All B/R update speculation.

[Esper3k]

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.

I just rewatched the G3 of the SCG Seattle finals and I don't see the same thing you did. TNN didn't even show up until Mitchell's second to last turn where Bauman was at 1 life and Mitchell had a commanding board position. Even then, any removal spell (immediately lethal) or pretty much any creature would have had the same effect. If they had remembered the Flickerwisp'd Delver coming back when it was supposed to, they wouldn't have even gotten to the turn where Mitchell drew the TNN. Game 3 had pretty much nothing to do with TNN...

http://www.twitch.tv/scglive/b/511630246 Game 3 starts at around 16:08:30.

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.

If you're going by HSCK's data, RUG and Jund aren't dead though, just down to more normal numbers and no longer dominating the format, so I wouldn't say that they've been replaced, but had decks added to the top meta. Maverick was already on a downward trend so we can only say that we only really see Shardless BUG dropping out of the meta (of course now we're starting to see non-Delver BUG control starting to make a name for itself).

Patriot, I would say plays significantly differently from Deathblade/Blade Control (which I would agree have much more overlap in the way they play out). Between the three decks though, I would actually say the biggest defining overlap is actually SFM, not TNN.

[btm10]

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 me

I think it's safe to say that RUG and Maverick were killed off by TNN. I'm pretty surprised that Shardless and Jund disappeared, though. Both are perfectly capable of answering TNN without doing anything awful to their maindecks or sideboards (Golgari Charm is pretty flexible), even though TNN blanks their ground game. I can say from experience that the Shardless/Blade matchup is pretty favorable for Shardless even after Shardless opens slots for additional evasive threats like Clique.

I can't speak to Jund's plan B against TNN (where plan A is 'kill it with Golgari Charm/Toxic Deluge/Liliana'), so maybe the fact that it blocks Goyf all day really is the reason. I do suspect that the decline in Shardless is due to shifting preferences rather than "can't beat TNN decks", though.

[Barook]

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.

The thing you're describing would be a Sulfur Elemental for blue creatures since it would clean up alot of overpowered crap right of the bat.

The problem with TNN is that it doesn't only invalidate tons of creatures, but also every removal spell that isn't a non-damage-based sweeper. TNN outpaces both creature- AND noncreature spells by a large margin. That's the problem here.

Edit: RUG, Jund, and Shardless suffered from TNN. Maverick was in tons of trouble even before TNN since it struggled against lots of decks in the format. TNN was just the final coffin for an already dead deck.

[Arsenal]

I don't know. From Jan-Oct 2013, Maverick was #9 for average finish and #7 for Top 8 penetration, and HSCK said that it was an absolute monster in November 2013. That doesn't sound like a dead deck to me (pre-TNN). Certainly not a top tier killer like RUG/Jund was, but definitely a deck that you'd want to test in your gauntlet back then. A dead deck is something Walking Dead, Dragon Stompy, Enchantress, etc.

[Esper3k]

I don't know. From Jan-Oct 2013, Maverick was #9 for average finish and #7 for Top 8 penetration, and HSCK said that it was an absolute monster in November 2013. That doesn't sound like a dead deck to me (pre-TNN). Certainly not a top tier killer like RUG/Jund was, but definitely a deck that you'd want to test in your gauntlet back then. A dead deck is something Walking Dead, Dragon Stompy, Enchantress, etc.

You guys should start a thread like "meta game data thread" and have the top posts be ones that you are constantly updating with the data you're collecting just so lazy people like me don't have to keep digging for old posts :)

Plus, it might be a better place for this discussion?

[Arsenal]

Maybe. When I talked about the subjective "fun" factor of TNN much eariler, I was yelled at by virtually everyone and was told in no uncertain terms that only data/facts/figures are to be used when discussing a ban/unban. Thus, why I've been using only data in my posts and have limited my anecdotal experiences to a minimum.

[Zilla]

Maybe. When I talked about the subjective "fun" factor of TNN much eariler, I was yelled at by virtually everyone and was told in no uncertain terms that only data/facts/figures are to be used when discussing a ban/unban. Thus, why I've been using only data in my posts and have limited my anecdotal experiences to a minimum.

Disagree with this sentiment. In the case of TNN, it's very much about the fun factor. I know you know this, but it bears repeating: TNN isn't banworthy because it's unbeatable, it's banworthy because it makes every game in which it's played less for for both players and anyone watching.

That's an incredibly difficult metric to measure, which is why it should almost never be used, but in this case, even people who don't favor a ban tend to agree TNN makes for shitty games of Magic.

[Arsenal]

Oh don't get me wrong, TNN is about the fun factor, but I was told not to use that in my argument against it, so I really haven't mentioned it since.

Make no mistake, TNN is a miserable card to play with and play against.

[HammerAndSickled]

If Legacy players had control over format decisions, "fun" would absolutely be a factor worth considering. TNN and Show and Tell/Emrakul would be the first to be hit by such a banning philosophy, I think. But Wizards is the one controlling the banned list, and because of that TNN has no shot of ever getting banned. Regardless of ancillary reasons like the fact that they can sell and reprint it as they please, it's not unfair in any sense and it pushes the agenda that Wizards has to make all formats more creature-centric. Someone once said that over time as creature-based decks get better and better the blur between Modern and Legacy will continue to disappear, as we've already seen with Jund and Death and Taxes-style decks.

If GP Paris had been won by TES/ANT or High Tide or some other spell-based combo deck, we'd have reason to be afraid for those decks because Wizards has shown that they just don't like that kind of thing being dominant. They let them exist in the metagame because it really doesn't matter long-term how many combo decks exist, just that they take down big tournaments infrequently. If TNN/Delver/Stoneforge/etc. decks comprise 40%+ of the metagame, that's fine and no bannings will be seen or even expected. But if a new combo deck shows up and gets a market share, even if it's comparatively smaller (>20%?), I'd still be afraid for that deck. Show and Tell bucks the trend I think precisely because it wins with a big creature and that's somehow more fun or fair or exciting than a Tendrils for X. If any creature-based deck is dominating a metagame, even if the percentage is high and unhealthy by our measure, I think Wizards is more inclined to let it slide. The only exception to this rule I've ever seen has been the Survival meta.

[Arsenal]

But TNN isn't a creature in the traditional sense. It doesn't promote interaction of any kind between players' non-creature spells or players' opposing creatures and it virtually bypasses the combat step. I can't imagine that TNN is the model that they want their creature-based dreamland to be based off of.

[Dice_Box]

What I don't get is how this was not seen a mile away. I get that Wizards does not test for Legacy, but we all knew the value of the card the moment it was spoiled. It did not take long to see the card come to power.

It's not an Edh card, it's a legacy card. Right down to the Merfolk creature type it's a legacy card. But it's a Hexproof 2.0 card that was always going to be a pest. I mean Hex was hated, this one was never going to be liked.

The worst part in my mind is that it does not trigger as it comes into play. I mean I would still hate it if it did, but then at lest you would get a moment where Bolt, Decay, Swords, Stifle. Ect. Could have interacted with it.

[Arsenal]

Yep, that what-if trigger has been brought up by myself and others before. Would've been nice, but Mark Rosewater has gone on record stating that "errata isn't used for that". We're stuck with TNN as-is. Fun.

[HSCK]

I don't know. From Jan-Oct 2013, Maverick was #9 for average finish and #7 for Top 8 penetration, and HSCK said that it was an absolute monster in November 2013. That doesn't sound like a dead deck to me (pre-TNN). Certainly not a top tier killer like RUG/Jund was, but definitely a deck that you'd want to test in your gauntlet back then. A dead deck is something Walking Dead, Dragon Stompy, Enchantress, etc.

I'd be up for uploading my raw data to another thread if people want to discuss data points, March should be done in a couple weeks.

[Barook]

That's an incredibly difficult metric to measure, which is why it should almost never be used, but in this case, even people who don't favor a ban tend to agree TNN makes for shitty games of Magic.

They sure were able to measure "fun" as a metric when Mystic Tutor was involved. Or at least the pretended to do so.

I can't imagine that TNN is the model that they want their creature-based dreamland to be based off of.

I don't know what went wrong, but Wizards' design decisions are pretty questionable to downright shitty lately. They say X and do the exact opposite.

"We want regeneration to matter more". - "lol, Terminus"
"Invisible Stalker was hated because it was so uninteractive. Hexproof + evasion is bad design." - "Okay, let's make even something worse."
etc.

I still hope that the Theros block as a whole bombs to get them down back to Earth because lately, they can design shit in whatever way they want and get away with it due to massive sales thanks to a still growing player base.

[btm10]

I still hope that the Theros block as a whole bombs to get them down back to Earth because lately, they can design shit in whatever way they want and get away with it due to massive sales thanks to a still growing player base.

I think this is a deeply wrong attitude to take about the format. Wizard's behavior/development strategy not going to change, and the drafters I've talked to (who represent the most important segment of their competitive player base since they directly buy packs) seem to love Theros block, at least compared to the other draft formats right now. As a general rule, it seems that if Vintage and/or Legacy players are happy with a set, everyone else is pretty upset, especially limited players (for the record, I loved Mirrodin and Time Spiral is a Vintage/Legacy player, and enjoyed Urza/Tempest Standard, so my sensibilities are sort of bent). They're going to cater to the majority of the player base, which sort of leaves us in the cold.

Oh don't get me wrong, TNN is about the fun factor, but I was told not to use that in my argument against it, so I really haven't mentioned it since.

Make no mistake, TNN is a miserable card to play with and play against.

I'd actually rate Emrakul higher than TNN on the pain scale. Show and Tell decks can keep Griselbrand and be fine, but Emrakul is almost as hard to answer as TNN and in my experience leads to far more random, undeserved blowout wins than TNN does. At least 3 damage/turn allows you time to dig for the answer.

[Arsenal]

The following is my personal belief not associated with any data or statistics:

I agree that Emrakul is just as uninteractive as TNN, although this sting is somewhat mitigated in knowing that you have to construct your entire deck around cheating Emrakul into play, which allows me to attack specific stress points associated with that narrow, albeit powerful, construction.

With TNN, there is virtually no design limitations other than being able to have access to 1UU when you draw him. He's just as uninteractive as Emrakul (technically moreso as Pro Player > Pro Colored Spells), but able to be played (and is) in far more decks across all spectrums of blue (tempo Delver to controllish Jace). The "un"fun factor + the ubiquity of TNN gives it the edge over Emrakul for the "retarded creatures that shouldn't have been printed" award. Again, this is my personal belief and not based on anything more than anecdotal experience. YMMV.

[ESG]

I just rewatched the G3 of the SCG Seattle finals and I don't see the same thing you did. TNN didn't even show up until Mitchell's second to last turn where Bauman was at 1 life and Mitchell had a commanding board position. Even then, any removal spell (immediately lethal) or pretty much any creature would have had the same effect. If they had remembered the Flickerwisp'd Delver coming back when it was supposed to, they wouldn't have even gotten to the turn where Mitchell drew the TNN. Game 3 had pretty much nothing to do with TNN...

http://www.twitch.tv/scglive/b/511630246 Game 3 starts at around 16:08:30.

I wouldn't say Mitchell's board was commanding. If True-Name Nemesis had been a different creature, Bauman could have attacked, killed Delver with the Sword of Fire and Ice, drawn a Swords to Plowshares or any creature in his deck to block the Tarmogoyf and won on the next turn. But True-Name Nemesis took the suspense out it -- leading Patrick Chapin to ad-lib, "Wah woh wohh" -- because everybody knew Bauman had no way to remove the Nemesis and had effectively lost the game. Chapin's ad-lib is telling because it reflects a situation that has played out on camera a lot: One player resolves a True-Name Nemesis and the rest of the game doesn't really matter.

I agree that if the players had caught the Delver earlier that things would have been different.

[Barook]

I think this is a deeply wrong attitude to take about the format. Wizard's behavior/development strategy not going to change, and the drafters I've talked to (who represent the most important segment of their competitive player base since they directly buy packs) seem to love Theros block, at least compared to the other draft formats right now. As a general rule, it seems that if Vintage and/or Legacy players are happy with a set, everyone else is pretty upset, especially limited players (for the record, I loved Mirrodin and Time Spiral is a Vintage/Legacy player, and enjoyed Urza/Tempest Standard, so my sensibilities are sort of bent). They're going to cater to the majority of the player base, which sort of leaves us in the cold.

Wizards can't realistically make sets with lots of Eternal goodies since the powerlevel of that set would be absurd.

I'm complaining about shitty design like taking old, popular cards, literally double every value and calling it a day. Or uninspiring, boring mechanic recycling.

You can make a good set and an interesting Limited environment. Gatecrash, Dragon's Maze, Theros and Born of the Gods are not good examples for this.

[HSCK]

If you can attack and kill a Delver using SoFaI then TNN isn't really stopping you is it?

[ESG]

If you can attack and kill a Delver using SoFaI then TNN isn't really stopping you is it?

Did you watch the match? The situation wasn't that TNN was a brick wall. It was that TNN was going to be unblockable and untargetable, making Bauman's draws dead. Are you really going to try to tell me that TNN doesn't matter much against Death and Taxes?

The situation was similar in the finals match on Sunday. Braverman's last draw was a Stoneforge Mystic. This would ordinarily have been a good draw, because he could have played it, found Batterskull and played that, which would have blunted Majors' next attack and given Braverman more time. He had seven lands on the battlefield, so returning and recasting Batterskull becomes a real play, and I think pilots of Miracles would be OK with their odds to take back control of that game. Because Majors had TNN, though, it invalidated the Stoneforge as a blocker and the Batterskull as a blocker.