Brainstorm
Force of Will
Lion's Eye Diamond
Counterbalance
Sensei's Divining Top
Tarmogoyf
Phyrexian Dreadnaught
Goblin Lackey
Standstill
Natural Order
That's why they are called combo engines. You build around them because they are the engine that fuels their own win stratagem. Also, neither card you compared it to is even a creature.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Well, technically turn 2 SFM, turn 3 Nemesis, turn 4 Equip and Swing is nowhere near the power level of any combo deck in the format. Blade decks and Combo are separate entities and comparisons don't work. It's a strong gameplay, maybe the strongest available right now for aggro control strategies, but nowhere near Show and Tell or Ad Nauseam or Pif/IGG loops. That stuff kills on the spot.
Also, without an equip is a 7 turns clock. And your SFM needs to survive a whole turn unmolested. Or, you cast your equip and equip it, in a world of Decays and Ancient Grudges and Wear/Tears in people's sb. Just adapt for fuck sake. Its a 3/1. You have plenty of possibilities in most splash colors. Or you can just go off playing Elves or Snt or Ant, or you can overrun it on your 4th or 5th turn if you are on Goblins.You can try to use Wastelands and Ports while building a board presence of flyers and avoid it resolving-in case you are on Dnt. You can play 4 Lilianas if you are on BG Pox or Jund or Loam decks. You might want to play Deed, which is ridiculously good right now. You can play Merfolk and laugh at everybody's blue based decks. Play Enchantress or 12 Post or High Tide. Play Terminus, play Supreme Verdicts. Play fucking Smallpox (another incredibly underrated card). You have Deluge, Golgari Charm (god knows why nobody is playing it main deck). Learn to play Threshold properly. OK, it's an awful design and a bitch to deal with, but saying so for the 1500th time on a forum online is not gonna change the fact that it exists, must be dealt with and most probably is not going to be banned anytime soon; and you have plenty of options to just ignore it or deal with it.
Edit:It was more fun back when you wanted to ban Brainstorm, no doubt, now its just lame whining.
Are you into Jazz? Have a look at the Lp's I have for sale on Discogs!
isn't it strange that the people in development that create these UNTESTED cards are also "responsible" for banning them....Originally Posted by Barook
Play 4 Card Blind!
Currently Playing
Legacy: Dark Depths
EDH: 5-Color Hermit Druid
Currently Brewing: [Deck] Sadistic Sacrament / Chalice NO Eldrazi
why cards are so expensive...hoarders
My bad, that one has "can't be regenerated". I was remembering it saying "damage cant be prevented".
Oh right, that's why elves, Jund and miracles are all running 4 of this card so powerful that its is banworthy. Right?
I'm not saying that you should treat TNN decks like a combo matchup, but that similar strategies can be used to deal with TNN if you deck is having trouble with it. If you cant stifle and waste them off 1UU, make them discard or counter TNN, then cards that interact with TNN is the medicine you need. I also disagree that the medicine is weak or tastes like shit. The medicine, deed, diabilic edict, golgari charm, zealous persecution, liliana, moat, terminus, verdict, etc are all very powerful cards and not super narrow. Alot of those mentioned are things that are (or could be) maindeck 4 ofs they are that good.
And again, I dont disagree that card is lousy design or boring to play with, but it not anything legacy can't deal with. People just need to stop whining and adapt.
Both of these things. Forever.
In a few years, we'll be playing hideous, miserable games because the format is saturated with stupid shit like TNN and [cheatycard]=>[Omnidrool+EnterTheZZZ, Griseltard, Jin-Git, Emratrolol]. Yet none of those cards were "something the format can't deal with" or "bannable enough".
The argument against TNN has never hinged on raw power level. The key crime is just leading to absurdly shitty games of Magic, and being strong enough that those games actually get played.
I'll tag in here. It isn't like people can't deal with Nemesis. I have adjusted my deck/SB and am fully capable of dealing with it. That said, there are still plenty of games that happen where Nemesis just makes the game incredibly non-interactive and embarrassing for both players. If I did the math correctly and assuming you don't already have an out in your hand, you only have about a 46% chance to draw your 4-of answer over the next 7 turns that it will take TNN to kill you without equipment.
While this isn't a big deal when compared to a combo deck, it is actually a big deal when you realize that this is a fair card played in fair decks and that Nemesis has little to no downside in terms of consistency. For a fair deck to resolve a card and be about 50% to just plain win the game is a bit on the frustrating side. Again, it isn't as if I haven't adjusted or that people in general haven't adjusted their decks. It's just that Nemesis simply contributes to more coin flip games in fair mirrors.
People seem to forget that TNN + equipment isn't the only problem.
TNN in multiples is also quite hideous since your ground forces can be stalled forever while taking the beatdown, making racing rather hard - and you can't simply deal with those as easily as equipment, like some people suggested.
If Mystical Tutor can be banned because the format is more fun without it, I fail to see how a even more unfun card that actually warps the meta around it should stay unbanned.
How long does it take people to see that TNN reduces diversity alot - RUG Delver is dying (it only still puts up results because people own the cardboard - on MODO, it already has been completely replaced by BUG Delver and Patriot), non-blue midrange is dead and Storm is also on life support.
Playing different flavors of TNN + SFM package with a few different spells is not format diversity.
What boogles my mind the most is how people can acknowledge its shitty design and still argue against a ban "because reasons". Sure, some non-shitty answers exists, but threats > answers. If the answers were actually sufficient, Jund wouldn't be disappearing from the format since it can pack tons of answers to TNN - discard, Liliana, Golgari Charm, (Deed).
Soooo is the announcement definitely tonight at midnight?
No, its next sunday/monday after BNG's release at midnight. SCG stream just talked about this, apparently it was confirmed from WotC.
Oh I see, thanks.
Welp, guess I don't have to stay up late tonight. Was kinda hoping it was tonight, though, even if I don't think there'll be any changes for Legacy.
I'm guessing that when I look it up on the 3rd I will see the phrase "no changes."
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
I don't understand why people are so adamant about banning a 3/1 creature. My argument against banning it isn't even that there are tons of answers to the card. Its simply that the format hasn't properly adapted to the card yet. Every time a powerful new card comes out, everyone starts trying to brew with it and putting it into every deck that can support it. First it was tarmogoyf, then snapcaster, then deathrite shaman, and now true-name nemesis. The format is currently saturated with the card, but I don't think it'll stay this way.
I also don't understand why everyone is calling the card format warping. It's a strong card and has strengthened a lot of blade variants, but its not the most popular card in the current format. Just taking a brief look at the current top 4 decks on tcdecks, the top 17/29 are tnn decks, and 12/29 aren't. Its rarely ran as a 4 of in any of these decks and is often a dead card in combo matchups.
The two main components that tnn negates are targeted creature removal and non-evasive creatures. The main cards in this category are swords to plowshares, tarmogoyf, batterskull, punishing fires, and nimble mongoose. Doesn't tnn allow people to play different creatures because they can get around tnn? Cards like serra avenger and tombstalker are seeing more play now. You can call this format warping--but the reason that smaller evasive fliers didnt see play was because people needed to get around the tarmogoyf. Since tnn stops goyf so well, these underplayed evasive creatures can be profitably utilized. In essence, we are changing the format, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Furthermore, I don't understand why people are so upset that there are decks that no longer perform because tnn exists. Decks like RUG have been tier 1 for about 2-3 years since the printing of delver. It jumped from tier 1.5-2 to THE deck to beat overnight. It's had a very good run, but it hasn't gotten any real love for about a year now. RUG has also been such a huge part of the metagame that people have been metaing against it for quite a while. The archetype itself is still very much alive--patriot and bug delver decks are still topping all over the place.
Storm is another deck that hasn't really innovated in about 2 sets. The last amazing card it got was past in flames (maybe abrupt decay to a lesser degree) and has been getting weaker with all of the hate that's been printed in the last couple of years. It's another deck that has been on the dtb list for a while and I"m sure that if hate towards the deck drops off, it'll make a sudden resurgence at some point down the road.
Lastly, people have argued that it makes games non-interactive. Again, the card only makes ground based creatures and targeted removal worse. As a card, it requires players to diversify in order to interact. You may say that some of these options are suboptimal, but if they work to crush the tnn decks, aren't they perfectly legitimate answers? A lot of legacy cards are either blatantly overpowered or absolutely useless depending on the matchup--blood moon, swords to plowshares, terminus, rest in peace, liliana of the veil, etc. Every answer card's power level has high variance depending on who's sitting across the table.
Honestly, the argument to ban TNN "because ___ deck died" is a pretty poor battle to fight. I don't care that there are a lot of Blue decks; people will like playing Blue in a format capable of t1 and t2 wins. I don't care that RUG or Jund are putting up bad numbers right now; decks will always be falling out of favor due to various meta occurrences. The only argument for doing something about True-Name Nemesis is that it is a completely non-interactive card that should not* be.
* "Should not" is rather subjective, of course, but I use this in the context of what people expect from "fair" and "unfair" cards. Unfair cards like Show and Tell, Reanimate, Past in Flames, Sneak Attack, etc are generally pretty non-interactive; however, they come with a price. That price is having to formulate your entire deck around the deployment of said unfair card and the risk that should it be stopped, you are very likely dead in the water. Fair cards, on the other hand, do not have this risk (they aren't "all-in" and they don't disrupt a deck's consistency) but to balance this they have the downside that opponents will likely be able to interact with them.
The issue is not power; every card in Legacy is expected to be powerful. The issue is that True-Name Nemesis breaks the rules by being both low-risk and non-interactive.
A card doesn't need to be the most played card in a format, or even close to it, to be format-warping. As an example, say FoW didn't exist. TES would immediately be a super strong deck on the back of quick ETW, and plays like 2 of them and a singleton Tendrils. Yet the existence of ETW is what makes the deck able to kill people consistently at all.
TNN is played in shuffle-heavy cantrip shells. It WILL be found eventually.
Your list here basically reads "normal Magic". Negating normal Magic is usually a thing you need to playa a dedicated combo deck or otherwise a heavy build-around synergy deck to do, with all the problems that entails. TNN, though, is just a goodstuff card played in goodstuff decks.
Because those decks are ones you can play normal Magic against, and combo decks that clearly need a lot of skill to pilot (plus can be hated with just about anything printed), and if you play smart they can just plain collapse. You can actually play nice games against those.
And yes it's uninteractive. The answers to it are really narrow, even if some are effective enough in a vacuum. Though many are not, because TNN is not played in a vacuum, but in fair decks that just have a near indestructible clock built in. A combo deck has excessive trouble with specialized hate, a TNN deck just shrugs at most of it because there's a rest of a Delver deck / Stoneblade deck for the opponent to deal with. The only usual overlap in terms of "cards to fight this" being artifact removal and Deed, pretty much.
And it boggles my mind that people can acknowledge the fact that answers exist (quality aside, for the moment) while blithely writing off the reasons against a ban as trivial. The two most compelling arguments against a ban are the still-extant argument that it really isn't format distorting in the Mental Misstep sense and that banning a creature sets a dangerous precedent for relying on the DCI to handle decks/cards for which a large number of reliable answers exist because they're upopular among a vocal subset of players (I have no idea if it's a majority or not).
While the recent metagame shifts coincide with the release of TNN, most of the changes are traceable to second-order effects of TNN rather explicitly shifting into TNN vs. Anti-TNN decks. The only primary effects are benign like the RUG Delver to BUG or UWR Delver shift. And the slowness of shift away from RUG in the real cardboard format can also be attributed to the fact that it isn't bad enough for people to trade away their cards to switch to BUG or UWR and the faster changes in the online meta are a result of trend-following rather than "real" shifts. Beyond that, we still have Reanimator, the whole family of UW Countertop strategies, Blade control (which, admittedly, runs TNN), Sneak and Show, Nic Fit, Elves, and, increasingly, Lands variants performing well. The decline in Jund is probably more a result of two trends: more people playing fast combo that favors counters over discard as answers, and the overlap between Jund and BUG Delver on the one hand and Lands decks (including Depths builds) on the other, both in terms of cards and player base. You may attribute the increase in combo as being due to TNN being played, but TNN increases the number of counter-packing strategies so it's hard to see the argument where this makes for a more hospitable environment for combo.
Let's not mix up data here. A top 4 isn't very represenative. 58% of the meta would be Survival ban-level. It hasn't reached that level, at least not yet.
1. "Format warping" is up to debate. I would consider a meta consisting of TNN decks, Anti-TNN decks and "Fuck the opponent and his TNN, I play A+B combo" definitely a warped format - and that's the direction we're currently heading for.
2. If it's broken, ban it. End of story. This isn't Standard and creatures shouldn't have some magical ban protection just because they're creatures. Let's get real here: "Okay, TNN is banned, let's ban Delver next." isn't going to happen. Maybe Griselbrand, but that's a better version of banned card.
3. Flash had answers, too. That doesn't mean it wasn't ban-worthy. Every card has answers, but the question is whether or not they're able to keep said card in check.
I'm not sure what you mean by "normal" magic. The term itself is very loose and hard to pinpoint exactly. Taken loosely, I'll just assume the definition of a "normal" deck is a deck that wins using the red zone with creatures that are cast (or vialed in) one at a time. Under this definition of "normal" magic, all true-name nemesis decks fit.
Another possible definition might be: all decks that fit the previous definition, excluding any decks that include true-name nemesis. If this is the definition, I gave a couple of decks that don't run true-name that can still perform in the current metagame. This list includes: death and taxes, team america, jund, and rock as creature decks that don't use tnn and miracles, 12post, 43 lands, jund depths as control decks that are virutally creature-less. Of these, only dnt, team america and miracles are decks to beat, but these are "normal" decks under the second definition and make up about 3/8 or 1/3 of all decks to beat. All 3 decks to beat have fairly good to even matchups against the true-name nemesis decks.
As for answers to true-name nemesis, deed and disenchant effects definitely aren't where they end. Deed is really good right now, but there are answers to true-name that can be played main-deck. In black: toxic deluge, deed, damnation, thoughtseize, inquisition of kozilek, cabal therapy, innocent blood, diabolic edict; in white: terminus, supreme verdict; in blue: counterspell, force of will. This list would be a lot longer if I included cards that are sideboard material. In fact, most -1/-1 effects are really good against two other decks to beat: death and taxes and elves. Red has access to red elemental blasts that most red decks already pack. Its true that green really doesn't have any answers to true-name other than racing (they dont really have good flying creatures), but the same can be said of green and combo decks. Furthermore, most of the maindeck answers (except the blue ones) are actually quite good against creature strategies in general--thus it hates on the delver/blade aspect of the deck as well as the true-name nemesis itself.
Beyond just answers to true-name nemesis, I already mentioned that fliers and other evasive creatures have a lot more value now. This also happens to make true-name nemesis a more attractive option, but there are also evasive creatures in other colors that deserve a second look. Serra avenger has been seeing a lot more playing since tnn got printed. Like I said before, the requirement that creatures need some kind of evasion allows a greater creature diversity that what we've had in recent magic history: undercosted big beaters ala tarmogoyf, knight of the reliquary, batterskull, nimble mongoose, etc. Even in this list, the only cards that true-name really invalidates are goyf and mongoose. Batterskull and knight still retain its utility.
Lastly, its hard to say what is format warping and what is metagame changing. I think the two are basically the same thing, with the exception that format warping indicates that its metagame change on an extreme scale. This does essentially boil down to numbers. I'm not saying that a card needs to be the most-played card in a metagame, but that the relative increase in numbers of a certain archetype needs to be considered. In your hypothetical, if force of will got banned, if only 20% of the decks change, I think that would be considered meta-game shifting. However, if 80% of the decks change, that may be considered format-warping. Again, the measurement itself is quite subjective and you need to take in account the percentage change relative to the pre-change saturation of the deck/strategy/card. A 20% absolute increase in turn-1 combo deck numbers is a lot more startling than a 20% absolute increase in midrange blade numbers (the first is probably a relative increase of over 400%, the latter is probably a relative increase of 40-50%). All in all, I think that blade itself as an archetype has become more popular, but it was already a very popular strategy. The introduction of true-name has increased its popularity, but largely because an effective foil to the strategy hasn't been widely adopted yet.
Article, not from Wizards though, confirming that the update is tonight:
http://www.channelfireball.com/artic...olding-modern/
I have received a lot of conflicting info on this, so we'll see if it goes up tonight.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote