Would you like to see True-Name Nemesis gone?

[Arsenal]

@dontbiteitholmes

Using thecouncil's data, Maverick averaged a 9th place finish for Jan-Nov 2013, with it's highest position at 5 and lowest at 13. It's early 2013 positioning was mostly the same as it's later 2013 positioning, so I call bs on your claim that the average is skewed due to better early year results. I posted the stats on page 38, post #755 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post775500).

It placed 7th for November 2013, which likely is because TNN just came out that month, and people didn't make changes or "adapt" yet. December 2013 though? Maverick didn't just move down a few positions lower than normal, it died completely going from a 9th place average to 40th. Not surprisingly, it's closest blue cousin, Bant, went from uncharted to 11th place.

So to recap, since you refuse to look at thecouncil data I posted, a very relevant non-TNN deck dies and it's replaced by a TNN deck (which just so happens to be a virtual clone of Deathblade, yet another TNN deck that is now top tier).

[(nameless one)]

Why can't we just unban Survival of the Fittest and call it a day?

There's a lot of graveyard hate in the format compared to when SotF got banned? I want to see the interaction between the two decks.

I'm sure more than half of the "Adapt!" people don't want TNN to be banned because they payed $180 for a playset of it. Why not compromise?

[EpicLevelCommoner]

@ ESG: I agree "adapt or die" is indeed the most misused phrase in gaming. However, the difference between those other cards and True-Name Nemesis is that those other cards polarized the format into best deck that run said card and best deck that can fight said card (and sometimes not even that) while True-Name Nemesis actually hasn't done much except make Maverick worse and a few others better.

But who knows? I may be eating my hat six months from now when TNN does polarize the format.

@ Arsenal: A deck is not defined by a single card in its 75. I wouldn't call Nic Fit a Veteran Explorer or Cabal Therapy or Green Sun's Zenith deck, even though it is fueled by the interactions between those cards.

[(nameless one)]

@ ESG: I agree "adapt or die" is indeed the most misused phrase in gaming. However, the difference between those other cards and True-Name Nemesis is that those other cards polarized the format into best deck that run said card and best deck that can fight said card (and sometimes not even that) while True-Name Nemesis actually hasn't done much except make Maverick worse and a few others better.

But who knows? I may be eating my hat six months from now when TNN does polarize the format.

@ Arsenal: A deck is not defined by a single card in its 75. I wouldn't call Nic Fit a Veteran Explorer or Cabal Therapy or Green Sun's Zenith deck, even though it is fueled by the interactions between those cards.

But Nic Fit is a Veteran Explorer deck.

Without it, its just a terrible Rock deck with overcosted creature base.

[EpicLevelCommoner]

But Nic Fit is a Veteran Explorer deck.

Without it, its just a terrible Rock deck with overcosted creature base.

That's why I said it's based off of Veteran Explorer and its interaction with Cabal Therapy. It very rarely wins off the back of a Veteran Explorer: it relies on those expensive (though severely undercosted for what they do) fatties to do the dirty work while Vet fuels the deck.

The same could be said about TNN in their respective decks: the gameplan may in fact be to buff TNN with equipment and/or other cards, but a deck is more than just 1 card backed up by the other 74: those days have been long gone. There are contingency plans, contingency plans for those contingency plans, and ways to combat other decks' plans and contingency plans.

[Esper3k]

@ ESG: I agree "adapt or die" is indeed the most misused phrase in gaming. However, the difference between those other cards and True-Name Nemesis is that those other cards polarized the format into best deck that run said card and best deck that can fight said card (and sometimes not even that) while True-Name Nemesis actually hasn't done much except make Maverick worse and a few others better.

But who knows? I may be eating my hat six months from now when TNN does polarize the format.

@ Arsenal: A deck is not defined by a single card in its 75. I wouldn't call Nic Fit a Veteran Explorer or Cabal Therapy or Green Sun's Zenith deck, even though it is fueled by the interactions between those cards.

I think in many cases, decks are defined by a single card in the 75. However, with creature based decks, it's generally harder to say they're based on 1 particular card as opposed to say a combo deck.

I would say that Bant, Esper Stoneblade, and Deathblade are the closest things we have to dedicated TNN decks, but I don't see why them moving up in the ranks is such a bad thing. We have multiple Delver decks and decks that run Tarmogoyf in the top ranks, but no one complains about that (anymore).

[Zombie]

I think in many cases, decks are defined by a single card in the 75. However, with creature based decks, it's generally harder to say they're based on 1 particular card as opposed to say a combo deck.

I would say that Bant, Esper Stoneblade, and Deathblade are the closest things we have to dedicated TNN decks, but I don't see why them moving up in the ranks is such a bad thing. We have multiple Delver decks and decks that run Tarmogoyf in the top ranks, but no one complains about that (anymore).

Tarmo was before six years of creature power creep. It was literally the first of it's kind, a clue of a new world. Tarmo is just a grizzly bear, but it was a grizzly bear from the land of giants. We didn't live in the land of giants, so of course it constricted the format. We do live in the land of giants now, figuratively speaking.

[Deadpool09]

Just to be clea, my stance on tnn is not because I only have decks that play it. Yeah I do play death blade and uwr delver blade, but
I have miracles, dark maverick, affinity, junk, almost done with death and taxes too.

So im looking at tnn with both perspective of decks that play it, and decks that don't.

[Esper3k]

@Zombie: So what about other more modern creatures we see played among the top decks such as Delver and SFM?

Let's throw DRS into the mix too since that actually seems to be the most played creature in Legacy by a pretty large margin.

[MGB]

"Adapt" has to be the most parroted, most knee-jerk, most hollow advice given throughout these threads. It's actually hilarious when you see look at the previous arguments over the years.

...

Are Legacy players just a mob of unthinking buffoons? No way. Believe it or not, people playtest and switch decks, and there are adjustments from one SCG stop to the next (which you can observe mostly from the high-profile players). What history shows us from these "Adapt!" examples is that people tried to beat the card and they found that either it was better EV to play the card themselves or totally switch strategies, such as the calls (in the Survival section) to play faster combo decks. And that resulted in format warping every time. Anyone can metagame to any environment. You could run four Leyline of the Void in your Elves deck if Bazaar of Baghdad was legal. That would be "adapting." But it wouldn't mean that Bazaar was OK for the format.

Exactly. Excellent post.

Just because you can adapt to a strategy does NOT mean it's healthy for the format.

[Deadpool09]

Exactly. Excellent post.

Just because you can adapt to a strategy does NOT mean it's healthy for the format.

By that reason, show and tell should be banned and bunch of other combo decks. People adapt to combo decks with much more linear hate cards or strategy. With tnn, most of the hate cards for it are useful not only for the cards itself, but for a bunch of other decks. People can adapt to combo with linear strategy, it's either you have the hate or you don't,if you don't, expect to lose in less than 5 turns with consistency. And you people are telling me you can't deal with a hard to deal with creature that won't kill you immidiately, a creature that will still give you a chance to win, a creature that can be beaten in a lot more ways, and a creature thats plyed into decks that can be dealt with? Man, you guys should wake up and smell the coffee. This is legacy, it's only a creature, it's not an auto win when it resolves.
You can still beat the deck that plays it. That's when I say people are being lazy and unwilling to be flexible and adapt. The hater's unwillingness to "adapt" is what causing trouble here. So what are you're guys reason still for complaining.?
Again I'm playing both decks that play with and without tnn. If ever tnn gets banned, i wouldn't care, I would still play deathblade, uwr delver , and merfolk, as well as my non tnn decks.

[menace13]

By that reason, show and tell should be banned and bunch of other combo decks. People adapt to combo decks with much more linear hate cards or strategy. With tnn, most of the hate cards for it are useful not only for the cards itself, but for a bunch of other decks. People can adapt to combo with linear strategy, it's either you have the hate or you don't,if you don't, expect to lose in less than 5 turns with consistency.

Any combo hate cards also affect other cards. They are not exclusive. TNN decks are not all in combo decks so even If you have a hate card it only stops one angle in a non combo deck that is consistent way beyond combo decks. Your post induced vomiting brb

[Deadpool09]

Any combo hate cards also affect other cards. They are not exclusive. TNN decks are not all in combo decks so even If you have a hate card it only stops one angle in a non combo deck that is consistent way beyond combo decks. Your post induced vomiting brb

What I'm trying to say is, hate cards for combo decks are much more linear than cards that can deal with tnn, zealous persecution, p. deed, and others can be brought in vs other aggro creature decks as well.
That's the trade off for playing blazing fast combo decks, some of them are all in, you can't expect a combo deck to have more than 3 angles of attack, as far as I know. So of course fair decks that run tnn, even those that don't run it, is much more cohesive in the long run. Do you really play this game? The hate cards people board vs combo are way more linear, a little bit more tailor made for it. You're so butt hurt that you didn't even understand my statement. Your stupidity is vomit inducing. Yeah quote me on that. Any more bitching?

[TheKingslayer]

What I'm trying to say is, hate cards for combo decks are much more linear than cards that can deal with tnn, zealous persecution, p. deed, and others can be brought in vs other aggro creature decks as well.
That's the trade off for playing blazing fast combo decks, some of them are all in, you can't expect a combo deck to have more than 3 angles of attack, as far as I know. So of course fair decks that run tnn, even those that don't run it, is much more cohesive in the long run. Do you really play this game? The hate cards people board vs combo are way more linear, a little bit more tailor made for it. You're so butt hurt that you didn't even understand my statement. Your stupidity is vomit inducing. Yeah quote me on that. Any more bitching?

Storm, however, is a very linear strategy. TNN is not.

[danyul]

What I'm trying to say is, hate cards for combo decks are much more linear than cards that can deal with tnn, zealous persecution, p. deed, and others can be brought in vs other aggro creature decks as well.
That's the trade off for playing blazing fast combo decks, some of them are all in, you can't expect a combo deck to have more than 3 angles of attack, as far as I know. So of course fair decks that run tnn, even those that don't run it, is much more cohesive in the long run. Do you really play this game? The hate cards people board vs combo are way more linear, a little bit more tailor made for it. You're so butt hurt that you didn't even understand my statement. Your stupidity is vomit inducing. Yeah quote me on that. Any more bitching?

You could at least pretend to be a pleasant person. Every post I've seen from you has been full of vitriol.

[Luklinda]

@dontbiteitholmes

Using thecouncil's data, Maverick averaged a 9th place finish for Jan-Nov 2013, with it's highest position at 5 and lowest at 13. It's early 2013 positioning was mostly the same as it's later 2013 positioning, so I call bs on your claim that the average is skewed due to better early year results. I posted the stats on page 38, post #755 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post775500).

It placed 7th for November 2013, which likely is because TNN just came out that month, and people didn't make changes or "adapt" yet. December 2013 though? Maverick didn't just move down a few positions lower than normal, it died completely going from a 9th place average to 40th. Not surprisingly, it's closest blue cousin, Bant, went from uncharted to 11th place.

So to recap, since you refuse to look at thecouncil data I posted, a very relevant non-TNN deck dies and it's replaced by a TNN deck (which just so happens to be a virtual clone of Deathblade, yet another TNN deck that is now top tier).

I think the data is still a little too new and limited to say that TNN has killed a non-blue deck and replaced it with a blue-variant. Most likely those with access to maverick also had/have access to the blue staples to easily port over to BANT and, given the relatively small number of strong, legacy playables that can fit in multiple archetypes, much less new playable creatures (that aren't cheated into play) people most likely wanted to play with the new toy. It's a good card but lets be honest, what card hasn't been called out as "meta-warping" and "must-ban/should never have been printed" when it preforms shortly after printing?

I mean, when people are playing at least 50/60 cards in their MB the same and typically at least half their SB the same for years, they want new toys to play with.

Remember how terminus' printing invalidated all types of aggro decks? How Spell pierce and mindbreak trap's simultaneous release made storm unplayable? As of right now it's a solid card that's being heavily played in already tier 1 & tier 1.5 shell decks and thus is putting up results as a combination of solid deck construction and volume of pilots. It's sort of analogous to delver of secrets - which by no means defined or created "RUG tempo" or "BUG tempo" but merely offered a new playable card which allowed relatively minor revisions to already established and "dominate" archetypes that have been around and preformed for years.

[Higgs]

Bro youre level of ignorannece is..... I can't even.
...
stop looking like an imbecile.

You're so butt hurt that you didn't even understand my statement. Your stupidity is vomit inducing. Yeah quote me on that. Any more bitching?

Your mouth seems to have diarrhea. Take two asperins and be well.

[Arsenal]

I think the data is still a little too new and limited to say that TNN has killed a non-blue deck and replaced it with a blue-variant. Most likely those with access to maverick also had/have access to the blue staples to easily port over to BANT and, given the relatively small number of strong, legacy playables that can fit in multiple archetypes, much less new playable creatures (that aren't cheated into play) people most likely wanted to play with the new toy.

When Geist of Saint Traft was printed (a new, playable toy for Maverick players to try out in Bant), Maverick's numbers didn't drop at all and Bant still remained a primarily uncharted deck. So while possible, I find that argument less compelling when you look at the respective data. You could be right though that Maverick will find it's pre-TNN positioning after Bant players get bored of playing with TNN and switch back to Maverick. I just think that's highly unlikely to happen.

[Esper3k]

Storm, however, is a very linear strategy. TNN is not.

Yes, but more powerful if you get it to work. That's the trade off of combo though - you trade resilience & consistency for power & speed usually.

I think what Deadpool09 is trying to say about sideboard hate for combo decks is that the hate is usually much more specific (think Mindbreak Trap or Ethersworn Canonist, for example) than hate for creatures. The sideboard cards for TNN (generally sweepers, sacrifice effects, etc.) are applicable vs more decks than the usually more specific combo hate cards are.

[menace13]

What I'm trying to say is, hate cards for combo decks are much more linear than cards that can deal with tnn, zealous persecution, p. deed, and others can be brought in vs other aggro creature decks as well.
?

So, what you're trying to say is combo hate cards can not be brought in against other combo or other decks. And they are narrow because they do not affect aggro decks. But aggro hate cards are not narrow because you can not bring them in against combo decks. Please explain how a combo hate card is more narrow than an aggro hate card relative to decks one faces? There are very few like Mindbreak, but the rest can come in against other combo decks and a good number can be used against control as well.

Bro, do you even lift?