All B/R update speculation.

[HSCK]

I just find it lolworthy that when SCG St. Louis was over, none of the anti-TNN posters said anything in here as I thought it was understood by all that ONE Top 8 does not make the format. But when SCG Seattle is over? All of the TNN fanboys start talking about how well the format has "adjusted" to TNN and how ONE Top 8 = format forever.

February's analysis doesn't really put TNN in as some sort of format dominating monster either.

[Arsenal]

February's analysis doesn't really put TNN in as some sort of format dominating monster either.

Again, too small of a sample size. I mean, if I wanted to cherry pick a single month out of my ten month sample to proclaim, "Deck X is the worst deck! July 2013's data says so! SEE!", I could, but it wouldn't really do anything other than illustrate how not to use statistics. My sample size is Jan-Oct 2013. What it yours?

[Megadeus]

To be fair though, to not include February and March, since now the format has adapted a bit more, would feel wrong

[Arsenal]

To be fair though, to not include February and March, since now the format has adapted a bit more, would feel wrong

Right, I wanted to show what Legacy looked like pre-TNN, so I used Jan-Oct 2013. Nov 2013-current (August 2014 would be 10 months with TNN in the format) is the next sample set to use, then we can compare and contrast. Cherry picking a single Top 8 or even a single month doesn't do anything.

[btm10]

Right, I wanted to show what Legacy looked like pre-TNN, so I used Jan-Oct 2013. Nov 2013-current (August 2014 would be 10 months with TNN in the format) is the next sample set to use, then we can compare and contrast. Cherry picking a single Top 8 or even a single month doesn't do anything.

While I totally respect what you're doing (and the rigor with which you're doing it) despite not feeling like TNN should be banned, I've lost track of what exactly you're trying to show. I think that you're arguing that TNN killed diversity, right?

[Lemnear]

While I totally respect what you're doing (and the rigor with which you're doing it) despite not feeling like TNN should be banned, I've lost track of what exactly you're trying to show. I think that you're arguing that TNN killed diversity, right?

SFM kills more diversity than TNN ever did. People just hate on the blue card primary, because SFM is also played in non-blue decks. A flawed logic overall, if you ask me.

[Arsenal]

In case anyone cares, this is what the adjusted Legacy meta looked liked from Jan-Oct 2013. I used 6+ round tourney data, only Top 8 (no #9-32 decks used), and no SCG Invitational data used (too skewed due to being linked with Standard).

1. RUG Delver
2. Jund
3. Blade Control
4. Miracles
5. Sneak & Show
6. Team America
7. Death and Taxes
8. Shardless BUG
9. Maverick
10. Elves

I was actually wrong about Jund and Maverick as my raw data put Jund at #3 and Maverick at #7, but after looking at the refined data (basically accounting for additional decimals), Jund moved up to #2 while Maverick dropped down to #9. That meta looks incredibly diverse, balanced, has slight-moderate overlap, and "fun".

I don't have Nov 2013-current data compiled or adjusted, but I'd wager that Nov 2013-current looks nowhere near as diverse and represented as before. That's my next project.

[Esper3k]

SFM kills more diversity than TNN ever did. People just hate on the blue card primary, because SFM is also played in non-blue decks. A flawed logic overall, if you ask me.

This. TNN is much less scary if he didn't have his girlfriend SFM to do the real heavy lifting for him. Don't get me wrong, I love SFM, but I think that card has had a much greater impact on Legacy than TNN has.

[HSCK]

Again, too small of a sample size. I mean, if I wanted to cherry pick a single month out of my ten month sample to proclaim, "Deck X is the worst deck! July 2013's data says so! SEE!", I could, but it wouldn't really do anything other than illustrate how not to use statistics. My sample size is Jan-Oct 2013. What it yours?

I have December-January-February.

468 decks surveyed:

Team America- 46 top 8s
Miracles- 32
Deathblade- 31
UWR- 30
Blade Control- 28
Sneak and Show- 28
Elves- 27
Jund- 23
RUG-20
Death and Taxes-17
ANT- 17
Shardless BUG- 17

[Arsenal]

I have December-January-February.

468 decks surveyed:

Team America- 46 top 8s
Miracles- 32
Deathblade- 31
UWR- 30
Blade Control- 28
Sneak and Show- 28
Elves- 27
Jund- 23
RUG-20
Death and Taxes-17
ANT- 17

If you include November 2013, then I think we should be up to date. But just going off the Dec 2013-Feb 2014 data you've compiled (using my parameters I think), you can clearly see a difference in the two metas; I mean, 3 of the top 5 decks in your meta are on the SFM-TNN plan. Also, decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves (RUG, Jund, Shardless BUG, Maverick), moved way down/completely off the list from where they were previously positioned. This would suggest that the meta of "play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose" isn't as far fetched as you made it seem.

[swoop]

Ban SFM

[HSCK]

If you include November 2013, then I think we should be up to date. But just going off the Dec 2013-Feb 2014 data you've compiled (using my parameters I think), you can clearly see a difference in the two metas; I mean, 3 of the top 5 decks in your meta are on the SFM-TNN plan. Also, decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves (RUG, Jund, Shardless BUG, Maverick), moved way down/completely off the list from where they were previously positioned. This would suggest that the meta of "play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose" isn't as far fetched as you made it seem.

The meta seems to be evasive creatures, combo, or sweepers. That seems to be like what normal magic is anyway, especially at this power level.

[Esper3k]

I'd be curious to see the numbers on UWR delver in the few months before TNN was printed. It wouldn't surprise me to see it doing well, but not on the Jan-Oct list simply because it was a fairly new deck.

One can also see by the Jan-Oct data that Maverick was already low on the list and very possibly just on the way out. Sure TNN didn't help it, but it wasn't like it was a highly successful deck anymore to begin with.

[Arsenal]

The meta seems to be evasive creatures, combo, or sweepers. That seems to be like what normal magic is anyway, especially at this power level.

The difference between this (Jan-Oct 2013):

1.) RUG Delver
2.) Jund
3.) Blade Control
4.) Miracles
5.) Sneak & Show
6.) Team America
7.) Death and Taxes
8.) Shardless BUG
9.) Maverick
10.) Elves
11.) Patriot

and this (Dec 2013-Feb 2014):

1.) Team America
2.) Miracles
3.) Deathblade
4.) Patriot
5.) Blade Control
6.) Sneak & Show
7.) Elves
8.) Jund
9.) RUG Delver
10.) Death and Taxes
11.) Ad Nauseam Tendrils

is quite pronounced and I'm not sure why you're trying to trivialize it now that we have both sets of adjusted data. All along I've said that TNN likely reduced diversity and the meta had become "play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose". You claim that the meta doesn't appear to be any different now than from before, but I'd ask that you look closer at the data. See any differences? I do.

1.) The decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves, have performed significantly worse post-TNN. RUG Delver, Jund, Death and Taxes, Shardless BUG and Maverick all saw a pronounced drop in positioning or just fell out of the meta completely. RUG Delver goes from #1 to #9, Jund from #2 to #8, Death and Taxes from #7 to #10, Shardless BUG from #8 to uncharted, Maverick from #9 to uncharted.

2.) The decks that don't care about TNN saw a significant increase in performance. Elves moved up from #10 to #7, Ad Nauseam moved up from uncharted to #11, Miracles moved up from #4 to #2, Team America moved up from #6 to #1. Only Sneak & Show saw a decrease in performance from #5 to #6.

3.) 3 of the top 5 decks in your data are on the SFM-TNN plan. Deathblade goes from uncharted to #3, Patriot from #11 to #4, Blade Control dips from #3 to #5. This trio of TNN cousins certainly has reduced strategic diversity while pushing out the unique, non-TNN decks that once occupied those meta slots.

The data clearly shows that the meta has drastically changed, for what believe to be for the worse. "Play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose". This is what the data is showing. How are you coming to a different conclusion?

I'd be curious to see the numbers on UWR delver in the few months before TNN was printed. It wouldn't surprise me to see it doing well, but not on the Jan-Oct list simply because it was a fairly new deck.

One can also see by the Jan-Oct data that Maverick was already low on the list and very possibly just on the way out. Sure TNN didn't help it, but it wasn't like it was a highly successful deck anymore to begin with.

I've always stated that Maverick was a #7-9 deck. Always (12-19-13 post from the now-locked "TNN Go Away" thread: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post775644). You and others were the ones claiming that Maverick was completely dead before TNN and that Maverick didn't matter at all. The data just confirms that Maverick was in fact a #9 deck pre-TNN, this isn't even up for debate anymore. Also, I never claimed it was a "highly successful deck", so that strawman can be put out. In fact, I think I referred to Maverick as a "fringe Top 10 deck"... which is exactly what it was from Jan-Oct 2013.

Also, I included Patriot's positioning from Jan-Oct 2013 for you. It was the #11 deck in the meta, but only charted in 3 of the 10 month sample (July, Sept, Oct). It averaged a 7.3 place finish during that 3 month sample.

[HSCK]

I appreciate your work, but I don't really understand what a list of 10 without qualifiers are? Is there a percentage of top 8 finishes so we can better look at diversity, because otherwise it's just ANT and Maverick tagging out.

[Arsenal]

I appreciate your work, but I don't really understand what a list of 10 without qualifiers are? Is there a percentage of top 8 finishes so we can better look at diversity, because otherwise it's just ANT and Maverick tagging out.

I used the same parameters as you did, but if you'd like specific numbers on anything, let me know what you want.

[HSCK]

Is it possible to use the same numbering system I did, like:

Team America 46 top 8s out of 468 decks surveyed.

That allows use to see percentage of meta which I suspect is what you're talking about when you refer to diversity?

[Lemnear]

The difference between this (Jan-Oct 2013):

1.) RUG Delver Delver
2.) Jund DRS
3.) Blade Control SFM
4.) Miracles
5.) Sneak & Show
6.) Team America Delver + DRS
7.) Death and Taxes SFM
8.) Shardless BUG DRS
9.) Maverick SFM
10.) Elves DRS
11.) Patriot Delver + SFM

4x SDM
4x DRS
3x Delver

and this (Dec 2013-Feb 2014):

1.) Team America Delver + DRS
2.) Miracles now with SFM
3.) Deathblade DRS + SFM
4.) Patriot Delver + SFM
5.) Blade Control SFM
6.) Sneak & Show
7.) Elves DRS
8.) Jund DRS
9.) RUG Delver Delver
10.) Death and Taxes SFM
11.) Ad Nauseam Tendrils

5x SFM
4x DRS
3x Delver

Honestly, I don't see much of a difference in regards to the defining creatures. "Blade control" is a bit undefined. That can be everything from Esper-Delver, to Lingering Souls, to UW-Delver with certain overlaps to Deathblade and Patriot.

The only thing you can say is that non-blue midrange dropped, but that can have various reasons like the pure hype around SFM+TNN. As recent SCG results showed is that TNN is on a decline again, thanks to massive counteractions in form of Golgari Charm and Liliana out of BGx decks like Team America or Jund.

If you don't mind that the metagame is totally defined by those 3 creatures and SFM is in every fucking aggro AND control AND midrange deck, then yeah ... the meta is fine

[btm10]

The difference between this (Jan-Oct 2013):

1.) RUG Delver
2.) Jund
3.) Blade Control
4.) Miracles
5.) Sneak & Show
6.) Team America
7.) Death and Taxes
8.) Shardless BUG
9.) Maverick
10.) Elves
11.) Patriot

and this (Dec 2013-Feb 2014):

1.) Team America
2.) Miracles
3.) Deathblade
4.) Patriot
5.) Blade Control
6.) Sneak & Show
7.) Elves
8.) Jund
9.) RUG Delver
10.) Death and Taxes
11.) Ad Nauseam Tendrils

is quite pronounced and I'm not sure why you're trying to trivialize it now that we have both sets of adjusted data. All along I've said that TNN likely reduced diversity and the meta had become "play with TNN, don't care about TNN, or lose". You claim that the meta doesn't appear to be any different now than from before, but I'd ask that you look closer at the data. See any differences? I do.

1.) The decks that care about TNN, but don't run it themselves, have performed significantly worse post-TNN. RUG Delver, Jund, Death and Taxes, Shardless BUG and Maverick all saw a pronounced drop in positioning or just fell out of the meta completely. RUG Delver goes from #1 to #9, Jund from #2 to #8, Death and Taxes from #7 to #10, Shardless BUG from #8 to uncharted, Maverick from #9 to uncharted.

3.) 3 of the top 5 decks in your data are on the SFM-TNN plan. Deathblade goes from uncharted to #3, Patriot from #11 to #4, Blade Control dips from #3 to #5. This trio of TNN cousins certainly has reduced strategic diversity while pushing out the unique, non-TNN decks that once occupied those meta slots.

Also, I included Patriot's positioning from Jan-Oct 2013 for you. It was the #11 deck in the meta, but only charted in 3 of the 10 month sample (July, Sept, Oct). It averaged a 7.3 place finish during that 3 month sample.

I think that the points you make here are correct, but might be overstating the TNN effect slightly in some ways, while understating it in others. I'm particularly thinking about the BUG Delver/Team America tempo decks, which occupy a pretty large design space between all-in, RUG-style tempo and something that looks and plays an almost-midrange strategy like Shardless BUG but with (soft) counterspells and Bobs over Shardless Agent + lots of discard + Ancestral Vision alongside the general Delver+Goyf plan. Looking at the card choice discussions (and looking at how my own BUG deck has changed since I dropped Enchantress), you see the things like Liliana and Sylvan Library being discussed and cards like Stifle being removed, which is a distinct move away from the tempo plan. UWR Delver is similar in that it can either play like a tempo deck with Delvers and soft permission but has the option of trying to play in the fast-midrange space with TNN/SFM + equipment (or just SFM+Batterskull) when that plan is stronger or the tempo strategy doesn't work. So in some ways the decrease in the styles you see masks that those styles occupy a lot more potential design space than those that were top performers earlier.

On the other hand, you can absolutely say that TNN has resulted in a general slowing of the meta and the "midrange-ification" of tempo decks, with super aggressive strategies like RUG losing ground to creature decks that have better midgames, while hatebear plans like D&T and Maverick have given/are giving way to different midrange and control decks that rely less on X/1 dudes that get hit by TNN-hate and that are more resilient to sweepers like Terminus and Supreme Verdict that come along with the rise of Blade variants and Miracles. I'm not sure if "shades of midrange, pure control, and combo" is a healthy metagame (I'm legitimately on the fence), but that seems to be the real effect of TNN.

[Arsenal]

Maverick rarely ran SFM. Same with Miracles. I think it's a bit of a stretch to classify Maverick and Miracles as a SFM deck when most builds ran 0 copies in their respective 75.