please let me know what's your view on True-Name Nemesis - thanks in advance!
A = this card should stay a while longer in our format
because ...(random reasons)
True-Name Nemesis is a fair card
blue-based decks might need this to balance the power of 4C BloodMidrange which was the dominating archetype at last gp
True-Name Nemesis gives an impact on the meta to develop and shift
True-Name Nemesis is just not powerful enough to justify a ban
...
B = card should be banned rather sooner than later
because...(random reasons)
True-Name Nemesis is a annoying, misdesigned card (for our format)
True-Name Nemesis leads quite often to random wins
the games center much too often around which player resolves True-Name Nemesis first
the meta drifts to blue-based decks, nearly every deck able to run it will do so, no matter which game-plan it follows
...
feel free to add some more reasons for the one side or the other
I know this might not help a lot but I am going to explain my position:
On the one hand it is inherently unfair and unbeatable by some decks but on the other hand it is just one card in 100. There are way worse cards legal in this format and it does not hurt it either. UR Decks can not kill it once it resolved but they have counters. Other decks can not counter it but play sweepers of some sort. It is not that hard to have some catch-all plan against it in your deck. In my experience so far I feel like it is the deck constructors fault for not being able to beat it or making your other matchups so favourable that you can decide to ignore it. If you lose to Nemesis you likely lose to other cards too. Thrun and Geist of Saint-Thraft come to mind. They are slightly different and weaker because Geist can be killed by Pyroclasm and the like and Thrun can't even be countered yet both can be blocked.
At the GP I felt the card was overpowered and format warping. But now I had time to think about it and came to the conclusion that it is not so bad at all. It is a strong card that has to be considered when building a deck and it may be too swingy but I do not see a big enough problem that would call for a banning so far.
So for the time being I would vote A
There hasn't ever been a card in Magic I was less sure about than True-Name Nemesis. Control decks usually shouldn't have that much of a problem with it, just like combo decks. Aggressive decks however face a big problem with it. Unless you have evasive creatures or one of the few removal spells that can deal with it without also killing your own creatures (all of which are black as far as I know), its nearly impossible to race, since it can just stall indefinately until its controller has stabilized, at which point it can safely start attacking without ever being blocked. But is that enough to justify banning it? I would say no. It certainly is a very good card that can lead to random wins, but that's also true for other cards that are allowed. It hasn't led to an increase in blue decks played as far as I can tell (let's face it, at least half of the decks played before its release played blue anyway), and not every blue deck plays one. I don't think it has made enough of an impact on the format yet to warrant a ban, but it should certainly be kept on the watchlist. For now, I vote for A
A - the two replies already sum it up. Keep watch him and blame WotC to print such cards....
B) The problem with TNN is that in games where its abilities do not matter it isn't particularly interesting. And when it does matter, it's unfun and uninteresting as hell. Edicts aren't usually even that great against it, since TNN usually is paired with other creatures and Edicts aren't that great right now, Liliana being the clear exception. On top of this all, it's basically random. One player happens to draw it, it's lights out.
The better question would be: "Why would we keep this card in the format?" I mean, I don't see any reasons.
Quote from: Tiggupiru on 12-03-2014, 08:06:52 PM
The better question would be: "Why would we keep this card in the format?" I mean, I don't see any reasons.
quite true...
B) !
True-Name Nemesis become omnipresent, it is no color staple in basic meaning
all decks able to run it somehow will do so...have a look at mtgpulse and you'll find an easy pattern
no matter which strategy a deck follows TNN never is a bad card-choice as long you are able to assemble UUx somehow..it is just an easy additional win-condition against lots of decks which maybe have a maximum of 2 or 3 outs in their decks to handle that threat in some way
so you find that bug in UW-Control, Izzet-Control, -Midrange, -Aggro, Esper ...so in the most polular decks actually
...I'm quite annoyed forced to play with and against it at least a few month more probably
Quote from: Maqi on 11-03-2014, 12:46:00 PM
| Mannheim - Wizard's Well | 01.03.2014 | 1st place | UW Control |
| PKP Highlander February 2014 | 22.02.2014 | 1st place | Esper Control |
| Leipziger Highlander Cup I | 22.02.2014 | 1st place | Esper Control |
| ASL Berlin | 20.02.2014 | 1st place | UW Tempo (Aggro Control) |
| PKP Highlander | 18.01.2014 | 1st place | BUG Loam (arguably controllish) |
| PKP Highlander | 18.01.2014 | 2nd place | Esper Control |
| TNM Karlsruhe | 07.01.2014 | 1st place | Izzet Control |
| HL Bielefeld | 05.01.2014 | 1st place | UWRb Control |
| Mannheim | 04.01.2014 | 1st place | UW Control |
i hoped for a outcry of people with the same feelings like me ... as last desperate try to convince the one guy or the other that the card is no enrichment for our format but exactly the opposite...
..but become disappointed as the first three posts let me sailing even more against the wind
I for one need more time with this card. I understand your concerns and as I stated in my post, my opinion towards TNN changed over the last few months, so all I want is more time to see it in action. The reason it should stay at least for now is that banning cards because they are annoying but not hands down unfair is bad in my opinion. And wether it is unfair or not is something I am not totally sure about right now.
My opinion has not changed, therefore vote for B)
Quote from: haju on 05-01-2014, 11:37:24 AM
Which cards are missing on the banned-list and why? (max. the 5 most important ones)
True-Name Nemesis, this card is so #@!%$* annoying. It's boring to play with and against. It's the random win out of nowhere. Sorry to be so harsh but this card is a perfect example of a well thought but poorly executed card design. It works for multilayer but in a one on one game it's just stupid.
I vote for B. Ich bin für eine Verbannung.
The Pauper aspect: If you dont have much money and new to the format
you should not beeing raped by the guy with the money.
There are a lot of expensive ohter cards you can neutralize
- for example with rdw cards you easyly neuter Duals/cradle/academy but
what can I tell the new player? Join em once you can aford it? Or race it?
I like TNN but there are not enough cheap solutions in the format.
B = card should be banned rather sooner than later
because...
True-Name Nemesis is a annoying, misdesigned card (for our format)
True-Name Nemesis leads quite often to random wins
It's obvious that the card is designed for multiplayer games. That it's legal in Legacy is a critical design error which will be deleted by a ban earlier or later.
Our format highlander would be better balanced if more such cards would be banned. The less overpowered cards are staples the more slots are free in decks for strategic individual deck building.
In this form the card is a one sided Sulfuric Vortex for 3 damage. A card doesn't get balanced because there are hate cards against this special card. A card is only balanced if it's powerlevel is equal to other similar cards.
To clarify my vote:
TNN is a very powerful card but there are strategies which are simply superior then putting 3 power for 3 on the field (=combo & control). Sure aggro & midrange have a hard time to fight TNN but there are good cards out there which can "solve him". There are even some scenarios/decks where you can ignore TNN due to evasion & reach.
Imo TNN is even not an auto include in every blue deck. Combo, Staxx and Oath-Control do not want him and also UWx control decks mostly play him as "monster block" and "walker killer" but cannot rely on him as win option due to the low damage output.
IF banning is made also because of the reason "unfun" I would definitely vote for B because TNN is terribly boring, non-interactive and badly designed but then we also have some other cards to discuss on (e.g. Oath).
Finally I have to admit that I have not played enough with/against TNN to make my final evaluation on it, that's why I would like to have him on the watch list for another season.
B for Ban!
B. There are several decks that can't interact with him at all or have to add sub-par answers just for that specific card. I don't think that's healthy.
Quote from: Tiggupiru on 12-03-2014, 08:06:52 PM
The better question would be: "Why would we keep this card in the format?" I mean, I don't see any reasons.
qft
Quote from: MMD on 13-03-2014, 07:29:19 PM
To clarify my vote:
TNN is a very powerful card but there are strategies which are simply superior then putting 3 power for 3 on the field (=combo & control). Sure aggro & midrange have a hard time to fight TNN but there are good cards out there which can "solve him". There are even some scenarios/decks where you can ignore TNN due to evasion & reach.
Imo TNN is even not an auto include in every blue deck. Combo, Staxx and Oath-Control do not want him and also UWx control decks mostly play him as "monster block" and "walker killer" but cannot rely on him as win option due to the low damage output.
IF banning is made also because of the reason "unfun" I would definitely vote for B because TNN is terribly boring, non-interactive and badly designed but then we also have some other cards to discuss on (e.g. Oath).
Finally I have to admit that I have not played enough with/against TNN to make my final evaluation on it, that's why I would like to have him on the watch list for another season.
Thats absolut my opinion, too!! I think we can't ban a card just because its unfun and not interaktive. In addition it hasn't such a big impact in our format as it has on Legacy. Just because its 1/100 in Highlander and 4/60 in Legacy...
Vote: A
B is for BAN, there's no interacting with the card.
Quote from: Tiggupiru on 12-03-2014, 08:06:52 PM
The better question would be: "Why would we keep this card in the format?" I mean, I don't see any reasons.
That is probably the most useless question you can ask in this context. Why should we keep any strong cards in the format? Why should we keep Tarmogoyf, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Restoration Angel, Maze of Ith, Counterspell, Mishra's Workshop, Preordain or any other card in the format? Either you find good reasons why it should go (which I think there aren't enough) or accept it. Most arguments as to why it should go so far are premature and made because people are too lazy to adapt to it.
Almost every Deck can or does already incorporate cards that easily beat TNN. Toxic Deluge comes to mind, because you do not even have to wipe your own guys with it. And since you are already playing black, you probably have tutors. It can be countered if you are not in black. And there is hardly a relevant deck in our format that does not play counters and/or black. Golgari Charm is a flexible and very good answer too. If you can not make room for good answers to one card in 100 you seem to hate so much, then your deck must be really badly designed.
And lastly Wasser reasoning with the cost is plain bullshit. I can not put it any other way. This Format requires several cards that are a lot more expensive. Tarmogoyf is a must if you play green. Jace, the Mind Sculptor is a staple in blue Decks. Fetches cost 30-80€ and you need several. Duals are not cheap either. And you are against a single card that costs about 30-40€? You must be out of your mind even trying to approach this matter from the financial side.
Quote from: Kenshin on 18-03-2014, 02:31:36 AM
Quote from: Tiggupiru on 12-03-2014, 08:06:52 PM
The better question would be: "Why would we keep this card in the format?" I mean, I don't see any reasons.
That is probably the most useless question you can ask in this context. Why should we keep any strong cards in the format? Why should we keep Tarmogoyf, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Restoration Angel, Maze of Ith, Counterspell, Mishra's Workshop, Preordain or any other card in the format?
I would argue that questions are never useless, but I guess if one doesn't understand the question and get worked up because of it, is a corner case that never occurred to me.
We keep the cards you mentioned in the format because they are keeping some of the decks alive. They are also fun to play and interactive. TNN is none of those. The reason why I asked the question is to see if anybody feels the TNN gives a new deck to the format, or makes a marginal deck more playable. The answer is probably no.
Quote from: Kenshin on 18-03-2014, 02:31:36 AMAlmost every Deck can or does already incorporate cards that easily beat TNN. Toxic Deluge comes to mind, because you do not even have to wipe your own guys with it. And since you are already playing black, you probably have tutors. It can be countered if you are not in black. And there is hardly a relevant deck in our format that does not play counters and/or black. Golgari Charm is a flexible and very good answer too. If you can not make room for good answers to one card in 100 you seem to hate so much, then your deck must be really badly designed.
What is the probability you run into True-Name Nemesis in a random tournament? Well, let's try to give an estimation: First of all, your opponent should be blue. So no 4c goodstuff that dominated the last GP, no mono red, WW, Pattern, Naya... etc. is going to play it. This eliminates a good portion of the players right off the bat. Next, the opposing blue deck must not be combo or some flavor of control. Stax or Academy ramp for example probably don't care enough to run it and any combo player is going to laugh their heart out if somebody would propose they'd run the card. They must not play Oath of Druids either because it's pretty miserable Oath target. Again, we eliminated even more people.
What this basically means is that it is pretty unlikely to play against a deck that even plays the card. Furthermore, your average tournament HL game probably lasts somewhere in the ball park of 10 turns. I am going to go ahead and say 12 just to be on the safer side. Again, we are not assuming control mirror as those rarely come down on the TNN anyways provided those the decks even run it.
That gives us: 12 turns + 7 opening cards + possible library manipulation means that you see ~25 cards in the longer game. And that is being generous. What this essentially means is that not only is the players playing the TNN a significant minority, but even in longer games you see only about a quarter of the opposing deck.
In conclusion, I would argue that going out of your way to play cards just to deal with TNN is in fact what you described as "badly designed" seeing how unlikely it is for you to face it. Running subpar cards just to give yourself an out in a very narrow situation is not what I call "too lazy to adapt", it's called "not being a moron".
Quote from: Kenshin on 18-03-2014, 02:31:36 AM
It can be countered if you are not in black.
sorry, but this point doesn't make any sense to me at all
unban Ancestral Recall..no problem, you can counter it or have any discard spell on the play ??? ::)...come on, I'm pretty sure you do better than this
Vote for A.
Control Decks need TNN for Aggro/Midrange Decks and for a randow win condition.
@Tiggupiru: Most of the cards I mentioned are not needed to keep an archetype alive. They are just plain good or even overpowered. I understand the question but I do not think it helps us in any way because you can ask that of so many cards where the answer just is "because it was printed and is legal in legacy".
It does not give us a new Deck, but which cards do? Usually combo pieces or the much needed card that gives critical mass to a strategy. Aside from that I think that proves your argument invalid. There are a lot of cards that I do not care if they are legal or not. As they are, I play them. TNN is one of them. If it is gone, it is gone but to me the reasoning behind banning it is really problematic.
And then I have to applaud you for giving us the best argument why we should not ban it at all. It is just not that widely played. Thank you for making that point against your case. If you are unlikely to face it and you do not have to adapt to it, why even bother? There is just a really small number of Decks that get thrown off course by Nemesis. For combo and staxx, maybe reanimator it is just another creature that will not manage to race them. For control it ist just another dude to be wrathed away. Only a select few decks can not handle him when he is resolved and is it too much to expect those guys to play around TNN sometimes?
@Vazdru: One is an Instant that costs U which has an effect that can not be counteracted easily, the other costs 1UU, is a creature and can be handled in ways a lot of decks already play. It is hard to play around the one mana Instant which can hit at any time and you can not take away the three cards at ease (I mean the best discard costs BB and is sorcery) but you can be prepared to counter a 1UU creature or wrath him and his peers for 2B or 4CC with card advantage. Softcounters do not lose their value as fast (having 4 mana to pay for mana leak and Ancestral Recall is easy, having 6 for True-Name Nemesis and paying for it is way harder. Having 3 for Anc and counter backup is much easier than having 5 for TNN and backup which would leave you untapped in your own turn anyway). Resolving Vendilion Clique is a lot easier at the same cost.
Quote from: Kenshin on 19-03-2014, 10:05:55 AMAnd then I have to applaud you for giving us the best argument why we should not ban it at all. It is just not that widely played. Thank you for making that point against your case. If you are unlikely to face it and you do not have to adapt to it, why even bother? There is just a really small number of Decks that get thrown off course by Nemesis. For combo and staxx, maybe reanimator it is just another creature that will not manage to race them. For control it ist just another dude to be wrathed away. Only a select few decks can not handle him when he is resolved and is it too much to expect those guys to play around TNN sometimes?
I knew you were going to counterargument with this. You seemed like the type of guy who likes to treat symptoms and be happy even if the root of the problem persists. Thank you for being predictable.
The reason you see less TNN is bad because now there is no good reason to adapt it being in the metagame. Those games where your opponent do draw it, it just is unfair and boring. Losing those games is practically a robbery: You do everything right from the deckbuilding, deck choice and technical play inside the game, but your opponent had the one card that made it all irrelevant. If there would be some elegant answers it would be fine, but there just isn't. Liliana is practically the only thing that is universally played in decks that the TNN is a nightmare against.
Besides, judging from your argument you are fine having Flash-Hulk in the metagame? I mean, not every deck can play it and some people would still choose to play burn, WW and control despite it being in the format so you wouldn't necessarily play against it in a tournament. The fact that a card is not ubiquitous doesn't mean it is healthy for the format.
And yes, it can be countered. What a great contribution for the discussion. It is on par with the "dies to removal" - argument, which funnily enough, doesn't apply here, since TNN ignores removal. The thing is, most decks don't really want to keep counters open in the off chance their opponents happen to have the TNN. In most aggro-control decks I would be much happier to advance my own game plan rather than to just assume they even run the damn thing. Again, the scarcity of the card is a big issue as in all the other cases it's just better not to assume they have it and tap out. And those times they do have it, you pretty much lost the only window to interact with it. And while you can counter True-Name Nemesis, one can also play around those counterspells by playing it with protection or wait for you to tap out.
Quote from: Kenshin on 19-03-2014, 10:05:55 AM
@Tiggupiru: Most of the cards I mentioned are not needed to keep an archetype alive. They are just plain good or even overpowered.
You are correct, I wanted to write "They either keep an archetype alive OR are fun to play and interactive", but got brainfarted.
The interaction is really the key. Jace, TMS is overpowered, but there are numerous ways to interact with it even when you are playing control. True-Name Nemesis just does what ever the controller wants it to do and the other player is just a spectator.
Quote from: Kenshin on 19-03-2014, 10:05:55 AM
@Vazdru: One is an Instant that costs U which has an effect that can not be counteracted easily, the other costs 1UU, is a creature and can be handled in ways a lot of decks already play. It is hard to play around the one mana Instant which can hit at any time and you can not take away the three cards at ease (I mean the best discard costs BB and is sorcery) but you can be prepared to counter a 1UU creature or wrath him and his peers for 2B or 4CC with card advantage. Softcounters do not lose their value as fast (having 4 mana to pay for mana leak and Ancestral Recall is easy, having 6 for True-Name Nemesis and paying for it is way harder. Having 3 for Anc and counter backup is much easier than having 5 for TNN and backup which would leave you untapped in your own turn anyway). Resolving Vendilion Clique is a lot easier at the same cost.
sorry mate, but you haven't understood ::)
I used an exaggerated and ironic example obviously
maybe following examples show up better how poor your argument is
next try then:
"hey guys, there is no need to ban birthing pod as it can be countered if you are in blue, furthermore red has a lot of options to handle artifacts as white and green can do so too...no need to ban it, every deck is able to handle birthing pod"
"hey, why do you ban survival of the fittest? it can be countered if you are in blue or discarded by inquisition, duress and thoughtseize while playing black...and most competetive decks run blue or black nowadays - spell pierce, spell snare are typically in every blue toolbox, so even if you are on the draw, you have good chances to stop that card before it resolves - furthermore you can adapt to it your opponents playing this card and you can optimize any deck to keep Survival being toothless...no need to ban it"
hope you get my point this time ...
imo every half-way reasoner can see that your quoted argument
Quote from: Kenshin on 18-03-2014, 02:31:36 AM
It can be countered if you are not in black.
is flawed
Perhaps TNN should better get banned to get peace here. As we learned it does not define decks, it is just a 1/100 and only played in a handful of deck types. I don´t like him, I don´t need him and won´t miss him. Actually I don´t care.
The one thing which really puzzles me over and over again is why these card banning discussions are always the VIP topic in this otherwise -more or less- dead forum.
Use your energy to playtest the not-so-new-anymore-muligan and explore/define the complete new format together. THIS really has a significant effect to the game...
B = ban it
Just one question: Why would we ban Stoneforge Mystic and leave this in the Format. The one is just a small Progenitus and the other turns the game because of card advantage and cheating stuff into the game?!
I played my Ladder end of the year match vs Goblin Pildriver. What do you think wins the izzet mirror?
@ Tiggipuru: You are just exaggerating now. Flash-Hulk? Come on man!
And trying to attack me in ad hominem arguments is poor form. I will not answer those.
You and vazdru both seem to not understand what the implication with being counterable or hit by sweepers is. It does not mean the card is bad because it can be removed or countered, it means that most decks do indeed already pack viable answers. That is my point and nothing else. Birthing pod yet again is a different card type and defeats the purpose of the format like survival of the fittest did. I do not have a problem with comparisons but in this game there are a lot more realistic cards to compare it with than those. TNN does not manage to win you a race and it lacks the utility of Pod. And it is not creating an insane position over the course of the next few turns like pod and Survival will usually do.
@Vazdru: Yes, I understood. And I chose to still counterargument it. If you used a silly exaggeration that was not serious, why complain if I answer it? I mean what was your point going to be? Get me to agree to the silly exaggeration and then conclude that I should be against TNN too because I said Anc is OP?
@MMD: I get your point but this would be like giving in to the child at the checkout that wants one of the sweets there. As soon as he gets them once, he wants them every time. I think we are unfortunately reaching a point where it starts to get personal and we fight over positions as both sides brought their arguments and one or the other side just does not see it in the same way and therefore assumes the other side must be wrong. I think the thruth lies in between. I could not care less about TNN being banned or not tbh but I think you can not justify banning it that easily.
Quote from: Kenshin on 19-03-2014, 09:52:22 PM
@Vazdru: Yes, I understood. ... I mean what was your point going to be?
??? ..what have you understood exactly ::)...
anyhow let's leave your statement as it is
Quote from: Kenshin on 18-03-2014, 02:31:36 AM
Almost every Deck can or does already incorporate cards that easily beat TNN. Toxic Deluge comes to mind, because you do not even have to wipe your own guys with it. And since you are already playing black, you probably have tutors. It can be countered if you are not in black. And there is hardly a relevant deck in our format that does not play counters and/or black. Golgari Charm is a flexible and very good answer too. If you can not make room for good answers to one card in 100 you seem to hate so much, then your deck must be really badly designed.
everyone can value your arguments on his own, so did I
as I play Dimir-Tempo many times recently with lots of "so-called" answers for TNN in kind of counters, edicts, tribute to hunger, lili II, Far // Away ...why I'm still not convinced ???...I won quite more games with TNN than lost against it ... so why I bother at all ??? following your arguments I should be happy, so what's wrong with me?
maybe I dislike that
...as soon TNN has hit the board, counterspells become quite irrelevant so your "so-called" answers ofter reduced near zero (MUC, Izzet-Control)
...you forget the pilot of TNN-decks uses counters and often tutors too, so T1/2 worldly or demonic and T3 TNN with daze or force backup is a random but not only a theoretical scenario of a dumb and silly "game" of magic like even some game-reports here on this board keep records
...since TNN hits the board the game only center around the question "handle, race or die", the rest becomes more or less meaningless most times
... *getting bored of this discussion so just insert your conclusions*...
however we haven't received that clear vote against TNN I hoped for as I only mobilized 9 persons yet to vote against that bug in here:
pro Ban - 9
* Tiggupiru
* Vazdru
* Payron
* goblinpiledriver
* Rei
* Demppa
* Georg B
* haju
* Wasser
(* MDD)
pro Unban - 4
* kenshin
* Zerc
* phyrexianmetal
* ~fenry~
(* MDD)
Let's see how we all think about this in three months/half a year. I will play other peoples decks for more test results, as to gather more information.
B for Ban.
No interaction, mostly auto win on its own if put on an even board. to me on stoneforge mystic / birthing pod powerlevel. costs uu, but you pay only 3 mana once. wins on its own and if equipped is completely unbeatable.
A because reasons
Quote from: Kenshin on 20-03-2014, 02:04:50 AM
Let's see how we all think about this in three months/half a year. I will play other peoples decks for more test results, as to gather more information.
wise said
as the hl council gives us probably the time to do so
B
For all reasons that have been stated before.
A
I think there is no reason to ban TNN. Jace TMS is also gamewinning and protects himself nicely (and there are many more really strong cards which do so). I think for a really good card he is pretty fair and you got lots of time to handle him.
In fact you can also race him. If you play batterskull, then everything is fine.
Also one point regarding the comment from Vazdru that TNN is in any deck that can play him. This is not correct for any Stax or Oath Deck and it is not true for any high tide, UG Ramp, UG much mana random combo.
I vote for A (NO BAN).
Everything I think about the card has been mentioned above.
B
Ban because it is very uninteresting and unfair card that was designed for multiplayer. In 1vs1 It is just just stupid...
And not even legendary??? Just drop Phantasmal Image and Phyrexian metamorph to roll with 3 TNN.
Also all the other reasons mentioned in this thread.
half a year has past already ... have your opinion changed?
i still vote for B (= Ban) although (rather because?) i played a deck (UB-AggroControl /-tempo) over the last months (http://www.magicplayer.org/forum/index.php?topic=186.90) which includes TNN itself and i hadn't real probs to handle that bugger on the other side of the table (thx to Tribute to Hunger / Edicts / Liliana / Far//Away / Counterspells)
it's not the frustration but the game experience which convince me to vote for a Ban
I vote for spoil mulligan and against senseless tnn ban.
Why so specific?
There are more cards on the watch list (or even not on the watchlist) which could need a community feedback. IMO the mulligan should also get a review in the next future.
If the council wants a feedback from the community why not ask more questions?
i agree with wolf also.
there are far "deeper" problems concerning this format than tnn. the new mulligan changed our format and at this point i am pretty sure it did not change it for the better. it needs to be reviewed, polls need to be done.
Quote from: MMD on 08-09-2014, 10:29:16 AM
Why so specific?
because I wanna know the answer/view on a concrete question/topic and no long essays about general views on banned-list or mulligan in
this thread Quote from: MMD on 08-09-2014, 10:29:16 AM
There are more cards on the watch list (or even not on the watchlist) which could need a community feedback. IMO the mulligan should also get a review in the next future.
sure thing
feel free to start your own topics/polls or use the ones we already have
e.g. http://www.magicplayer.org/forum/index.php?topic=956.0 / http://www.magicplayer.org/forum/index.php?topic=934.0
Quote from: MMD on 08-09-2014, 10:29:16 AM
If the council wants a feedback from the community why not ask more questions?
I appreciate any feedback of the community (even W0lf's - at least sometimes)
there are obviously a lot of questions concerning the banned list / mulligan - feel free to post your point of view or ask us the questions your are interested in most (like i did starting this thread) and we try to give ya some feedback
I still do not care. The card is capable of unfair wins and punishes some decks. But there are other cards in the format that do the same. Most decks have adapted to TNN and are capable of handling/racing it. There are worse "oops, I win!" cards present that I would like to see gone first but I will not miss TNN, when it is gone.
That being said, I still see no reason to ban it. The card is an annoyance, but if everything that annoys me made me cry for the banhammer, I would sound like a MMORPG scrub who constantly whines about his class being too bad because it only wins 90% and demands the skills/classes that take his 10% to be nerfed. I feel we already pretty much got that here with people whining about TNN but others wanting to unban Gifts Ungiven. Same goes for the mulligan.
NO ban.
I voted for ban earlier this year. Lots has changed since then though. Sure TNN is still pure pain to face and some decks are barely playable, since they almost fold to this creature (which are exclusively agrodecks). Combo decks almost do no exists(and if they do, they do not care), for them it is non-hate beater. Control decks do not care either. Nonblue nonblack decks got at least Council's Judgement, which kills this bugger quite elegantly. I see introduced Mystical tutor as much bigger haymaker, that it has overshadowed TNN in my eyes.
It would not feel right to demand TNN bann when Mystical Tutor is unbanned.
Ban for TNN
I vote for the spoil Mulligan.
In addition I have another question: the rat determined by the bans and unbanns.
I know there are 5 people which determine three from Germany and two from finland.
What did Finland do with our Meta ... I'm sure each country has its eigenden Council.
I know I put a bomb here now and many of the opinions displayed are this can not go but that's my opinion.
The Council is a good choice that I do not deny.
It can not be determined that people with a Meta in another country where it barely influential ride.
@Zerc:
At the moment, the council consists of 6 members actually:
Vazdru (Germany)
Tabris (Germany)
Maqi (Germany)
ChristophO (Germany)
Nastaboi (Finland)
Pyyhttu (Finland)
It is only natural and consequent to give a voice to local/national communities, which have proven over time to be enduring, stable and responsive. We even tried to branch out to the Slovak/Czech community by giving them a seat in the council, too. However, no candidate was found to take this place.
We see Highlander as a universal format of MtG which can be played by everyone, regardless of where in the world he or she resides.
The more HL grows as a format and the more exchange between communities takes place, the more will metagames converge. And even if they don't, having differing metagames can actually improve banning/unbanning decisions by more clearly contrasting what would certain changes achieve in certain metagame environments.
Be reassured that we consider all of the differences between local/national metagames when making a decision about banning or unbanning a card.