Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?

[EpicLevelCommoner]

This is ridiculous.

My point about S&T was not to derail the thread about S&T, but rather show that if we can somehow adapt to all the TIMMEH! crap it can cheat in, then why the hell are we even worried about a 3/1 for 1UU Pro-You? Not arguing that it's a badly designed card for a 1v1 format; just arguing it's nowhere near banworthy.

[Dice_Box]

The issue is that when people start running TNN to combat TNN, you end up fighting past each other not with each other. That's not fun, it's also one of the most common criticisms leaved at Modern.

Where did you stand when Modern came to claim Legacy?

[Deadpool09]

I think the only lazy people are the ones who are not exercising reading comprehension when everyone else is saying that the inability to kill TNN has nothing to do with the criticism against the card because we all understand how -1/-1 sweepers work.

My point is tnn can be dealt with, and the decks that play those can still be beaten. What else is left to criticize? Is it the fact that tnn shows up in the top 8? Of course it will. Legacy y players can be a bunch of sheep sometimes. They net deck, they see what's the newest tech, then they play it. It's domino effect. The more people play a certain card or deck, the higher the chance that card or deck will appear at the top 8. Back then it's always been rug, esper, show and tell then some maverick. Can't remember anyone bitching about that, except for some people wantin to ban show and tell. It's not about killing the card per se, it's about adapting, dealing with the whole deck, not just one single creature.
That's why I call people here lazy. Too lazy to adapt to a changing environment. Too lazy to play around one card, too lazy to board properly against it without ruining they're game plan. But when it comes to bitching and moaning, you guys are hard at work. Beat the decks that play it, not just a single card. Words to live by. Unless you're playing against combo decks, then pray to Buddha you have enough can't rips and counterspells to make it past turn 5

[Higgs]

What else is left to criticize?

Seems like you haven't read the last 10 pages or so if you are asking this. If you can't be bothered to read and understand where the criticism is coming from, also including some of the members who voted no yet still agreed to the criticism, then I can't be bothered to sum it up for you yet one more time.

I will only say this, as a player who already owns all these blade-tnn decks if I was being lazy I would just sleeve up my blade decks and run with them. I used to be a big fan of esper.

Have some perspective on "moaners".

[Esper3k]

Esper, every time you've requested data, I've provided it to you. However, each time I do, you conclude that the data doesn't matter because the decks aren't TNN enough as they don't run a full playset or there aren't enough decks being pushed out (although losing a major meta player in Maverick, a non-TNN deck, and having it replaced by Bant, a TNN deck, just homogenizes the format further) or that people running fringe stuff maindeck like Celestial Flare, Diabolic Edict doesn't matter because it's only a couple cards.

No, it's not that I conclude the data doesn't matter - I come to different conclusions than you.

One of the supposed threats that TNN is doing is killing non-blue creature decks and killing deck diversity. According to the data, we've seen one deck that's had a bad December (Maverick, which by your own data did fine in November), and yet we've seen three decks that had not been doing as well previously moving up in the ranks (Bant, Blade Control, Deathblade). That would seem to show that diversity of top decks is increasing, not decreasing, unless you can show more decks that are getting pushed out?

A second point is that we're not even 2 months into TNN's splash into the format. We simply don't have enough data (we won't even get into the difficulty of obtaining accurate data for our purposes) to definitively show either way.

Regarding the point on people running cards like Celestial Flare and Diabolic Edict... why is it a bad thing? I'm happy to see more types of removal outside of Swords to Plowshares/Lightning Bolt/Abrupt Decay getting played. I should think you would be too.

How is it better? We can definitely say Elves is an NO deck moreso than a Glimpse deck. We can definitely say that Carsten's Army of God is an Entreat deck even though it runs 3 Entreat 4 Jace because it's built around the card. We can easily say ANT is a Past in Flames deck, and that TES is an Ad Nauseam/Empty the Warrens deck and not really a Past in Flames one, even if both decks play one copy of Flames and Nauseam and 4 cards that tutor for them. It's not subjective, that's how the decks are built to play out and how they play out.

Or we could just give you a pile of random format staples and call it a day, after all the quality of the deck is subjective, too, right?

I would say that using a metric that you can empirically determine is better than one that is subjectively determined.

The fact that there is even debate over what type of deck UWR Delver is shows that "deck type" is one that's subjective. What happens when you start mixing deck types such as a UW/x Miracles deck that plays SFM? As you broaden the archetypes, it can get even harder to determine. Is a deck aggro? Combo? Control? What happens when you start mixing archetypes? Aggro/control? Combo/control? Aggro/combo?

Vs:

In the month of December, we see the following numbers of top cards being played (according to TCDecks):

Brainstorm 444
Force of Will 420
Wasteland 359
Ponder 261
Polluted Delta 256
Swords to Plowshares 249
Deathrite Shaman 217
Misty Rainforest 211
Spell Pierce 207
Daze 202
Stoneforge Mystic 202
Thoughtseize 199
Underground Sea 181
Abrupt Decay 179
Tarmogoyf 170
Flooded Strand 160
Scalding Tarn 158
True-Name Nemesis 156
Verdant Catacombs 156
Tundra 140

I would prefer the hard numbers as opposed to a metric that can be manipulated by the way decks are categorized.

[dontbiteitholmes]

The issue is that when people start running TNN to combat TNN, you end up fighting past each other not with each other. That's not fun, it's also one of the most common criticisms leaved at Modern.

Where did you stand when Modern came to claim Legacy?

References Modern as a reason a creature should be banned in Legacy for being OP in the combat phase.



Yeah if you don't want to ban TNN you must want legacy to be more like Modern obviously because the Modern ban policy is what Legacy needs more of.

[Dice_Box]

All the same arguments against TNN are the ones used against Modern. The compassion is fair.

[Arsenal]

One of the supposed threats that TNN is doing is killing non-blue creature decks and killing deck diversity. According to the data, we've seen one deck that's had a bad December (Maverick, which by your own data did fine in November), and yet we've seen three decks that had not been doing as well previously moving up in the ranks (Bant, Blade Control, Deathblade). That would seem to show that diversity of top decks is increasing, not decreasing, unless you can show more decks that are getting pushed out?

Read your statement again. How does having TNN Bant, TNN UWx Stoneblade and TNN Deathblade = deck diversity increase? It's all TNN decks moving up from mediocrity/unplayability into the top tier while a former top 10 player in Maverick (a non-TNN deck and is unable to run traditional TNN hate like Golgari Charm, Toxic Deluge, etc) just flatout died.

[HSCK]

Read your statement again. How does having TNN Bant, TNN UWx Stoneblade and TNN Deathblade = deck diversity increase? It's all TNN decks moving up from mediocrity/unplayability into the top tier while a former top 10 player in Maverick (a non-TNN deck and is unable to run traditional TNN hate like Golgari Charm, Toxic Deluge, etc) just flatout died.

Oh no, Maverick's died and variants of Stoneforge+TNN are tier 1, making up......not even close to Survival or Misstep numbers? That's definitely banworthy, I mean, we can't have 2 and 3 of TNN decks winning tournaments or doing well, in fact, let's just freeze Legacy to pre-TNN because changing what is good or not good = banhammer.

[Feaor]

I would prefer the hard numbers as opposed to a metric that can be manipulated by the way decks are categorized.

Then the most reasonable thing we could conclude from this data is that Brainstorm and Force of Will need to go as they are way over represented compared other cards in the format. Clearly this is not a sensible thing to do as Force of Will is the shining light that holds the darkness (i.e. Belcher decks) at bay. Both of these cards and Wasteland do very good things for the format and banning them based on how prevalent they are would probably kill the format. Its too narrow-minded to just crunch the numbers and make decisions based on card prevalence, you have to look at the bigger picture of the format and what X card does to the format.

[EpicLevelCommoner]

Read your statement again. How does having TNN Bant, TNN UWx Stoneblade and TNN Deathblade = deck diversity increase? It's all TNN decks moving up from mediocrity/unplayability into the top tier while a former top 10 player in Maverick (a non-TNN deck and is unable to run traditional TNN hate like Golgari Charm, Toxic Deluge, etc) just flatout died.

So ... three decks that happen to be based around the same card are becoming viable while one deck that was viable is falling out of favor?

I'm sorry, but +3 to -1 is still a net increase of 2 archetypes in terms of deck diversity.

Now if you're looking for card diversity, you'd be right . . . in pretty much every format other than Limited.

[Arsenal]

Oh no, Maverick's died and variants of Stoneforge+TNN are tier 1, making up......not even close to Survival or Misstep numbers? That's definitely banworthy, I mean, we can't have 2 and 3 of TNN decks winning tournaments or doing well, in fact, let's just freeze Legacy to pre-TNN because changing what is good or not good = banhammer.

We had a blue-based SFM+hard-to-kill threat (Geist) deck doing fairly well pre-TNN (Patriot), we don't need 3 more similar blue-based SFM+hard-to-kill threat (TNN) decks in the top tier too. And I like how you act like Maverick dying isn't a big deal... it is.

[HSCK]

Why? It's gone in and out before, and really it's just Esper which found a share again and UWR being consistent. Bant is not a major player outside of TNN's debut.

[Koby]

It's the number of unique archetypes that's important. Not which ones. Then, what is the base strategy in those decks? Is there consolidation of strategies?

These are the metrics we should watch. Not whether Maverick is playable, nor which deck is playing TNN in varying quanitites.

[Zombie]

It's the number of unique archetypes that's important. Not which ones. Then, what is the base strategy in those decks? Is there consolidation of strategies?

These are the metrics we should watch. Not whether Maverick is playable, nor which deck is playing TNN in varying quanitites.

How broad are you thinking here? Like, "tempo" broad or "delver tempo" broad? "Control" or "D&T and Miracles separate"?

[Arsenal]

Why? It's gone in and out before

Maverick most certainly hasn't "gone in and out" before. If you look at all of the data for 2012 and the data for Jan-Nov 2013, Maverick never fell out of favor. I would ask that you show me data from that 23 month timespan that would suggest that Maverick wasn't a major meta player.

and really it's just Esper which found a share again and UWR being consistent.

This is false. It isn't just UWx Stoneblade that matters again, it's Deathblade too.

Bant is not a major player outside of TNN's debut.

Exactly. It wasn't even charting for most/all of 2013, TNN is printed, then boom, it matters again (while basically mirroring Deathblade's gameplan).

[Koby]

How broad are you thinking here? Like, "tempo" broad or "delver tempo" broad? "Control" or "D&T and Miracles separate"?

Vial/mana denial decks (D&T, Merfolk, Goblins, etc)
Delver Tempo (U/x cheap-free spells)
Mid-range (Stoneblade, Jund, Junk, Maverick, etc)
Control (Miracles, 12-Post, Lands, Next Level Thresh, Stax, Pox)
Storm Combo (Belcher, Tin Fins, ANT, TES, SI, etc)
Slow Combo (Elves, S&T, High Tide)

[HSCK]

Maverick most certainly hasn't "gone in and out" before. If you look at all of the data for 2012 and the data for Jan-Nov 2013, Maverick never fell out of favor. I would ask that you show me data from that 23 month timespan that would suggest that Maverick wasn't a major meta player.



This is false. It isn't just UWx Stoneblade that matters again, it's Deathblade too.



Exactly. It wasn't even charting for most/all of 2013, TNN is printed, then boom, it matters again (while basically mirroring Deathblade's gameplan).

http://www.eternalcentral.com/legacy...november-2013/

Maverick's results post M14 and THS but pre-TNN is there. Not really a major player is it?

Deathblade doesn't count as a variation of Esper? So that makes 3 different decks doing well instead of 2, how is that bad?

And why is it okay that Blade decks totally fell off, but are now back, but not Maverick?

[Star|Scream]

http://www.eternalcentral.com/legacy...november-2013/

Maverick's results post M14 and THS but pre-TNN is there. Not really a major player is it?

Deathblade doesn't count as a variation of Esper? So that makes 3 different decks doing well instead of 2, how is that bad?

And why is it okay that Blade decks totally fell off, but are now back, but not Maverick?

Because Maverick is a non-blue deck, and (I believe) he thinks that all those stoneblade decks just homogenize the format. I get what he's saying because Maverick is a great non-blue deck, and it would be great if more non-blue decks were at the top, but really it hasn't been Tier 1 in a while--even before TNN was printed.

[Deadpool09]

Seems like you haven't read the last 10 pages or so if you are asking this. If you can't be bothered to read and understand where the criticism is coming from, also including some of the members who voted no yet still agreed to the criticism, then I can't be bothered to sum it up for you yet one more time.

I will only say this, as a player who already owns all these blade-tnn decks if I was being lazy I would just sleeve up my blade decks and run with them. I used to be a big fan of esper.

Have some perspective on "moaners".

Bro youre level of ignorannece is..... I can't even.
I understand the complaints, however weak they are. They're saying it's warping the format, that it's lessening the interaction, the format being stagnat blah blah. I get it. That's why I said in last COUPLE of posts, stop selling the format short, stop being lazy , and adapt to the changes. Sure it's hard to interact with one creature, but it doesn't mean you can't interact with the rest of the deck. Bro before you criticize, be sure you read all my post , so you can stop looking like an imbecile.