2. Is the concentration of blue-based decks increasing?
3. Are there certain wide archetypes (Control, Combo, Aggro) being skewed towards one extremity?

Personally, I don't care much for TNN. I refuse to drop $35 a piece on this card until I'm certain it won't be removed from the format. I don't care to play the decks that use it. I certainly don't think it's ban-worthy, but would have rather it not be printed.

EDIT: Quick inspection of TCdeck's data for the past few months shows that top 50% of the metagame is about 8 decks. I'm bumping this up to 70% to see more data.

[ESG]

Questions to keep in mind:

1. Is the variety of the top 50% 70% of well placing decks changing to fewer decks?
2. Is the concentration of blue-based decks increasing?
3. Are there certain wide archetypes (Control, Combo, Aggro) being skewed towards one extremity?

These are excellent metrics to keep an eye on. Bob Huang has been conducting similar tracking: http://www.channelfireball.com/artic...game-analysis/

[Tormod]

These are excellent metrics to keep an eye on. Bob Huang has been conducting similar tracking: http://www.channelfireball.com/artic...game-analysis/

The whole problem with Bob's article is that he doesn't include any data from the 1-3 months before the printing of True-Name Nemesis so there is no baseline or "control" to measure from. Looking at the archetypes produced by Bob's article, it doesn't look any different from any of the 3 previous months, thus no changes.

I do agree Esper stoneblade is doing better after falling off the face of the earth 10 months ago. But I don't think its makes it the hegemon of Legacy. I'm also very careful as to not name a "new best legacy deck" each week, because in reality it doesn't work that way.

[Barook]

We have reached a 70+% Brainstorm meta in the last two months. I would attribute it to TNN - either you play TNN, Miracles as anti-deck or a blue-based combo. If TNN is the reason, I would certainly call that meta-warping.

Cards like Brainstorm enable decks rather than push decks out, the reason we can have tempo decks that play as few as 18 lands is because Brainstorm exists.

http://www.channelfireball.com/artic...game-analysis/

It enables blue decks which leads to a diverse metagame of blue decks. I don't think "Play blue or GTFO!" to be competitive sounds like a healthy format in the long run (I can already hear some people screaming "Play Modern instead if you don't like blue!").

Now the question is what percentage of Brainstorm decks can still be considered "healthy". 50-60% like in the last two years sounds alright, but 70+% is really starting to push it.

Although TNN alone isn't the cause, but the numerous fuck-ups Wizards has produced in recent years, be it overpowered crap or violations of the color pie:

- Clique is a bit older, but does blue really need hand disruption, attached to a evasive clock?
- Delver: a 3 power flyer for with a almost no drawback
- Snapcaster is in the wrong color (although he doesn't warp anything)
- various broken Timmy cards to feed S&T (yet another blue card)
- and now TNN

[Arsenal]

The whole problem with Bob's article is that he doesn't include any data from the 1-3 months before the printing of True-Name Nemesis so there is no baseline or "control" to measure from. Looking at the archetypes produced by Bob's article, it doesn't look any different from any of the 3 previous months, thus no changes.

I do agree Esper stoneblade is doing better after falling off the face of the earth 10 months ago. But I don't think its makes it the hegemon of Legacy. I'm also very careful as to not name a "new best legacy deck" each week, because in reality it doesn't work that way.

Don't forget Bant Aggro. Check thecouncil's data for Bant Aggro pre-TNN and post-TNN, it's like night and day.

[Lord Seth]

- Clique is a bit older, but does blue really need hand disruption, attached to a evasive clock?
- Delver: a 3 power flyer for with a almost no drawback

You're right! Which is why every single Blue deck plays it. I mean, there's pretty much no drawback, so there's no reason for anyone who's on color with it to not play it! It's not like there's lots of Blue decks that don't play it, right?

Oh... wait...

Now, it's true that in particular decks, Delver has no real drawback. It fit straight into RUG Threshold, for example. But it truthfully is rather limited in what decks it can actually go into, and to claim it has "almost no drawback" is absolutely inaccurate.

Though I don't know why Delver gets the hate when the actual problem, if there is one, is obviously Brainstorm.

- Snapcaster is in the wrong color (although he doesn't warp anything)

Enh, kind of yes, kind of no. Snapcaster's ability is in Blue, but I do agree he should've been Red. If nothing else it would've made the Delver decks back in Standard a bit more diverse by giving them a reason to be something other than UW all day.

- various broken Timmy cards to feed S&T (yet another blue card)

Except Show and Tell was all the way from Urza's Saga, and those creatures in question aren't Blue (except for the odd Jin-Gitaxias in Reanimator). It's like whining that Blue Sun's Zenith is off color because it benefits High Tide, which is completely out of Blue. But no one would argue that Blue Sun's Zenith isn't rightfully a Blue card or by itself is too powerful. This is a major stretch on your part.

- and now TNN

Enh, fair point there.