All B/R update speculation.

[Arsenal]

This is what you guys yelled back and forth for 2-3 weeks about? Shifts from slot 6 through 15?

When determining what is warping the meta via diversity reduction, what's getting pushed down/out of relevance, etc, that stuff matters. Also, nobody else is offering any unbiased method of meta analysis, so... yes?

Also, I've heard countless times from people that the only thing that matters when talking about banning a card is data. Not anecdotes, not bad beats stories, not subjective fun/unfun arguments, but data. Thecouncil's methodology is flawed. The methodology from other sources people have cited is even moreso. We've come to an agreement as to the "best" analysis and methodology to be used when determining meta shifts, and now it's no big deal to you?

[DragoFireheart]

This is what you guys yelled back and forth for 2-3 weeks about? Shifts from slot 6 through 15?

Was there something else worth shouting about?

[testing32]

When determining what is warping the meta via diversity reduction, what's getting pushed down/out of relevance, etc, that stuff matters. Also, nobody else is offering any unbiased method of meta analysis, so... yes?

How about this. We just put decks 6 - 15 in the "don't call my deck bad, it's good it just doesn't do well in tournaments" bucket and move on.

[Arsenal]

How about this. We just put decks 6 - 15 in the "don't call my deck bad, it's good it just doesn't do well in tournaments" bucket and move on.

So... if preparing for a 6+ round tourney, you're only going to test against the top 5 decks? Seems smart.

Also, decks outside of the top 5 are very relevant when talking about format diversity. If the top 5 decks are all SFM-TNN (I know they're not, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point) and you ignore the next 5 decks completely, you fail to see that the 6-10 decks were all combo decks, then the 11-15 decks were all the non-blue, fair decks, etc. You completely miss trends if you disregard decks outside the top 5.

I don't understand. Everyone and their mother said that the only thing that mattered when discussing a potential ban was the data. Now you want to disregard a large portion of the data... why? If the data supports the claim that TNN has/hasn't warped the meta, then why would you want to not know that?

[testing32]

So... if preparing for a 6+ round tourney, you're only going to test against the top 5 decks? Seems smart.

Also, decks outside of the top 5 are very relevant when talking about format diversity. If the top 5 decks are all SFM-TNN (I know they're not, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point) and you ignore the next 5 decks completely, you fail to see that the 6-10 decks were all combo decks, then the 11-15 decks were all the non-blue, fair decks, etc. You completely miss trends if you disregard decks outside the top 5.

I don't understand. Everyone and their mother said that the only thing that mattered when discussing a potential ban was the data. Now you want to disregard a large portion of the data... why? If the data supports the claim that TNN has/hasn't warped the meta, then why would you want to not know that?

Joke

[HSCK]

So the question for me to everyone now is whether or not the data points to a healthy meta over the last two months? Team America is clearly the best performing deck but decks 2-11 only vary between 24-15 top 8 placements over a 2 month period. The best decks are Brainstorm decks, but Elves is gaining ground. Two of the top 3 decks are Delver decks, the two dedicated Blade+TNN decks are 4 and 5. Sneak and Show, D&T and Jund all have good showings too. RUG took a huge dive in January, but is it because of TNN+SFM or is it because of TA? Miracles contrary to what was said by some earlier is actually doing quite well, but took a huge dive as well in January from December, but that could be due to regional differences.

[Arsenal]

So the question for me to everyone now is whether or not the data points to a healthy meta over the last two months? Team America is clearly the best performing deck but decks 2-11 only vary between 24-15 top 8 placements over a 2 month period. The best decks are Brainstorm decks, but Elves is gaining ground. Two of the top 3 decks are Delver decks, the two dedicated Blade+TNN decks are 4 and 5. Sneak and Show, D&T and Jund all have good showings too. RUG took a huge dive in January, but is it because of TNN+SFM or is it because of TA? Miracles contrary to what was said by some earlier is actually doing quite well, but took a huge dive as well in January from December, but that could be due to regional differences.

Well, I think it's best if we get an understanding of what the meta looked like before TNN and what it has been looking like after. That is why I normally compare Jan-Oct 2013 to Nov 2013-Jan 2014 as that will give us a large enough sample size to draw conclusions from. I don't think anything before January 1st, 2013 is relevant, but I could be wrong.

[HSCK]

So what then becomes the criteria for healthy or not healthy? Gobbos? Maverick? Zoo? Faerie Stompy? Number of decks? That's the core of the issue that people go back and forth on.

[Barook]

So what then becomes the criteria for healthy or not healthy? Gobbos? Maverick? Zoo? Faerie Stompy? Number of decks? That's the core of the issue that people go back and forth on.

Imho a healthy color distribution is one criteria for the health of the format.

Dual supply is limited (FoW also kinda counts since Wizards can't be assed to reprint it) and thus number of players. If the meta is "Play blue or GTFO!", then there is a way higher demand for the limited number of blue duals, leading to less people being able to play and higher and higher prices on the blue-related staples. Underground Sea and Volcanic Islands both made 70$ jumps on SCG recently. Let that sink into your heads for a moment.

A format that is too blue-biased is unhealthy and going to speed up the death of the format since those blue cards become harder and harder to obtain.

[FieryBalrog]

Imho a healthy color distribution is one criteria for the health of the format.

Dual supply is limited (FoW also kinda counts since Wizards can't be assed to reprint it) and thus number of players. If the meta is "Play blue or GTFO!", then there is a way higher demand for the limited number of blue duals, leading to less people being able to play and higher and higher prices on the blue-related staples. Underground Sea and Volcanic Islands both made 70$ jumps on SCG recently. Let that sink into your heads for a moment.

A format that is too blue-biased is unhealthy and going to speed up the death of the format since those blue cards become harder and harder to obtain.

I've been saying this for quite a while now... but at this point, due to years of self-selection amongst the player base, this is what Legacy players like. Except for the masochists.

[Dzra]

Imho a healthy color distribution is one criteria for the health of the format.

I think in terms of the format's fun and playability that strategic diversity is much more relevant than color distribution. The argument for better color distribution really has two main points: slowing the rising cost of (Blue) dual lands and further increasing strategic diversity.

Unfortunately as far as prices go, I'm pretty sure that what's done is done; if non-Blue decks suddenly saw a big upswing then we wouldn't be seeing the price of Blue duals tapper off, we'd simply see the price of non-Blue duals spike. As I see it, WotC needs to fix the reserved list problem regardless, making the cost of dual lands a separate issue, and if this Chinese counterfeiting hoopla wasn't enough to motivate them then I'm going to be fairly upset.

Even despite the blight that is True-Name Nemesis, Legacy is still full of strategic diversity. I think they are on the right track with things like Spirit of the Labyrinth, and I wouldn't be so hasty to call for a crusade against the color Blue. Give them time and hopefully the color distribution will balance itself out without a need for unpopular bannings.

[JPoJohnson]

So... if preparing for a 6+ round tourney, you're only going to test against the top 5 decks? Seems smart.

Also, decks outside of the top 5 are very relevant when talking about format diversity. If the top 5 decks are all SFM-TNN (I know they're not, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point) and you ignore the next 5 decks completely, you fail to see that the 6-10 decks were all combo decks, then the 11-15 decks were all the non-blue, fair decks, etc. You completely miss trends if you disregard decks outside the top 5.

I don't understand. Everyone and their mother said that the only thing that mattered when discussing a potential ban was the data. Now you want to disregard a large portion of the data... why? If the data supports the claim that TNN has/hasn't warped the meta, then why would you want to not know that?

The card is fairly new still. I think there has to be a chance for the meta to adjust to this card being in existence. People are on the TNN hype train right now, but eventually either:

1. something will be printed to compensate
2. SB/MB will adjust.

Either way, I think there are enough answers/threats out there to eventually balance out the deck breakdown. Granted Patriot midrange was already seeing success with GoST instead of TNN in that slot.

[Zombie]

The card is fairly new still. I think there has to be a chance for the meta to adjust to this card being in existence. People are on the TNN hype train right now, but eventually either:

1. something will be printed to compensate
2. SB/MB will adjust.

Either way, I think there are enough answers/threats out there to eventually balance out the deck breakdown. Granted Patriot midrange was already seeing success with GoST instead of TNN in that slot.

Six months forward and people will still be telling themselves this.

[JPoJohnson]

Six months forward and people will still be telling themselves this.

I'm still waiting for a TNN deck to win an SCG Open this year. Jacob Wilson back on 12/15/2014 was the last time a TNN deck won.

12/15 1/8 decks
12/15 2/8 decks (Invitational)
1/5 3/8 decks
1/12 2/8 decks
1/19 2/8 decks
1/26 1/8 decks

Maybe I misread the reports and missed some decks... but it doesn't seem to be taking all the top slots. You can already see the decks that are coming about to counter it:

Lands
Reanimator
BUG
Stoneblade (Supreme Verdicts and no TNN, although some iterations run TNN as well)

Shifting already. 6 months down the road people will still say that because it's still shifting. It's always shifting.

[Arsenal]

I'm still waiting for a TNN deck to win an SCG Open this year. Jacob Wilson back on 12/15/2014 was the last time a TNN deck won.

12/15 1/8 decks
12/15 2/8 decks (Invitational)
1/5 3/8 decks
1/12 2/8 decks
1/19 2/8 decks
1/26 1/8 decks

Maybe I misread the reports and missed some decks... but it doesn't seem to be taking all the top slots. You can already see the decks that are coming about to counter it:

Lands
Reanimator
BUG
Stoneblade (Supreme Verdicts and no TNN, although some iterations run TNN as well)

Shifting already. 6 months down the road people will still say that because it's still shifting. It's always shifting.

If you believe the entire, global Legacy meta is determined by a handful of bi-weekly, US-only tourneys, then you are sorely mistaken. You should take a look at all 33+ player tourneys (that's a 6 round floor). If you're basing your opinions off SCG Open data only (which it appears you are), then your sample size is going to be too small to draw any meaningful conclusions from.

You're also the umpteenth person who has cited SCG Open data, but nothing else. Why is this?

[JPoJohnson]

If you believe the entire, global Legacy meta is determined by a handful of bi-weekly, US-only tourneys, then you are sorely mistaken. You should take a look at all 33+ player tourneys (that's a 6 round floor). If you're basing your opinions off SCG Open data only (which it appears you are), then your sample size is going to be too small to draw any meaningful conclusions from.

You're also the umpteenth person who has cited SCG Open data, but nothing else. Why is this?

Oh my goodness, I am not getting into the size-of-tournament argument. I agree that smaller tournaments are important to look at. I agree that top 8 does not dictate what the % of the meta each deck was. I DO however argue that if people don't see decks hitting high in big tournaments that they will not be as tempted to run the deck. I also believe that people will run decks to beat the top-placing decks which TNN based decks do not do well against. Yes TNN is powerful, yes he is making a huge splash in legacy, no he is not breaking the format.

Lets not jump my ass because of the flow of conversation prior to my post. Far out.

[Arsenal]

Oh my goodness, I am not getting into the size-of-tournament argument. I agree that smaller tournaments are important to look at. I agree that top 8 does not dictate what the % of the meta each deck was. I DO however argue that if people don't see decks hitting high in big tournaments that they will not be as tempted to run the deck. I also believe that people will run decks to beat the top-placing decks which TNN based decks do not do well against. Yes TNN is powerful, yes he is making a huge splash in legacy, no he is not breaking the format.

Lets not jump my ass because of the flow of conversation prior to my post. Far out.

You're the one who cited data to support your position. When I pointed out that your usage of data is improper, then it's all "I wasn't trying to say data matters!"... sure thing pal.

Also, the argument has never been that TNN decks are winning every tournament, it's that TNN has reduced the diversity of the format. I'm currently compiling and analyzing data for Jan-Oct 2013 and Nov 2013-Jan 2014 to see what impact TNN has had on Legacy. I suspect that the data will support my theory that TNN has reduced format diversity, particularly in the top tier, and made the format "play TNN, play a deck that doesn't care about TNN, or prepare to lose a lot". We'll see what my data yields.

[Zilla]

The card is fairly new still. I think there has to be a chance for the meta to adjust to this card being in existence. People are on the TNN hype train right now, but eventually either:

1. something will be printed to compensate
2. SB/MB will adjust.

Either way, I think there are enough answers/threats out there to eventually balance out the deck breakdown. Granted Patriot midrange was already seeing success with GoST instead of TNN in that slot.

The meta will certainly adjust to it. The problem is that no format shift or new card printing will ever make games involving TNN any less fucking boring to play and/or watch.

[Arsenal]

Speaking from a completely anecdotal, personal position:

I agree with Zilla, TNN is just unfun and boring to play with/against. I've been running TNN since November 1st, 2013 and the games I don't draw TNN are interactive and pretty awesome. The games I do draw TNN, it devolves into this uninteractive race of "can I deal lethal before my opponent can find his incredibly narrow, boardstate-specific TNN answer?" This is not what I signed up for when I elected to play a fair deck like Stoneblade. Pre-TNN, I was perfectly fine losing horribly to Punishing Jund and their 1,000,000 removal spells because we at least played Magic. Post-TNN, when I bash with TNN until they die with Abrupt Decays and Bolts rotting in their hand, I don't even feel a sense of victory; it's hollow and TNN has taken that enjoyment away from me. Yes, I could just not run TNN, however, I would then simply lose (more) to decks that do run TNN, so I essentially have to play with this fucking retarded, non-Magic card in order to remain competitive. It's all very stupid to me.

[JPoJohnson]

Also, the argument has never been that TNN decks are winning every tournament, it's that TNN has reduced the diversity of the format. I'm currently compiling and analyzing data for Jan-Oct 2013 and Nov 2013-Jan 2014 to see what impact TNN has had on Legacy. I suspect that the data will support my theory that TNN has reduced format diversity, particularly in the top tier, and made the format "play TNN, play a deck that doesn't care about TNN, or prepare to lose a lot". We'll see what my data yields.

Fair enough I can agree with that. I'll be interested to see what your data yields as well (: