How would you react if Goblin Ringleader got banned? [Archive]

Patoon

04-04-2007, 03:38 AM

If anything in the goblins list would be banned it would be need to be lackey, simpley because it define the format to completely.

The problem is that almost every deck needs to have a fail safe for turn 1 lackey, this severely inhibits many decks.

The reason wizards ban cards is because of its wide spread effect on a meta game

consider Lin sivvi she was banned because it was a card that whoever got it first won the game (due to the old legend rule). Lackey is a inverse example of this effect, by not allowing for lackey often it will cost you the game.

So i believe by banning lackey goblins would still remain strong, skirk prospector is another strong option in his slot. But it would allow other decks to fill 4-12 slots with cards who primary roles can be other than STOP Lackey.

I hope this makes sense as it has been a long day programming and my brain is telling me to type 00101010011101110011 more than it is coherent speech.

Jiaozy

04-04-2007, 04:46 AM

It encourages people to build good decks, and gives players a general idea of whether or not a deck can deal with a turn 1 Lackey on the draw or lose the game. Badly.
Edited for accuracy.

Seriously, there's some cards that are seeing play ONLY because of Lackey (cmon, LOSE HOPE?!?! It wasn't even viable in LIMITED...) and there's certain decks that are kept tier 2-3 because of it (Landstill, for one..) unless they pack like 8-12 cards for the SOLE purpose of dealing with that turn 1 Lackey.
If that's healthy...:rolleyes:

Eldariel

04-04-2007, 05:11 AM

Lackey isn't healthy, but the rest of the deck is. Lackey makes the mirror rather luck-based as the mirror-player only has 4 real answers to Lackey on draw (Fanatics) and overall it causes lots more 'I wins' than is good for anything. So yea, even though the format has adapted to Lackey, it still doesn't mean that it's healthy to have to play friggin' Darkblast over Diabolic Edict 'cause Edict doesn't handle an R-costing 1/1 properly. In general, because of Lackey, only playable spot removal in the format costs 1. StP fits the bill along with burn, but that's about it. So yea, Lackey can be handled, it's in no way on its way to dominating the format, but it dominates deckbuilding to such a degree that it might as well get the axe especially since it has absolutely 0 positive effects on the format.

Belgareth

04-04-2007, 05:58 AM

Finn

04-04-2007, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Maverick676
It encourages people to build good decks, and gives players a general idea of whether or not a deck can deal with a turn 1 Lackey on the draw or lose the game. Badly.

Edited for accuracy.

Seriously, there's some cards that are seeing play ONLY because of Lackey (cmon, LOSE HOPE?!?! It wasn't even viable in LIMITED...) and there's certain decks that are kept tier 2-3 because of it (Landstill, for one..) unless they pack like 8-12 cards for the SOLE purpose of dealing with that turn 1 Lackey.
If that's healthy...
Every word true.

But I still don't blame the Lackey...or the Ringleader for that matter. Round and round we go.

Nightmare

04-04-2007, 12:03 PM

Yes, because
4x Swords to Plowshares
4x Force of Will

are totally dead in every other matchup.

torgar

04-04-2007, 12:05 PM

I'll be rather bothered if Anything gets banned :) I think legacy is a very healthy format to be honest.
I could probably cope with and maybe even support a few cards (Land tax and Mind over Matter) coming Off the banned list , but that's another story.

Yeah, the new poll should be.. Who wants to unban Land Tax?

But if anything got banned, it'd be Lackey, not Ringleader.

Radley

04-04-2007, 12:12 PM

Finn

04-04-2007, 12:24 PM

Yes, because
4x Swords to Plowshares
4x Force of Will

are totally dead in every other matchup.
Mr. N, you play White Thresh, so of course it seems like a simple solution. You can say Mongoose in the category you created as well. But those of us who have tried to make something akin to pure control constantly battle the question of Lackey on turn one. It is a serious impediment to design. When your choices are between Darkblast, Funeral Charm, and other crap of that nature, you are really put in a bind. You know damned well that you are going to draw those cards later on when you have lands in play and really need something more robust.

Every color has an answer to turn 1 Lackey. Only Mongoose, FoW, Swords, and Lightning Bolt (maybe even Chain Lightning) are answers that don't suck for the rest of the game. And you can't get away with just four copies of an answer in a deck and call the problem solved. That is the conundrum Lackey creates.

Cabal_chan

04-04-2007, 12:29 PM

I want to unban land tax ^_^

Goblin ringleader and lackey doesn't kill in 1 turn. Not even a 1 turn kill. Nothing to combo with. The most broken goblin card is already banned(goblin recruiter), any further bannings will be stupid. If ringleaders will be banned, the storm cards should be the first ones to be banned. ^_^

Right, they don't allow for turn one wins. They give Goblins that famous "Oops, I win now." Have you even had a Lackey connect to your face, and then see them drop SGC down? Or Ringleader, then watch as they reveal goblins or send non-Goblins to the bottom of their library, increasing their chances of drawing a non-Goblin the following turn. It's not really a good feeling, unless your the Goblin player.

dre4m

04-04-2007, 12:29 PM

I want to unban land tax ^_^

Goblin ringleader and lackey doesn't kill in 1 turn. Not even a 1 turn kill. Nothing to combo with. The most broken goblin card is already banned(goblin recruiter), any further bannings will be stupid. If ringleaders will be banned, the storm cards should be the first ones to be banned. ^_^

Yeah... it's not a combo, more of a "deal with this or you're going to lose within two turns" thing.

Seriously though, we have access to damn near every card ever printed in Magic, and consequently we are able to handle goblins. The hypotheticals of what would happen if Lackey were banned are interesting, but I don't think it's going to happen unless every Engineered Plague, Swords to Plowshares, Wrath of God, and Pernicious Deed in the entire world is bought/stolen/destroyed by a very overzealous Goblins player.

It's a good thing that they didn't give Lackey haste, though.

C.P.

04-04-2007, 01:16 PM

It is a good thing that a Beatdown deck is tier 1 in the format. It is much better then the days of having Oath(thus beatdown is unplayable) or Necro Trix as tier 1.

The fact that a creature is a problem for the whole format is much better than an enchantment or instant being a problem for sure.

Belgareth

04-04-2007, 01:39 PM

Every color has an answer to turn 1 Lackey. Only Mongoose, FoW, Swords, and Lightning Bolt (maybe even Chain Lightning) are answers that don't suck for the rest of the game. And you can't get away with just four copies of an answer in a deck and call the problem solved. That is the conundrum Lackey creates.

UWBfish has the answer of Mother of Runes , far from dead in any aggro matchup.
CounterSliver has it's 1 drops.
Any deck can incorporate answers to Lackey that are not dead in the late game, the real culprits in goblins are probably warchief and vial.
Control fears vial much more than lackey.
Goblins has been on the decline and really only ever t8's through volume as opposed to deck design.

The real scary goblin card is empty the warrens ;)

Slay

04-04-2007, 03:13 PM

Yeah... it's not a combo, more of a "deal with this or you're going to lose within two turns" thing.

Seriously though, we have access to damn near every card ever printed in Magic, and consequently we are able to handle goblins. The hypotheticals of what would happen if Lackey were banned are interesting, but I don't think it's going to happen unless every Engineered Plague, Swords to Plowshares, Wrath of God, and Pernicious Deed in the entire world is bought/stolen/destroyed by a very overzealous Goblins player.

It's a good thing that they didn't give Lackey haste, though.

I hate this fucking argument. Yes, we have access to almost all of the magic cards in the game. You know what? 99% of them are completely unplayable. Just because we have a bigger cardpool to choose from doesn't mean that there's going to be more answers to Lackey. Answers to Lackey are extremely uncommon because by their very nature they tend to be extremely powerful cards. The set of these cards has to be: a 1cc spell, useful in the lategame, and, if it is a creature, unkillable by a 1-damage spell. And, to be effective, you have to have 6-8 of them or more to ensure that you don't have to mull into an answer. In the entirety of Magic, there are only a few cards which follow those criteria and we've already found them out. If you have some secret tech you'd like to share, I'm sure we're all ears.

Also, don't give me any crap that a midgame boardsweeper can handle Lackey. If the Goblins player gets a good hand, you'd be dead befoe the Wrath. If he gets a mediocre hand with Goblins, he can get in probably around ten damage. With either a Ringleader in hand or a Matron to find one. That means you start ten life down staring down a Goblins player with a full hand. You're probably toast.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that justr because hate cards exist, that they can neutralize Lackey.
http://www.tdtffc.com/misc/slay.gif

Nightmare

04-04-2007, 03:19 PM

Mr. N, you play White Thresh, so of course it seems like a simple solution. You can say Mongoose in the category you created as well. But those of us who have tried to make something akin to pure control constantly battle the question of Lackey on turn one. It is a serious impediment to design. When your choices are between Darkblast, Funeral Charm, and other crap of that nature, you are really put in a bind. You know damned well that you are going to draw those cards later on when you have lands in play and really need something more robust.

Every color has an answer to turn 1 Lackey. Only Mongoose, FoW, Swords, and Lightning Bolt (maybe even Chain Lightning) are answers that don't suck for the rest of the game. And you can't get away with just four copies of an answer in a deck and call the problem solved. That is the conundrum Lackey creates.I was referring to Landstill, which is the deck they said Lackey was keeping down. Those are the 8 answers it has on the draw, with the addition of 4x Factory on the play.

scrumdogg

04-05-2007, 12:22 AM

If anything in the goblins list would be banned it would be need to be lackey, simpley because it define the format to completely.

The problem is that almost every deck needs to have a fail safe for turn 1 lackey, this severely inhibits many decks.

The reason wizards ban cards is because of its wide spread effect on a meta game

consider Lin sivvi she was banned because it was a card that whoever got it first won the game (due to the old legend rule). Lackey is a inverse example of this effect, by not allowing for lackey often it will cost you the game.

So i believe by banning lackey goblins would still remain strong, skirk prospector is another strong option in his slot. But it would allow other decks to fill 4-12 slots with cards who primary roles can be other than STOP Lackey.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Ringleader is really good, but it isn't the goblin card which has been distorting the format since the split. The ability to play your deck for free & win early lets the deck play combo as well as aggro-control & just isn't right. And since decks have to run multiple ways to deal with a 1/1, with those answers usually having no effect on other combo decks, the format is skewed towards Goblins, combo decks not relying on 1/1s & everything else trying answer both of the aforementioned.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

04-05-2007, 12:36 AM

Zach Tartell

04-05-2007, 12:45 AM

To be fair, isn't it "have a wipe turn 3"? Isn't that really their fundamental turn? either they'll have the game won with creatures, or get a control-ish situation with ports by then. Still, I don't think that it's really an issue. Just play rifter if you hate goblins so much.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

04-05-2007, 01:00 AM

Not really. The turn 3 kill is extraordinarily rare. Even supposed they go turn 1 Lackey into turn 2 Siege-gang, if they don't also drop a Piledriver that turn, or if you have a blocker, or any of a number of things occur, they can't kill you turn 3.

URABAHN

04-05-2007, 06:42 AM

So, every deck needs to either

1) Be able to deal with a turn 1 threat,

2) Be able to clear the board before/or on turn 4,

3) Be able to win before/on turn 4,

or face having a difficult Goblins matchup.

Yeah, why is this unhealthy for the format again?

Isn't that what happened with Affinity in Standard? Legacy has a much larger card pool and people argue that there are many more answers for Lackey. Just like Affinity, though, I guess if enough people write/e-mail Wizards threatening to quit Magic because of Legacy Goblins they'll ban Ringleader and Lackey.

Slay

04-05-2007, 07:55 AM

So, every deck needs to either

1) Be able to deal with a turn 1 threat,

2) Be able to clear the board before/or on turn 4,

3) Be able to win before/on turn 4,

or face having a difficult Goblins matchup.

Yeah, why is this unhealthy for the format again?

Because if they do one or two, they still have a difficult Goblins matchup. If they don't do any, they've got a nearly impossible Goblins matchup. Goblins' ability to pull out absolutely retarded shit when you think you're okay makes it unhealthy for the format.

Eldariel

04-05-2007, 08:30 AM

So, every deck needs to either

1) Be able to deal with a turn 1 threat,

2) Be able to clear the board before/or on turn 4,

3) Be able to win before/on turn 4,

or face having a difficult Goblins matchup.

Yeah, why is this unhealthy for the format again?

To be fair, you really need to be able to sweep the board turn 2-3, since if Gobs get even just 10 or so through at that point with Lackey, you're probably toast against all their hasty creatures and direct damage (from SGC). Also, Lackey drops their Ringleaders against control which makes your sweeper mostly inconsequential. Fact is that answering a turn 1 threat is very difficult for many archetypes, or at least forces them to play horrible cards (think something like Secret Force or MUC), and even when you have a number of answers, you'll still occasionally lose to the Lackey. And Goblins lose nothing by playing it. Opponent doesn't answer, they win. Opponent answers, the game just got started.

Phantom

04-05-2007, 09:57 AM

Here's my feelings on the subject, from a previous post on another board:

I've never had a problem with the speed of Goblins, so much as the resilience. Legacy is a quick format, and fast aggro will remain even if you ban Lackey (see Faerie/Dragon Stompy, Affinity, Red Death) which begs the question, is a first turn Hypy less scary than a Lackey? Lackey lets Goblins compete with combo, which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with, is pyroclasm, infest, deed, etc. hardly fazing Goblins. Ringleader lets goblins break a basic rule of aggro: don't overextend. Control has had a difficult time in Legacy, and a lot of people think it's because of combo, but I think it's because those control decks have a difficult time getting heavily favored matchups against Goblins.

Basically, if you ban Ringleader, now every color (except maybe blue) can board in some killer sweepers that will wreck a Goblin army. This will by no means remove Goblins from the meta. They will still have their speed, mana denial, tutor, and cycling burn; they just won't have a plan B. As an added bonus, Goblin decks will require much more play skill than current incarnations as the decision of whether to explode or hold back will finally be debatable.

I can completely understand if people want no change at all though. Hell, I hate creating and playing against control decks, so I'm pretty set as is, but I do think the format would be healthier without Ringleader.

tivadar

04-05-2007, 10:12 AM

If ringleader is banned, you have to ban all the other tutors in other colors (soldiers, elves, merfolk...). Ringleader isn't what's broken, and this is proven by the fact that these other tribal decks just don't see play. What gives goblins its superiority isn't just its card advantage, but also its speed. This speed is the real brokenness of goblins, and this speed comes entirely from goblin lackey. If any card in goblins SHOULD be banned, it's lackey. Can you imagine a white 1/1 for 1 that if it wasn't blocked allowed you to drop any soldier in your hand?

The main issue with lackey is that it was printed in a time when the best goblin out there cost about 3 to cast. For some reason, wizards decided printing goblins for 4 and 5 mana would be a good idea after this. This really broke lackey.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want the format changed. I just think that banning Ringleader is ridiculous when Lackey is really the broken component of goblins.

AnwarA101

04-05-2007, 10:17 AM

So, every deck needs to either

1) Be able to deal with a turn 1 threat,

2) Be able to clear the board before/or on turn 4,

3) Be able to win before/on turn 4,

or face having a difficult Goblins matchup.

Yeah, why is this unhealthy for the format again?

The following can almost apply to Solidarity as well -

1) Play with Force of Will/Counterspell/Daze and creatures that win the game before turn 10,

2) Be able to disrupt your opponent before/or on turn 4,

3) Be able to win before/on turn 4,

or face having a difficult Solidarity matchup.

I'm not sure how Solidarity isn't as distorting as Goblins. They both create a high bar for Legacy decks, but no is calling for the banning of Reset?

Eldariel

04-05-2007, 10:27 AM

The following can almost apply to Solidarity as well -

1) Play with Force of Will/Counterspell/Daze and creatures that win the game before turn 10,

2) Be able to disrupt your opponent before/or on turn 4,

3) Be able to win before/on turn 4,

or face having a difficult Solidarity matchup.

I'm not sure how Solidarity isn't as distorting as Goblins. They both create a high bar for Legacy decks, but no is calling for the banning of Reset?

Solidarity doesn't require you to answer anything turn 1, that's what I think is the key difference. Gobs ask for an answer turn 1, something only few combo-decks do besides Gobs and those combo-decks don't do it nearly as consistently (not to mention, if that question is answered, they're more or less out while Gobs doesn't care).

Finn

04-05-2007, 12:13 PM

So, every deck needs to either

1) Be able to deal with a turn 1 threat,

2) Be able to clear the board before/or on turn 3 amidst land destruction,

3) Be able to win before/on turn 4,

or face having a difficult Goblins matchup.

Yeah, why is this unhealthy for the format again?

No clue.

niknight

04-05-2007, 03:28 PM

I think that Finn's edit shows the real point. Even if you have a boardsweeper, you can very easily get delayed a turn or two by wasteland/port. This leaves us with 3 options if we were to deal with the main synergies of the deck. We could aim at:

1. The mana cheats - Lackey and/or Vial
2. The resiliancy - Ringleader and/or Matron
3. The disruption - Wasteland and/or Port

Dealing with the disruption is obviously ridiculous, so that's out. This leaves us to choose between mana cheating, or card advantage. If we were to take out Ringleader, Jitte would easily find it's way into the maindeck since there is no more incentive to keep the goblin count up. This makes the move irrelevant, as an equipped Jitte can easily match, if not surpass, the CA given by Ringleader.

I believe that Extended has it right. If we take out the mana cheating, we force goblins to choose between either laying guys or disrupting the opponent's manabase. In the absence of Vial, Lackey would still provide just as much acceleration and allow the opponent to still win on turn 4 while disrupting the opponent. In the absence of Lackey, Vial wouldn't really be good until turn 4 which still gives the opponent enough time to set up through the disruption.

Michael Keller

04-05-2007, 03:33 PM

Just to react to the initial question the thread posed:

I would laugh my ass off.

Pinder

04-05-2007, 04:03 PM

Can you imagine a white 1/1 for 1 that if it wasn't blocked allowed you to drop any soldier in your hand?

Um, yeah....and it would suck. Unless of course there was a Soldier Matron, Daru Warchief was anywhere near as good as Goblin Warchief, there was a Soldier-Gang Commander, etc.

The fact of the matter is, there's a goblin for just about everything. Matron is a Demonic Tutor, Ringleader is card advantage,Incinerator and Siege-Gang are removal (while SGC doubles as reach and Incinerator doubles as card advantage), Warchief and Lackey are acceleration, and Piledriver is some fat beats. And that's not even talking about things like Sharpshooter or Kiki-Jiki.

And let's face it- Ringleader really isn't that broken unless the deck running it has 25+ Goblins to properly abuse it. It's just the fact that most Goblins can preform the same functions as noncreature spells do in most decks, so this deck can afford to run 25+ Goblins and still have enough utility to be viable.

One other thing, though. I'm surprised that no one has suggested banning Piledriver. I'm not saying it should be banned, but it is sort of the deck's win condition. Being able to pay ~3 mana to find a Piledriver via Matron, play it, and swing for 12+ (pro blue!) damage seems like a pretty lopsided investment, don't you think? If the deck didn't have Piledriver, it would still be able to get a ton of little green men, but they would be just that...little.

Phantom

04-05-2007, 04:22 PM

This makes the move irrelevant, as an equipped Jitte can easily match, if not surpass, the CA given by Ringleader.

I understand your point, and it is well made, but this is a whole other topic. Jitte is very answerable card that doesn't do much against control. Also, it eats up 4 mana over 2 turns allowing you to go unmolested (sometimes). Also, many sweepers completely ignore Jitte (not clasm, but Wrath and certainly Deed) and then the game simply becomes keep a creature off the board (just like it would against other equipment decks) which is a lot easier if the other deck isn't refiling it's hand with threats by casting a 2/2 haste that happens to be a fact or fucking fictions.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

04-05-2007, 04:37 PM

Yeah, realistically, I think I'm the last fucking person on Earth that needs a lecture about the effectiveness and usefulness of getting a board sweeper online against Goblins, and it's relative difficulty. As someone who has cast more Wrath of Gods, Damnations, Pernicious Deeds, Oblivion Stones, Nevinyrral's Disks, Akroma's Vengeances, Decrees of Pain, Mutilates, Infests, and Hideous Laughters against Goblins than any of you motherfuckers, truthfully, you're all over-reacting. It's not that hard. Yeah, once in a while Goblins goes first turn Lackey. You won't have an answer. They'll drop Ringleader into Piledriver then lock you down with Port and Wasteland. You know what? Those games are rare. They're just not that fucking common. Yes, if you can't do any of the things on that list, you'll have an atrocious game against Goblins... or against any other real deck. If you can clear the board on turn 4, and have a decent clock, your Goblins game is going to be winnable. If you have other early creature removal, you'll start to do pretty well. Does that mean you're going to destroy Goblins? No. It's the best deck in the format. Destroying it takes work, unless you're playing a fast Storm combo or something. But it's not an unstoppable wrecking ball. We've had several large tournaments where Goblins didn't even crack top 8, and several others where it fell out before the semi-finals.

Xero

04-05-2007, 04:56 PM

I have to agree with IBA. Goblins dosen't always draw the nuts, dosen't always have the ability to use mana-disruption, and has plenty of bad match-ups. The best way to argue against it, IMO, is to admit that it's not unbeatable, but that it places an untenable constraint on deck design or "fun." That's essentially why Wizard's killed Affinity in Standard, although Affinity was far more format warping than Goblins is.

AnwarA101

04-05-2007, 05:08 PM

Solidarity doesn't require you to answer anything turn 1, that's what I think is the key difference. Gobs ask for an answer turn 1, something only few combo-decks do besides Gobs and those combo-decks don't do it nearly as consistently (not to mention, if that question is answered, they're more or less out while Gobs doesn't care).

Yes, but Solidarity virtually eliminates blue-based control (along with non-blue based control) because that strategy doesn't work against Solidarity. Solidarity doesn't require a specific answer on turn 1 what it requires is for you to be playing a specific archetype (specifically aggro and preferably aggro-control) to have a chance. If you aren't playing one of these two you are in really bad shape. Playing combo against Solidarity is just as hard as its ability hijack storm or to just go off at instant speed makes it very difficult to beat with a combo deck (TES maybe an exception but only because it can combo into an aggro strategy via Empty the Warrens). Goblin may require an answer on turn 1, but Solidarity requires an answer before you begin the game mainly by playing a relevant archetype.

noobslayer

04-05-2007, 05:39 PM

Can you imagine a white 1/1 for 1 that if it wasn't blocked allowed you to drop any soldier in your hand?
What's that? There'd be no real relevant Soldiers even if that saw print? Thought so.

Goblin may require an answer on turn 1, but Solidarity requires an answer before you begin the game mainly by playing a relevant archetype.
Hence why I think it should still be considered a DTB.

I think everyone who calls for a banning needs to take a good hard look at themselves, and realize the problem isn't lackey or ringleader. It's them. Either play a better deck, or stop being bad at magic. Hell, it's probably in your best interest to do both. You can knowingly play a deck that has a less than stellar goblins match-up, but you can't complain because you knew the risks. There's so much universal hate you can play it's not funny.

Citrus-God

04-05-2007, 07:46 PM

I think everyone who calls for a banning needs to take a good hard look at themselves, and realize the problem isn't lackey or ringleader. It's them. Either play a better deck, or stop being bad at magic. Hell, it's probably in your best interest to do both. You can knowingly play a deck that has a less than stellar goblins match-up, but you can't complain because you knew the risks. There's so much universal hate you can play it's not funny.

My favorite qute Mike has ever said was, "Play a deck Goblins, or play a deck that beats Goblins," because another good T1 quote is "Play Yawgmoth's Will or beat Yawgmoth's Will."

TheRock

04-05-2007, 08:30 PM

Solidarity doesn't ruin ALL types of blue-based control. Aluren is blue-based control. BHWC is blue-based control. (If I missed any, somebody should tell me.) However, it certainly does ruin a lot of the other ideas and that is absolutely undeniable.

If you take a look at what some of the big Goblin cards do in comparison to the cards that are currently banned and that are similar to them in function, then you will see a problem. However, if you take away any of the 6 or so cards from Goblins that are in that situation or make Goblins a playable deck, then you might as well flush it down the toilet.

Ok, I was going a bit overboard with that comparison, but it's still pretty darn valid. If you want to change Goblins, then how do you do it without completely changing the format?

Citrus-God

04-05-2007, 08:34 PM

Solidarity doesn't ruin ALL types of blue-based control. Aluren is blue-based control. BHWC is blue-based control. (If I missed any, somebody should tell me.) However, it certainly does ruin a lot of the other ideas and that is absolutely undeniable.

Solidarity beats BHWC Landstill. Aluren I'm not sure about, but it seems to be able to hold it's own against Solidarity.

Caboose

04-05-2007, 09:49 PM

No clue.

Welcome to the Source. Would you like to be a moderator?

I don't think any cards from Joblins should be banned. Eventually Goblins players will get tired of being made fun of and pick up a real deck.

tivadar

04-05-2007, 11:32 PM

What's that? There'd be no real relevant Soldiers even if that saw print? Thought so.

Aven Brigadier
Aven Warhawk
Commander Eesha
Daru Warchief
Enlistment Officer
Gempalm Avenger
Oathsworn Giant
Raksha Golden Cub
Steelshaper Apprentice
Field Marshal

Other relevant cards:
STP
Raise the Alarm
Decree of Justice

Just a short list, and I'm including only mono-white here... There are other possibilities, but these are the first I came across. The reason soldiers doesn't do well? They have no acceleration.

Just an example:
T1: Soldier Lackey
T2: Swing for 1, drop Raksha, play jitte
T3: Equip Raksha, swing for 15, jitte has 2 counters...
T4: Swing for 23...

Granted, that's a nutz draw, but a soldier deck with any sort of accelleration could definetly be good. It doesn't get the removal in the form of soldiers, but it does get STP, and on-color answers for enchantments/artifacts.

Not saying it'd be the be-all end-all deck, but I think it'd make soldier decks viable in the format.

TheRock

04-06-2007, 07:47 AM

Solidarity beats BHWC Landstill. Aluren I'm not sure about, but it seems to be able to hold it's own against Solidarity.

You mean game one? That I can definitely agree with, but games two and three are highway robberies. Seriously, one of the problems BHWC has against Solidarity is beating them twice in a 50 minute span. This said, it still requires quite a few sideboard slots although most of those slots work against TES and Aluren as well. Take a look at the topic about it if you want some more information.

Aluren has game against Solidarity; that much I can tell you. :)

There's no guarantee that players will ever put this deck (Goblins) down regardless of how many times they've played it. There's just something about aggro that is attractive to some people, and there's just something about a combo deck that is attractive, and so forth.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

04-06-2007, 04:01 PM

Aven Brigadier
Aven Warhawk
Commander Eesha
Daru Warchief
Enlistment Officer
Gempalm Avenger
Oathsworn Giant
Raksha Golden Cub
Steelshaper Apprentice
Field Marshal

The advantage Goblins has is that it's big goblins it cheats into play (see: Siege-Gang, sometimes Ib Halfheart, Goblin Goon, or Kiki-Jiki) don't suck horrendously if you have to pay for them.

Amon Amarth

04-06-2007, 04:51 PM

I would scratch my head as to why they ban random cards like Ringleader and Land Tax. I thought we had gotten past this crap? There are so many decks out there that beat Goblins and have game vs the rest of the field too. Goblins forces you to play decks that aren't a steaming pile of shit.

Man, that sucks.

Bane of the Living

04-06-2007, 05:36 PM

Goblins sets the standard for the format. If you dont like it play another one.

Volt

04-06-2007, 05:38 PM

I don't think there's any one card in Goblins that is ban-worthy. What makes the deck so damn good is that there are at least 3 cards in the deck that go right up to the edge of being ban-worthy without quite going over. Those being: Aether Vial, Lackey, Ringleader. Then there are the cards that are merely "really, really good," like Piledriver and Siege-Gang.

If I had to pick one card in the deck to ban, it would probably be Aether Vial, because it provides ridiculous mana advantage and allows the deck to circumvent counterspells and hate. All for one lousy mana.

Having said all that, I think Goblins is great for the format. As others have said, having a Tier 1 aggro deck around keeps the format from devolving into combo/control stupidity. I do not like playing Goblins or against Goblins, but I am nevertheless thankful that it provides for a format that I enjoy playing.

So, here's something I never thought I would say:

Thank you Goblins!!!!!!!

TeenieBopper

04-06-2007, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by FakeSpam:

Brain on fire..

Must... lock.. thread...

Ok. Look. I'm only going to say this once. If you have any questions or rebuttals, keep them to yourself.

Oath Sucks. Ok? It's awful. Green is an awful color. Building a control deck around it doesn't make it any better. *see "Druids, Oath of" and "Psychatog" and "Junk, PT" (ok, so junk really isn't a control deck.. well, kinda) Come to think of it, building a combo deck around that color doesn't work too well either. *see "Aluren."

Know why suicide oath was winning in extended back two seasons ago? Extended does not have the following cards: Swords to plowshares, Force of Will. Believe it or not, those cards are powerful enough to be a constant presence in any metagame with the card pool they are legal in. In fact, you may play against those very cards in the next tournament you play in. Or you may even play them yourself. I need a /sarcasm tag really badly.

If you want to play the game where I name a combo, then you name one that stops it, then I name another one.. make a different thread. However, this point counterpoint thing is fucking pointless. Benzo would be moderately playable with entomb. In fact, I would probably play it. I recieve unhealthy pleasure from reanimating fatties. However, if you check my whole existance-of-cards-that-would-slightly-affect-the-extended-metagame-if-they-were-legal arguement above, you will notice that sometimes a big ass fatty isn't that hard to deal with. Also, Tormod's crypt isn't avalable to play in extended. You know, those things you have because you didn't want to lose to Dragon (yet you did anyhow, didn't you?)

Please stop drawing conjecture from extended. It's different cardpools. Ok? We're still more like type 1 than extended. Another thing: The bannings of replenish, skullclamp, etc just because they were banned in extended. Not too bringht. They missed survival of the goddamn fittest. No worries though, it's not like anyone played those cards in old 1.5 anyhow.

This brings us full circle to Oath of Druids, and the fact that green sucks. I know an aggro deck can't handle a turn 2 fatty. Know what? That aggro deck is probably playing green. They weren't going to win anyhow.

Mind twist is a very swingy card. In the absence of good acceleration, it's not that great turn 1. However, turn 4, it empties your opponent's hand. That's pretty frickin' swingy. Of course, this depends on your matchup. I know you aren't playing mind twist in suicide. Why? Because I know you aren't playing suicide. You are a better magic player than that. So I know you didn't just compare mind twist to hymn to tourach. While hymn to tourach is actually more cost effective than a mind twist, Mind Twist happens to be infinately splashable for such a devistating effect.

Metalworker is fine. Metalworker in the current card pool is at just about the right power level for the format. After all, goblin lacky is still legal. Guess what, it's also an artifact and a creature.

I refuse to comment on the very specualtion that a "broken replenish" deck exists. I believe that to be an oxymoron. If by boken you mean "slow and disruptable" then.. nevermind.

In conclusion,

- Discussing B/R changes just make you look dumb. It makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. I might have a thousand or more mistakes in what I have written above. I most likely do not.

- I blame people who discuss B/R changes like they are smarter than R&D for the change and seperation of the lists. You may be smarter than R&D. That's ok, so is my toaster. Just don't do it. Ok? Don't.

- Green sucks.

Machinus

04-06-2007, 06:56 PM

You may be smarter than R&D. That's ok, so is my toaster.

Just...thank you.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

04-06-2007, 07:04 PM

I remember when Syracuse used to play Magic.

TeenieBopper

04-06-2007, 07:55 PM

I remember when Syracuse used to play Magic.

Yeah, those were the days. Thankfully some of us knew/know what we're talking about.

freakish777

04-07-2007, 02:47 AM

As far as Soldiers go, they're not bad for casual, but when the best Soldier they've printed so far is Jotun Grunt...

MattH

04-08-2007, 12:35 AM

Goblins is keeping at least 20 other decks (Terravore and many others) in Tier 3...THANK GOD.

Xero

04-08-2007, 01:16 PM

I thought combo was keeping Terravore down (in the US at least), not Goblins.

MattH

04-08-2007, 02:30 PM

One of the most frustrating things about goblins is that every other deck has one card they never want goblin to see, yet they are all different cards. Survival, for example, really hates to see gempalm incinerator, while Tog hates piledriver, and MBC hates Vial. And so on. There's no one card that every deck has as their #1 enemy.

Belgareth

04-08-2007, 02:44 PM

Goblins is certainly not keeping terravore down as it's a very favourable matchup.
However I don't think removing ring leader or even lackey would remove goblins or help other aggro.

Maldur Sven Vedukor

04-17-2007, 10:46 PM

I can't understand why people wants to ban lackey or ringleader. They're not broken. StP, FoW, Lightning Bolt.

Katrina

04-19-2007, 01:00 PM

It's a very bad idea. The format needs unbannings not bannings.

jazzykat

04-19-2007, 01:32 PM

One other thing, though. I'm surprised that no one has suggested banning Piledriver. I'm not saying it should be banned, but it is sort of the deck's win condition. Being able to pay ~3 mana to find a Piledriver via Matron, play it, and swing for 12+ (pro blue!) damage seems like a pretty lopsided investment, don't you think? If the deck didn't have Piledriver, it would still be able to get a ton of little green men, but they would be just that...little.

Interesting point indeed.

I am firmly in the ban lackey or do nothing camp. Coming to Legacy from Vintage I can appreciate the ability to cheat casting costs as a key to gaining insurmountable tempo.

The sick part about lackey is that it doesn't require a disadvantage of any sort.
It is a 1/1 for R. If you kill it, oh well.
If it connects you may very well have lost the game. It effectively provides you anywhere from 1 to 5 free mana and lets you do whatever you want with your actual lands.

jamest

04-19-2007, 05:20 PM

Xero

04-19-2007, 05:25 PM

In my opinion, Goblins is no longer Tier 1. Neither is Threshold. And I'm only considering "known" decks - those decks in the Open and Metagame Forums. There are plenty of strong decks which have strategic superiority over Goblins. Goblins now needs help, not bannings.

How do you figure this? Becuase it didn't Top 8 at one tournament? Goblins is still by far the most played deck, and it has by far the most consistant tournament wins.

jamest

04-19-2007, 06:08 PM

How do you figure this? Becuase it didn't Top 8 at one tournament? Goblins is still by far the most played deck, and it has by far the most consistant tournament wins.
Testing. That's primarily how I arrive at my opinions. I try not to go by tournament results, though I'll use those results as a general guide.

For example, my test results showed me that Goblins had a strong matchup against Threshold when the issue was being debated (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=99839#post99839). That's just one example. Without testing, I would just be following the status quo.

Shriekmaw

04-19-2007, 06:47 PM

In my opinion, Goblins is no longer Tier 1. Neither is Threshold. And I'm only considering "known" decks - those decks in the Open and Metagame Forums. There are plenty of strong decks which have strategic superiority over Goblins. Goblins now needs help, not bannings.

The last thing Goblins needs is more help. The deck is consider "the best deck" in Legacy for a reason. How do you explain the deck with the most top 8 appearances among the Tier 1 decks in the format? Please provide some facts if your going to state that the deck isn't tier 1 when it keeps on winning.

Xero

04-19-2007, 09:34 PM

In my opinion, Goblins is no longer Tier 1.

What do you consider Tier 1, if not Goblins?

jamest

04-20-2007, 02:51 PM

Please provide some facts if your going to state that the deck isn't tier 1 when it keeps on winning.
What kind of facts are you looking for? My testing logs?

What do you consider Tier 1, if not Goblins?
CounterSlivers and TES.

Anarky87

04-20-2007, 02:57 PM

Goblins is the only tier 1 deck. All other decks just play to beat it.

CounterSlivers and TES.

No, they're not.

Bryant Cook

04-20-2007, 03:10 PM

Please excuse this interuption. "Bitch said, wha?!" TES defines tier one. /Sarcasum

Shriekmaw

04-20-2007, 03:13 PM

What kind of facts are you looking for? My testing logs?

CounterSlivers and TES.

The best way to measure a deck's performance is to look at tournament results to see how a particular deck did and how many people are playing the deck. If a deck is consistently posting top 8's then its consider to be in the top tier of decks in a given format.

I think CounterSlivers shouldn't even be talked about in regards to tier 1 status. TES may be gaining popularity, but we don't have enough results to consider it tier 1 yet.

Zach Tartell

04-20-2007, 03:32 PM

The best way to measure a deck's performance is to look at tournament results to see how a particular deck did and how many people are playing the deck. If a deck is consistently posting top 8's then its consider to be in the top tier of decks in a given format.

I think CounterSlivers shouldn't even be talked about in regards to tier 1 status. TES may be gaining popularity, but we don't have enough results to consider it tier 1 yet.

Does that mean you're breaking out a crown? I think that that reasoning is flawed, as well. Like, a Tier 1 deck is a Deck to Beat. It's something that you either built your deck to beat, or devoted like a third of your board for. Threshhold is a Deck to beat. Goblins is a Deck to beat.

Decks that post big results, but then turn out to be a flash in the pan, are not decks to beat. Truffle Shuffle got 7th at worlds. Has countersliver posted results like that? Shit, I took Enchantress to 3 Top 8's in 50+ Man events in two weeks. That doesn't mean that it's a deck to beat.

Decks that beat decks to beat aren't decks to beat (that makes sense as a statement ot me, at least). Rifter smashes goblins. That doesn't mean it's good, at least in my eyes. You can't just hope you don't get matched up against combo. Unless you take fourty five minutes to get a slice of pizza. 'Cause that's how much time you'll have after you lose 2-0 against any kind of combo. Except alluren.

I'd call it Goblins and Thresh, for now. Maybe TES, but we'll see. I don't think it's had enough time to prove itself. But, I'll admit, I'm trading for a set of chrom moxen...

calosso

04-20-2007, 03:38 PM

CounterSlivers and TES.

WOW you consider counterslivers tier 1, that is pretty dumb. As for TES i will consider it a tier 1.5 deck only because of it's gaining popularity and it's 1 tournament win, if it does well at the GP then yes I might consider the deck tier 1.

If they ban goblin ringleader I will be devastated.

TeenieBopper

04-20-2007, 03:54 PM

Does that mean you're breaking out a crown? I think that that reasoning is flawed, as well. Like, a Tier 1 deck is a Deck to Beat. It's something that you either built your deck to beat, or devoted like a third of your board for. Threshhold is a Deck to beat. Goblins is a Deck to beat.

Decks that post big results, but then turn out to be a flash in the pan, are not decks to beat. Truffle Shuffle got 7th at worlds. Has countersliver posted results like that? Shit, I took Enchantress to 3 Top 8's in 50+ Man events in two weeks. That doesn't mean that it's a deck to beat.

You realize that's pretty much exactly what Nick was saying, right?

Zach Tartell

04-20-2007, 04:01 PM

You realize that's pretty much exactly what Nick was saying, right?

I thought he was saying that getting alot of top 8's makes it a big deal. Looking at it again I suppose I was just agreeing with him. But that doesn't change what I'm saying.

Or, rather, perhaps it does. Anyway, Goblins is tier 1, countersliver is not, and I think we should shake on it.

Edit: Yeah, I still read his statement as, "If a deck posts consistant top eights, it's tier one."

Edit 2: So my previous judgement (orrigional post) is still on the table.

jamest

04-20-2007, 04:35 PM

Just maybe, I'm not basing my opinion of Tier 1 by tournament results. Because if I did base Tier 1 on tournament results, I'm destined to be one step behind in an evolving format.

URABAHN

05-09-2007, 05:03 PM

TheInfamousBearAssassin

05-09-2007, 05:07 PM

Say what? Is that a joke?

I'd like it if instead of banning anything besides Flash, they actually unbanned a lot of cards. This period has been exciting, even if it's leading up to a degenerate and stupid format. Seeing combos that are also powerful, but nowhere near as much as Hulk-Flash, come off the list would be a great stimulus to the format, I think. Certainly MoM and Land Tax come off, but Replenish, Hermit Druid, Dream Halls, Earthcraft, Skullclamp and Worldgorger Dragon could be unbanned too, with little chance of wrecking the format, but probably adding much excitement to it.

Sims

05-09-2007, 05:09 PM

Since Wizards seems to be listening (if even a little bit), I think it's time to tell them Goblins is busted in Legacy. If you feel as strongly as I do about what's broken in Goblins, click on the links for Doug Gottlieb and Aaron Forsythe and give them an earful (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=128144&postcount=1)! June 1st could prove to be very interesting.

You're joking right?

Goblins was no where near over-powered and just forced people to play good decks.....So, you think that because Flash seems to have gotten their attention that bitching about you getting your ass kicked by Goblins over and over is going to make them save the format for you?

Die in a fire, please.

troopatroop

05-09-2007, 05:14 PM

You're joking right?

Goblins was no where near over-powered and just forced people to play good decks.....So, you think that because Flash seems to have gotten their attention that bitching about you getting your ass kicked by Goblins over and over is going to make them save the format for you?

Die in a fire, please.

UR DUM TWO

Let the man have his oppinion, he can say whatever he wants to say about goblins being unfair, not like it hasn't been said before, but oh well to that. Some people thought goblins was OP. Some didn't, whatever.

...and don't you have someones 90$ to steal?

Nydaeli

05-09-2007, 05:15 PM

It would be pretty hilarious if they banned Goblin Ringleader (and not Flash) on June 1st.

Tacosnape

05-09-2007, 05:16 PM

How can you claim what's currently a Tier 3 deck thanks to Hulk Flash is busted and needs banning? Goblins was barely hanging onto Tier 1 status before Hulk Flash, thanks to all the advancements in combo decks and improvements in Control and Landstill design.

If they ban any part of Goblins, which is a solid, nonbroken deck that keeps the format healthy by keeping other ridiculous strategies in check, I will go to a pet store and punch every adorable furry little bunny I find in the face. Hard.

AnwarA101

05-09-2007, 05:29 PM

Since Wizards seems to be listening (if even a little bit), I think it's time to tell them Goblins is busted in Legacy. If you feel as strongly as I do about what's broken in Goblins, click on the links for Doug Gottlieb and Aaron Forsythe and give them an earful (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=128144&postcount=1)! June 1st could prove to be very interesting.

While URABAHN and I repectfully disagree on this point. I only want to add that Goblins didn't win any of these events in the past 2 months -

The Mana Leak Open 2 Day 1
The Mana Leak Open 2 Day 2
Kadilak's Dual Land Draft III

All of these had over 50 players and none of them were won by Goblins. In fact Goblins didn't even Top8 on Day 1 of The Mana Leak Open.

URABAHN

05-09-2007, 05:52 PM

While URABAHN and I repectfully disagree on this point. I only want to add that Goblins didn't win any of these events in the past 2 months -

The Mana Leak Open 2 Day 1
The Mana Leak Open 2 Day 2
Kadilak's Dual Land Draft III

All of these had over 50 players and none of them were won by Goblins. In fact Goblins didn't even Top8 on Day 1 of The Mana Leak Open.

The Historical Top 8 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3996) shows that Goblins still manages to put up ridiculous Top 8 numbers, just like Hulk Flash. Once again, I'm not saying Goblins is in the same league as Hulk Flash, but this is just one of many parallels that can be drawn between the two decks.

Xero

05-09-2007, 06:46 PM

The Historical Top 8 shows that Goblins still manages to put up ridiculous Top 8 numbers, just like Hulk Flash

I don't think the Historical Top 8 shows this.

Tounaments with 3-4 spots taken by Goblins: 4

Tounaments with 1 or 0 Goblins in Top 8: 10

Goblins has never taken more than 4 spots in the Top 8.

I'm not counting the European Top 8's, which would push the 1/0 numbers up. This hardly proves your point, especially since most of the tournaments with 3-4 Goblins are old.

Wobbles The Goose

05-09-2007, 06:47 PM

The Historical Top 8 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3996)

What a great list. Where you aware that there is not one tournament where the top 8 didn't include 4x Brainstorm 4x Force of Will?

Legacy!
Where you can play all your favorite old cards
and have them countered by Force of Will.

Zilla

05-09-2007, 08:45 PM

What a great list. Where you aware that there is not one tournament where the top 8 didn't include 4x Brainstorm 4x Force of Will?
Worse still, did you notice that literally every single deck in those Top 8's runs at least two lands? Soooo overpowered. Look, just because a card sees a lot of play doesn't make it fundamentally unfair. There have to be cards that are better than the rest by the very nature of the game. That's absolutely fine until you have one or more cards which are leaps and bounds better than the rest, to the point of forcing highly specific strategies or colors as the only viable options. Flash clearly fits this definition. Lackey arguably does, although it could be considered to be on par with cards like Brainstorm, Ritual, Wasteland, and Force of Will, particlarly because it doesn't win the game outright.

It's okay (and in fact healthy for a format) when certain cards or decks require every other deck to consider how they will answer them, so long as said answers are available to a wide array of colors and archetypes. That's really what sets Flash apart from the pack here. Literally every single color in the game has a plethora of answers to a first turn Lackey. Realistically, only two colors have an answer to a first or second turn Flash into Hulk becked by disruption. I have no problem at all with extremely powerful cards which validate certain strategies and delegitimize others, but that can go too far. I would argue that that point has been reached when less than half the colors in the game can be used to make anything better than Tier 3 decks.