All B/R update speculation.

[HSCK]

I think Deatblade and TA are both pretty interactive. A lot of the lost percentage shares have gone into the "other category" as well. As I pointed out earlier as well, the top 10 has gone from 85%-65% of the top 8 meta, a trend that seems to be continuing. Every month since TNN has been in has been a trend of more and more decks popping up. Maybe it's time for another thread to discuss that though.

[Barook]

I think Deatblade and TA are both pretty interactive.

TNN decks in general are pretty interactive as long as TNN isn't involved. It's like two different games whether or not TNN is in play.

Sadly, since Wizards starts now to put out Commander boxes with 2 guaranteed Mind Seize boxes, I doubt TNN is going to see a ban anytime soon. Gotta milk that cash cow.

[ESG]

This is the 5th month of data I've compiled and not once has a TNN-centric deck been in the top 2. Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 DRS/1 TNN a TNN deck is ridiculous. Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 SFM/2 TNN a TNN deck is also pretty wrong.

Then your numbers are meaningless, because TNN is the reason these close games are coming down to the player with the TNN on the field. Again, watch the coverage. If you aren't including all decks playing TNN, then you are skewing the data.

The facts:
*Decks with TNN in them have been consistent performers, taking down large tournaments since TNN's debut. This shows the card isn't a fad or a "new toy." Consistent results are consistent results.
* Four consecutive big tournaments have now been won by decks playing TNN. How many need to be won before people start to connect the dots?
* TNN is a card that swings matchups against "fair" decks, needing an immediate answer or the game ends. See the finals coverage from last night or watch Game 3 of the SCG Seattle finals. Saying that these matches somehow don't count toward your data points because there weren't four TNNs involved is absurd.

[Barook]

Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 DRS/1 TNN a TNN deck is ridiculous. Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 SFM/2 TNN a TNN deck is also pretty wrong.

That those 1-2 copies of TNN are easily found with a crapton of cantrips, though. So the actual chance of one hitting play is way higher than in non-blue decks running 1-2 copies of one card.

Cantrips significantly lower the amount of certain cards you need and still get the job done. Otherwise, RUG decks wouldn't get away with running 18-19 lands while normal decks run have to run 22-25 lands otherwise.

If it runs TNN, it's blue. If it's blue, it runs cantrips to find those TNN in a reasonable timeframe. And since TNN are a game-deciding factor quite a few times, they are TNN decks. Numbers are semantics as soon as cantrips are involved. They run TNN and win with it, among other things. If TNN wasn't important, they wouldn't run it, but as it stands, it steals games.

[Arsenal]

I've never understood the "but it doesn't run 4 maindeck!" argument. I mean, Jund doesn't run 4 maindeck Bloodbraid Elf, the various Jace decks don't run 4 maindeck Jace, AnT doesn't run 4 maindeck Past in Flames or 4 maindeck Ad Nauseam, Miracles doesn't run 4 maindeck Entreat the Angels, Aggro Loam doesn't run 4 maindeck Life from the Loam, etc. There are dozens of decks that do not run 4 of a specific card, yet that card is integral to the success of the deck.

[btm10]

I've never understood the "but it doesn't run 4 maindeck!" argument. I mean, Jund doesn't run 4 maindeck Bloodbraid Elf, the various Jace decks don't run 4 maindeck Jace, AnT doesn't run 4 maindeck Past in Flames or 4 maindeck Ad Nauseam, Miracles doesn't run 4 maindeck Entreat the Angels, Aggro Loam doesn't run 4 maindeck Life from the Loam, etc. There are dozens of decks that do not run 4 of a specific card, yet that card is integral to the success of the deck.

In the case of (Death/stone)blade, I think it's fair to say that TNN has had a major impact on the decks' success. But the 1-of TNN in the BUG Delver list? It's hard to call that a TNN deck when there isn't really a consensus that the card is even optimal. That particular list had opted to trade consistency for the ability to have flexible closing options and hoped (reasonably) to cantrip into the right closer at the right time, but that's definitely not the way that many other successful BUG Delver lists have chosen to operate.

[Arsenal]

And Patriot? It went from 2.0% Top 8 penetration from Jan-Oct 2013 to 6.4% Top 8 penetration from Dec 2013-Feb 2014; that's a 4.4% gain, vaulting it from 11th to 4th. I'd certainly classify it as a TNN deck and state that TNN has everything to do with it's post-Nov 2013 success, even though it runs "only" 2 copies maindeck (often times with a 3rd copy in the board).

I wouldn't classify the SCG Seattle TA list as a TNN deck in the same way I would classify Patriot, Deathblade, and Blade Control as TNN decks, this much I agree with you on.

[btm10]

Patriot is also a TNN deck. Absolutely. But it's also true that it (along with TA) is what took RUG's place, so I'm not sure how exactly the interplay between the rise of the 3 mentioned TNN decks (Blade variants + Patriot) and the decline of RUG, Jund, and Shardless BUG (among others) has worked out. TNN may have started the dominoes, but I'm not sure that the meta we have (TNN largely, though indirectly dictating the creature and removal packages that work) is worse than the meta it replaced in which a deck's ability to fend off or ignore RUG Delver's early attack determined whether it was viable.

[Barook]

TNN may have started the dominoes, but I'm not sure that the meta we have (TNN largely, though indirectly dictating the creature and removal packages that work) is worse than the meta it replaced in which a deck's ability to fend off or ignore RUG Delver's early attack determined whether it was viable.

Sure, RUG definitely has some god draws that are unstoppable, especially when they're on the play. Other than that, it's still a pretty interactive deck.

But TNN certainly caused the meta to become less interactive, be it due to combo decks ignoring TNN or TNN giving you the finger. Since Magic is a game of interaction, I would definitely say the meta is worse than before, even if it isn't fully reflected in meta variety (yet).

[btm10]

I think you're neglecting TNN's supporting cast of disruption (soft counters, Force, discard, removal), long term card advantage (Jace, Liliana, Sylvan Library), and the 10 or so other creatures that usually come along with it. The meta has cracked the TNN code and can now interact with it, it just requires a few slots main or SB to answer it and you move along building and playing your deck. Sure, sometimes you don't draw your narrow TNN answer when you need it, but the same can be said of Blood Moon or Counterbalance.

[mishima_kazuya]

I think you're neglecting TNN's supporting cast of disruption (soft counters, Force, discard, removal), long term card advantage (Jace, Liliana, Sylvan Library), and the 10 or so other creatures that usually come along with it. The meta has cracked the TNN code and can now interact with it, it just requires a few slots main or SB to answer it and you move along building and playing your deck. Sure, sometimes you don't draw your narrow TNN answer when you need it, but the same can be said of Blood Moon or Counterbalance.

I believe it is a lot easier to beat Blood Moon or Counterbalance without drawing or even resorting to narrow cards.
Unlike Counterbalance, you can't just go over the top of TNN by overloading on 3 drops or 4 drops. Decks that rely on ground offenses (usually non-blue fair decks like Goblins or Maverick) get slowed down too easily by TNN. Basically, the meta has reacted to TNN, but at the cost of a few archetypes and sub-archetypes.



At this rate, I would bet at least $20 USD that TNN gets banned by Journey to Nix and I would be surprised if it was not.

[davelin]

I believe it is a lot easier to beat Blood Moon or Counterbalance without drawing or even resorting to narrow cards.
Unlike Counterbalance, you can't just go over the top of TNN by overloading on 3 drops or 4 drops. Decks that rely on ground offenses (usually non-blue fair decks like Goblins or Maverick) get slowed down too easily by TNN. Basically, the meta has reacted to TNN, but at the cost of a few archetypes and sub-archetypes.



At this rate, I would bet at least $20 USD that TNN gets banned by Journey to Nix and I would be surprised if it was not.

I'll take that bet.

[btm10]

I believe it is a lot easier to beat Blood Moon or Counterbalance without drawing or even resorting to narrow cards.
Unlike Counterbalance, you can't just go over the top of TNN by overloading on 3 drops or 4 drops. Decks that rely on ground offenses (usually non-blue fair decks like Goblins or Maverick) get slowed down too easily by TNN. Basically, the meta has reacted to TNN, but at the cost of a few archetypes and sub-archetypes.



At this rate, I would bet at least $20 USD that TNN gets banned by Journey to Nix and I would be surprised if it was not.

I would take that action all dày. So old archetypes have been replaced by new ones. It's not objectively a bad thing. The weakening of ground-pounder aggro is probably good in that it at least somewhat mitigates the recent increase in the power of creatures relative to spells.

[Dice_Box]

I would bet at least $20 USD that TNN gets banned by Journey to Nix and I would be surprised if it was not.

The commander set of 5 boxes are now packaged with 2x Mind Sieze. I bet it will not be banned. If it was going to be, why would they print extra that would become worthless stock once the card was not worth money.

[Barook]

I would take that action all dày. So old archetypes have been replaced by new ones. It's not objectively a bad thing. The weakening of ground-pounder aggro is probably good in that it at least somewhat mitigates the recent increase in the power of creatures relative to spells.

I fail to see how fighting power creep with even more power creep is a good thing.

[Lord Seth]

The commander set of 5 boxes are now packaged with 2x Mind Sieze. I bet it will not be banned. If it was going to be, why would they print extra that would become worthless stock once the card was not worth money.

Probably to satisfy the players who complained about how hard it was to find the Mind Seize deck because of True-Name Nemesis. Want the deck because you actually want to play that deck? Well, thanks to True-Name Nemesis--which isn't even that great in EDH from what I've been told--you'll find it much harder to find a copy, and it'll be way more expensive than the other decks to boot. Wizards of the Coast even--kind of--admitted they screwed up on that:

"One thing that didn't go exactly as planned with these latest Commander decks is the imbalance in availability caused by the presence of a highly sought-after Legacy card—True-Name Nemesis—in one of them." Source

[Nielsie]

Calling a deck with 4 Delver/4 SFM/2 TNN a TNN deck is also pretty wrong.

Patriot Delver? For me that is a TNN deck. Keep in mind they have enough library manipulation to dig for the 2 TNNs. My losses against this deck all come from a timely TNN that would start out in defense mode untill the boardstate would swing in TNN's favor, if it had been a Geist I would have won those matches without problem.

[Barook]

Probably to satisfy the players who complained about how hard it was to find the Mind Seize deck because of True-Name Nemesis. Want the deck because you actually want to play that deck? Well, thanks to True-Name Nemesis--which isn't even that great in EDH from what I've been told--you'll find it much harder to find a copy, and it'll be way more expensive than the other decks to boot. Wizards of the Coast even--kind of--admitted they screwed up on that:

"One thing that didn't go exactly as planned with these latest Commander decks is the imbalance in availability caused by the presence of a highly sought-after Legacy card—True-Name Nemesis—in one of them." Source

It does make sense to meet the demand of Mind Seize - aside from pissing off people, if stores can't move the rest of the product, they aren't going to order other batches of the Commander precons.

Maybe it's a move to cash in on the TNN hype before they ban it, but I'm rather seeing it as confirmation that TNN is going to stay around at least until the next ban announcement.

[btm10]

It does make sense to meet the demand of Mind Seize - aside from pissing off people, if stores can't move the rest of the product, they aren't going to order other batches of the Commander precons.

Maybe it's a move to cash in on the TNN hype before they ban it, but I'm rather seeing it as confirmation that TNN is going to stay around at least until the next ban announcement.

At least there's that.

I fail to see how fighting power creep with even more power creep is a good thing.

Wizards have made it clear that their marketing says 'keep doing what you're doing'. My issue isn't with power creep per se, but with power creep among creatures that outpaces power creep among noncreature spells. So I think that if they're going to be printing stronger and stronger creatures, some of them should at least be capable of serving as answers to the other overpowered creatures.

[Arsenal]

So old archetypes have been replaced by new ones. It's not objectively a bad thing.

But Maverick, Shardless BUG, RUG Delver and Jund are all distinctly different from each other in both color and available strategies. Patriot, Deathblade and Blade Control share a large amount of color/card/strategy overlap. That most certainly is a bad thing for the meta.