[Discussion] Grip the Top or the Counterbalance?

[Volt]

Scenario: Your opponent has Counterbalance + Sensei's Divining Top in play. If you don't do something about it, your opponent will be able to effectively shut your deck down. You have a single Krosan Grip in hand, and no other immediate means for destroying artifacts or enchantments. What do you aim the Grip at?

Assumptions: Both players are at 10+ life. Neither player is "about to win." There is no Academy Ruins in play.

In the past, I've almost always taken out the Counterbalance. I think that's probably the inclination of most people. However, I'm certain a solid case can be made for removing the Top instead. I'm curious to hear what others think. If your answer "depends," then say what it depends on, but try not to get too uber-specific. I'm trying to keep this fairly general.

[Bardo]

I'd need more context to answer definitively (what am I playing, what am I playing against, what's in my hand, what are my short and long-term plans, etc.)

But I'd generally choose to Grip the Top. CB will stop my spells, but is much less of a threat without the Top, and Top is a pseudo-Ancestral Recall every round with fetchlands and shuffle effects.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

If the Couterbalance can significantly disrupt you on its own, take it out. If you can dance around it without too much effort, take out the Top. With Top they may be able to dig for another Counterbalance.

[scrumdogg]

More information would be good. Do they have Academy Ruins? If you don't know, do you suspect it? Do you have any information on their hand and/or deck (from discard or Extirpate)? Do you have the ability to recur the Grip (i.e. Witness) or fear losing all the Grips (opponents Extirpates)? There are a number of factors that bear on the correct decision. However, in a vacuum, I would kill the Top, since blind Counterbalancing is much less impressive an exercise & doesn't dig you into further answers.

[chokin]

I never really thought too much about this, I've always Gripped the CB. I guess if I were really concerned about Top, I'd probably use Needles even though they are easy to remove by EE.

Counterbalance isn't THAT scary by itself. Top isn't either, but it provides cheap card quality. I guess I'll be Gripping Tops now :P

[lavafrogg]

Ive had the top gripped and then hit three blind reveals in a row as if the counterbalance was angry at the thresh deck now... but I say it was the right play.

[Omega]

If i want to play agressive, i will obviously take down the Counterbalance.

If the game is still slow, then i guess taking down the Sensei's can be a good choice. But i personnally prefer to get rid of the counterbalance. CB with brainstorm and ponder is still dangerous. Blind CB is dangerous too.

Robert

[Jak]

It depends for me really. Like Omega said, if the game is slow the Top is the right choice. If I am playing RG Sligh and a blind CB will hit most often, then take Balance.

[Nihil Credo]

I normally hit the Top when piloting black decks. With other decks, I usually go for the Counterbalance, either because my curve is too compressed to play through it or because I can't afford to lose spells to blind reveals (good players won't fall for baits) and to Brainstorm-as-a-hard-counter-holy-shit.

[Jaiminho]

If you are playing Combo, you will always get rid of CB. Blind reveals can screw your game plan already.

Also, a single cantrip, including Ponder, can already negate spells through CB. You might simply predict (not the card) what they might play and set the card to be on top for the next turn. But in the long run, Top becomes that house it's supposed to be, so yeah, depends.

[Omega]

It's possible to play through blind CB. IE, you play a Mongoose as a bait. If he reveals (which he will, usually) and doesnt counter, then you get info on what he has on top. Then, you can decide whether or not play the Goyf.

But yea, i hate when brainstorm becomes a counterspell and a mini ancestral recall at the same

[xsockmonkeyx]

Top is a pseudo-Ancestral Recall every round with fetchlands and shuffle effects.

Top is a pseudo Index every round, with fetches. I know what you mean, but there is absolutely no card advantage to be had, and when I think AR, CA is pretty much the thing.

I grip the CB because random card advantage is a bigger threat than random card quality. That assumes my curve matches theirs. If Im playing something like goblins where my curve is going to trump theirs most of the time, I grip the Top. Although, in that previous situation I dont give a shit about Countertop anyway.

[Jak]

Top is a pseudo Index every round, with fetches. I know what you mean, but there is absolutely no card advantage to be had, and when I think AR, CA is pretty much the thing.

No, no. Bardo's Tops are Recalls. You can read about it in his report.

[Volt]

.

[Bardo]

No, no. Bardo's Tops are Recalls. You can read about it in his report.

Ha! :)


Top is a pseudo Index every round, with fetches. I know what you mean, but there is absolutely no card advantage to be had, and when I think AR, CA is pretty much the thing.

Hence, the "pseudo." I didn't say "Top is Ancestral every turn."

[Nihil Credo]

If Im playing something like goblins where my curve is going to trump theirs most of the time, I grip the Top.
Well, if you're playing "something like goblins where my curve is going to trump theirs most of the time", either it's G1 and you don't have Grip, or it's G2 and they likely boarded out Counterbalance, and if you brought in Grip at all it was because of something else like Shackles or Plague ;)

[xsockmonkeyx]

Well, if you're playing "something like goblins where my curve is going to trump theirs most of the time", either it's G1 and you don't have Grip, or it's G2 and they likely boarded out Counterbalance, and if you brought in Grip at all it was because of something else like Shackles or Plague ;)

Yeah, I know. That's why I dont like either/or questions.



Hence, the "pseudo." I didn't say "Top is Ancestral every turn."

What Im saying is that it's not pseudo as it lacks the main thing that makes AR AR, which is card advantage. Fetch/Top is somewhere in between AR and Index, but probably much closer to Index.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Top is ridiculous without Counterbalance. By itself it's already one of the best card draw engines. Counterbalance can't say the same; if you're playing Counterbalance, you're hoping to get lucky until you draw a Top. The only real argument for hitting the Counterbalance is that it's more likely a 2 of, and Top's more likely a 3 or 4 of. Still, I'd hit Top unless my mana curve was really low and I thought the game would go long. Counterbalance isn't going to produce card advantage by itself, on average, for a while.

[xsockmonkeyx]

But Top NEVER creates CA, just CQ. Its parity at best when you tap it and fetch it away. The CA from randomly Counterbalancing shit is small, but it's still non-zero. A better argument would be something like the CQ of Top effects the game more than random CA from Balance, but that's debatable.

[Lego]

But Top NEVER creates CA, just CQ. Its parity at best when you tap it and fetch it away. The CA from randomly Counterbalancing shit is small, but it's still non-zero. A better argument would be something like the CQ of Top effects the game more than random CA from Balance, but that's debateable.

What if you tap it to draw, and respond with Shrapnel Blast? :wink:

[Nihil Credo]

But Top NEVER creates CA, just CQ. Its parity at best when you tap it and fetch it away. The CA from randomly Counterbalancing shit is small, but it's still non-zero. A better argument would be something like the CQ of Top effects the game more than random CA from Balance, but that's debateable.

With Top and a shuffle effect, you look at the top 3 cards, see Gold, Shit, Shit, take Gold, and next turn you draw Random instead of Shit (you don't even need a shuffle effect if the fourth one isn't Shit). That is Card Quality, yes, but it's also just a more complex version of Card Advantage, one where Mountain Goat doesn't count as much as Tarmogoyf.

Overall, this is how I see the question: would you rather deal with a more-or-less constant stream of your opponent's business spells, or lose a certain number of your own business spells?

[xsockmonkeyx]

What if you tap it to draw, and respond with Shrapnel Blast? :wink:

Ha! Good one.

But that's a moral victory at best as Blast is a 1 for 2 so it comes out a wash in terms of CA anyway.

@Nihil: I think I agree with you, I was just buzzing IBA to keep terms straight.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

But Top NEVER creates CA, just CQ. Its parity at best when you tap it and fetch it away. The CA from randomly Counterbalancing shit is small, but it's still non-zero. A better argument would be something like the CQ of Top effects the game more than random CA from Balance, but that's debatable.

CQ creates CA, presuming that other cards in your deck are good. When your opponent draws random shit and you draw what you want, victory is almost inevitable. If nothing else, they're more likely to find another Counterbalance through Top than another Top through Counterbalance, too.

[Bardo]

But Top NEVER creates CA, just CQ. Its parity at best when you tap it and fetch it away. The CA from randomly Counterbalancing shit is small, but it's still non-zero.

Brainstorm doesn't generate CA either, but that's hardly a strike against the card, you know?

[xsockmonkeyx]

Brainstorm doesn't generate CA either, but that's hardly a strike against the card, you know?

That's not my point though. :frown:

[Bardo]

That's not my point though. :frown:

Sorry, I didn't intend to sidetrack the thread into this argument.

Back to the topic at hand. I think the points above bear repeating: Grip the CB if you're going to win now; Grip the Top if you're going to win later.

[Citrus-God]

It also depends on what deck you're running. I'd Grip the Counterbalance if I'm playing Threshold because a blind CB is more likely to do something against me, but if I'm playing against ITF with Thresh, I'll Grip the Top because their mana curve is more towards 2-3, and I can get lucky landing a CB of my own. If I'm playing Landstill, I'd probably Grip the Top because Top helps them find threats and my mana curve is different compared to Threshold's so I can get away with playing my higher curved cards, but if I'm against ITF with Landstill, I'd Grip the CB because their blind CBs effect me more.

[FoolofaTook]

It also depends on what deck you're running. I'd Grip the Counterbalance if I'm playing Threshold because a blind CB is more likely to do something against me, but if I'm playing against ITF with Thresh, I'll Grip the Top because their mana curve is more towards 2-3, and I can get lucky landing a CB of my own. If I'm playing Landstill, I'd probably Grip the Top because Top helps them find threats and my mana curve is different compared to Threshold's so I can get away with playing my higher curved cards, but if I'm against ITF with Landstill, I'd Grip the CB because their blind CBs effect me more.

This is how I see it. If I have a curve that makes blind Counterbalance not all that threatening then I'm going to take the Top. If on the other hand I'm playing Threshold or something else with a really heavy 1cc/2cc curve then I'm going to take the Counterbalance.

It may just be my luck, but I see a destroyed SDT replaced by another SDT more often than Counterbalance gets replaced. It could also be that Counterbalance is more likely to have been pitched to FoW and SDT is more likely to get recurred somehow.

[frogboy]

It's pretty situational. A few things:

Destroying Counterbalance obviously means that they're more likely to find another Counterbalance than they are a replacement Top.

Most people are pretty miserable at using Top.

What decks you and your opponent are playing, as well as the exact nature of the board, your hand, and the yards, are all so important that you can't really say definitely one or the other.

[Pulp_Fiction]

I always Grip Counterbalance because I have had my spells countered by blind reveals to many times to count. Also, to the argument about Top creating card advantage, it doesn't; Accululated Knowledge and Fact or Fiction create card advantage. Top is just card quality which will never create card advantage no matter how much you want it too. But never just Grip the Counterbalance unless you have something to follow it up with because they may be holding another in their hand and there is always the Brainstorm-Counter crap. So just wait for the appropriate time and Grip the Counterbalance then next turn follow it up with threat(s).

[Frenger]

9 times out of 10 I grip the top. Top does so much more on it's own than CB does, the advantage they gain by keeping the top is great, and chances are they'll find another CB with it anyways if i don't answer the top first.

Then again, i play landstill and CB/top isn't as big a deal for me then if i were playing say, thresh.

[Anusien]

How many of you would use Counterspell on Sensei's Divining Top? What about Force of Will?

[jazzykat]

I would almost without thinking counterspell a top. Depending on what role I was in, the matchup, how much land I have, and what I had in my hand would heavily influence what I would grip.

If I had enough mana for multiple spells I would be more apt to hit the top, but if I have mana for only 1 spell a turn I would hit the counterbalance to ensure furthering my plan.

HOWEVER, as it was said before I don't think I would send a grip out as soon as I drew it if I had nothing better to do after it.

[Frenger]

How many of you would use Counterspell on Sensei's Divining Top?


Yes, i would.


What about Force of Will?

Depends on what i would be forced to pitch, and what else is in my hand, but i would consider it.

[FoolofaTook]

How many of you would use Counterspell on Sensei's Divining Top? What about Force of Will?

If I'm holding Force of Will on the draw and they try to drop a turn 1 Top I definitely Force it. If they Force or Daze back then at least I've cleared a counter out of their hand before my turn 1 play. The impact that Top has is more pronouced in the first couple of turns since frequently it resolves mana problems in a timely fashion.

I've even gotten to the point where I will Daze a Ponder on the play for the same reason.

[dahcmai]

Well, I play a U/W control deck with CounterTop and I would rather have the top taken out first. The counterbalance is still useful as is. I'll Brainstorm into things to counter stuff if need be. I tend to hold my Brainstorms just for that possibility. I sometimes leave fetchlands open just to shuffle the top of the deck just for sheer luck hits also if I know what's on top at the time and it's not the same CC.

Granted, it seems I often have an extra Counterbalance sitting as the second card down though. Top card is usually a Aura of Silence for obvious reasons or a 1 cc item. That's usually how my stack will be after a couple of turns depending on the deck I'm playing against anyway.

I think if I was on the opposing side I would still have to target the Counterbalance.

[frogboy]

If I'm holding Force of Will on the draw and they try to drop a turn 1 Top I definitely Force it. If they Force or Daze back then at least I've cleared a counter out of their hand before my turn 1 play.

Deliberately slamming Force of Will into Daze is not why I get up in the morning.


Top is just card quality which will never create card advantage no matter how much you want it too.

You need to be less dogmatic in your definitions. Would you rather draw a land on turn twelve or a spell?

[Pinder]

What if you tap it to draw, and respond with Shrapnel Blast? :wink:

Then that's card parity, silly.

edit - Actually it's not, because you're losing the Top and the Blast, whereas if you'd have just put Top on top, you'd lose a draw and gain a draw, which would be card parity.

edit2 - Oh, I just noticed there were two pages in this discussion. Whoops.

To do something productive, I would say that if you're playing something aggressive, then you take the CB because odds are you're going to win before they can make effective use of just top, and also because if you take Top then they might still hit their Counterbalance triggers and mess up your plan. But if you're sitting back, I can see where taking Top is the right call because 1) You have the time to play around counterbalance and 2)They would have the time to take advantage of top if they had one.

So yeah, basically exactly what Bardo said.

[goobafish]

How many of you would use Counterspell on Sensei's Divining Top? What about Force of Will?

When playing Canadian Thresh, I will always Daze it when I can, and I will often Force it.

[Volt]

.

[lunar_eternal_blue]

Don't forget that top becomes less impressive without fetches (you won't ALWAYS have them). When you can't shuffle, you are seeing 2 of the same cards each turn, and basically paying 1 mana to draw your card for the turn if you don't want them.

Counterbalance only needs to hit 2 spells to generate card advantage, and if you are using a deck that is vulnerable to countertop (you have a lot of 1-2 cc cards) then blind counterbalance on every spell you play will still be a major pain.

Also, from what I have seen, people usually run more counterbalance then tops in their decks if they don't go for an even split. Part of this is due to the fact that multiple tops are pretty much useless, but multiple counterbalance can be pitched to Force.

Also, counterbalance takes more to play (UU instead of 1 colorless) but if you have spell snares, it is easier to counter.

Overall, I would almost always hit the counterbalance, but there are a few situations were you could hit the top. I have to agree that a lot of it would depend on how aggressive you want to be. If you want to be aggressive, hit counterbalance, if you want to try to set up or control, then hit top. I also have a history of playing against extremely lucky opponents, so this tends to sway my decision.

[Whit3 Ghost]

When playing Canadian Thresh, I will always Daze it when I can, and I will often Force it.
Pretty much.

Resolved Tops are the most common way to lose the mirror.

[FoolofaTook]

Deliberately slamming Force of Will into Daze is not why I get up in the morning.

If they Daze back then they don't get to look at 3 on their turn 2 upkeep. If they're holding a cantrip dependent opening hand it's worth risking having your Force Dazed to stop a Top. If you're successful you've slowed them down a lot and if you're not you've slowed them by a turn.

I don't have a particularly strong record on the draw when the opponent lands a Top on the play, your mileage might vary there.

[Happy Gilmore]

When playing Canadian Thresh, I will always Daze it when I can, and I will often Force it.

god, that makes Canadian thresh look so bad.

[xsockmonkeyx]

god, that makes Canadian thresh look so bad.

Explain, plz.

[goobafish]

god, that makes Canadian thresh look so bad.

A deck with resource denial that often leaves decks in top-deck mode countering a permanent draw manipulator? Maybe it's just me, but that seems important.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

He's saving the Dazes for the late game, where they become much better against opponents who have been controlling their draws for half a dozen turns. Duh.

[Maveric78f]

I'll give some rules:

if you have stifles in hand => hit counterbalance
if you have deeds, EE or crimes/punishementin your deck => hit sensei
if you have vial out => his sensei
if your opponent is already on an aggro clock => his sensei
if you play combo => hit counterbalance
if you are the aggro deck and you don't have already put a clock => hit counterbalance

I think that you could complete this list, put some weights on the rules and when facing a situation decide which one to grip by chosing the higher total.

[lunar_eternal_blue]

I'll give some rules:

if you have stifles in hand => hit counterbalance
if you have deeds, EE or crimes/punishementin your deck => hit sensei
if you have vial out => his sensei
if your opponent is already on an aggro clock => his sensei
if you play combo => hit counterbalance
if you are the aggro deck and you don't have already put a clock => hit counterbalance

I think that you could complete this list, put some weights on the rules and when facing a situation decide which one to grip by chosing the higher total.

This is probably the best post here. I agree fully on most of those. Obviously there will be certain outstanding circumstances where it will be obvious, but those general rules are very good. I still tend to hit counterbalance, but that is more of a personal choice (mainly because of my lucky opponents).

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

if you are the aggro deck and you don't have already put a clock => hit counterbalance

This is the opposite of truth. I don't think there's a reasonable case for hitting Counterbalance in any scenario that doesn't involve you winning in the next two-three turns, at all. The massive momentum inherent in building quality advantage, turn after turn, drawing according to desire while your opponent draws random, gets pretty hard to overcome.

[Nightmare]

Assuming you also run Counterbalance and Top in your deck - and let's be honest, you probably should be - I'd hit the CB to attempt to resolve your own CB, which would put you in the dominant position. Of course, I would rarely hit the Top anyway, but that's me.

[xsockmonkeyx]

Assuming you also run Counterbalance and Top in your deck - and let's be honest, you probably should be ...

Actually, I would say that Anwar, Volt, and Lonely Baritone have shown that you should be playing to beat Counterbalance.

[undone]

Counterbalance can screw you all by itself, Ask my opponents, I have had games where I droped it turn 1 in not quite survival and had opponents resolve 0 spells over a 10 turn game with no in play top. Depending on what CC the key spells are at (ITF can counterbalance deed) and what thier decks CC is depends on what they can counter.

Top is a bad brainstorm on a stick. However bad brainstorms are still retarted.

Top is better if you have extipates I think, but its really situational based on what deck CTop is being run in and what deck your running.

[Nightmare]

Actually, I would say that Anwar, Volt, and Lonely Baritone have shown that you should be playing to beat Counterbalance.Exceptions prove the rule.

[Deep6er]

Isn't that a mathematical fallacy? Laws are laws because they don't have exceptions?

Anyway, I think the format's distilling itself down to Counterbalance decks against decks that seek to beat Counterbalance. It definitely feels like everything is rotating around that stupid card.

[Nightmare]

Isn't that a mathematical fallacy? Laws are laws because they don't have exceptions?

Laws, probably. Rules always have exceptions. Especially in Magic.

[Deep6er]

You know, that's fair. I don't really know much about math. Well, except, that it sucks. Stupid math.

[Nightmare]

You know, that's fair. I don't really know much about math. Well, except, that it sucks. Stupid math.

But... but... Asian?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis- The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.

Wiki That Shit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule).


It's a legal principle. The full addendum is, "The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted, except for like cases". What this means is that a sign that says, "No parking between 4-9 pm" explicitly may be taken to mean that you may park there at all other times. Except in like cases may be interpreted to mean, for instance, that you can't tether your horse at the same spot, either. It's frequently confused by people searching for a pithy phrase to justify being wrong- it does not mean, "A given disproof of a theory proves that theory", which is obviously nonsensical, but is often taken that way by said desperate individuals who only ever hear the first half of the phrase. Nightmare's use of it, for instance, was totally inappropriate.

[xsockmonkeyx]

Exceptions prove the rule.

Are you going to explain this, or are you just being dismissive? At the Batcave DLD there was a ridiculous amount of Counterbalances in the field. Are you trying to say that winning because you picked a deck that beats the field is a fluke? I don't get it.

@Volt: back me up here, we talked about this.

[Nightmare]

Nightmare's use of it, for instance, was totally inappropriate.

Right, but at least I'm aware that I'm spewing bullshit as I'm doing it, and am convincing other people that they're wrong. You know all about that, right Jack?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Right, but at least I'm aware that I'm spewing bullshit as I'm doing it, and am convincing other people that they're wrong. You know all about that, right Jack?

God, when did Syracuse turn emo? Buck up, Daniel-san, it's going to be alright.

[Nightmare]

God, when did Syracuse turn emo? Buck up, Daniel-san, it's going to be alright.

How is that even remotely emo? Something must have been lost in the aether there, cause I was being a dick.

@ Sockmonkey - I was being dismissive. Are you new here?

To explain anyway, I sincerely doubt that Anwar and Volt's deck choice had a significant impact on their results. Having played Anwar in plenty of events, I think it's safe to say he would have done well regardless, and I believe just as well with Counterbalance in his deck as he did without it. I haven't played vs Volt, but I'm sure the same is true for him, as well. (Note - one of the best strategies against Counterbalance is to resolve your own, first)

[xsockmonkeyx]

@ Sockmonkey - I was being dismissive. Are you new here?

No, not new here. I just don't think you listen to anything I say.


To explain anyway, I sincerely doubt that Anwar and Volt's deck choice had a significant impact on their results. Having played Anwar in plenty of events, I think it's safe to say he would have done well regardless, and I believe just as well with Counterbalance in his deck as he did without it.

Good player chooses a deck to beat the field, with a deck meant to beat the field. I know that may seem like a false postitive, so I submit to you this: what is your opinion of Bovinious (I think he's good so screw you preemptively)? The guy's made a living feasting off a field of soft locks that you can basically ignore.


(Note - one of the best strategies against Counterbalance is to resolve your own, first)

True. Or you could just beat the snout out of everyone, I dont know. :rolleyes:

[Volt]

.

[Deep6er]

Actually, that's not accurate. Every time I've played against Bovinious with a Counterbalance based deck, I've swept him 2-0. I'd get him to back me up here, but he's, you know, banned.

Interesting note though, every time I've played him with something that WASN'T Counterbalance based, I've lost (as long as he's playing Ichorid, he can't play anything else for shit).

Not really important, but figured it would be a humorous aside.

[Nightmare]

No, not new here. I just don't think you listen to anything I say.Don't feel slighted. I don't pay attention to anything anyone says. It's nothing personal.


Good player chooses a deck to beat the field, with a deck meant to beat the field. I know that may seem like a false postitive, so I submit to you this: what is your opinion of Bovinious (I think he's good so screw you preemptively)? The guy's made a living feasting off a field of soft locks that you can basically ignore.There are two separate realms of thought on the issue of "deck vs. field." One, as you have lain out, seeks to prey on the expected metagame. The other, which I subscribe to, is to just play the best deck, and let a combination of skill (which I think I have) and luck (which I assume I have) sort out the hate decks. So, in this instance, I still think Counterbalance is the right strategy. I will concede, however, that I am by nature predisposed to playing control decks, which skews my perspective on the issue.

And I hold no opinion on IRL Bovinious. I've never met, nor played him. On the other hand, he's a moron on the internet.

[Volt]

.

[Deep6er]

I would disagree with that sentiment because the addition of new cards can never complement a circle. I see it as more a line. True evolution of a sort.

I HIGHLY doubt that there will be a period of time where Goblins will return to it's former dominance (barring a card being printed that makes it unbelievably overpowered).

[Nightmare]

With rare exceptions (i.e. Hulk Flash), the "best deck" is only the best so long as certain metagame conditions exist. To my eyes, it seems like Legacy is quickly evolving to hate Counterbalance out. Before too long, Goblins is going to be good again, and we'll know we've come full circle.I totally disagree with this sentiment. There are factors which exist that will keep the metagame "In Check" as it were. For example, Goblins' inability to effectively deal with Combo (including Ichorid, which is a much worse matchup than people credit), and it's vulnerability to Engineered Plague, will always keep it from going back to the dominant force it once was. The last time Goblins was the top tier, Solidarity was the best combo deck. Counterbalance effectively ended Solidarity, along with the fact that it only beat Goblins like 50% of the time. The decks keeping the combo in check are things like Landstill (kinda) and Thresh, which have the best creature in the format to play with, and which single handedly puts Gobs on their back foot. The foil here is obviously Ichorid, but the fact that it basically autowins about 80% of its game 1's is offset by the fact that it gets OWNED by a prepared player games 2 and 3. The fact that the burden is on the other player to stop the Ichorid deck is irrelevant, because it's like, impossible for Ichorid to actually win through the hate if it's present in a significant way. All of these factors - Combo being present and good/fast; Goblins/Ichorid losing to significant hate; and the presence of Goyf/CB all combine to give Legacy some actual stability. Granted, there are options that I'm not addressing (Sligh, DS, etc.), but the jist is there.

[Volt]

.

[Anusien]

Modern Landstill and Rock builds both run 4 Tarmogoyf, which is incredibly hateful for Goblins.

[Whit3 Ghost]

Why are people crediting Counterbalance with killing Solidarity? Solidarity was dead when Warrens was printed and Tendrils and Belcher got a turn faster.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Tarmogoyf has a very limited shelf-life. It exists far outside of the maximum efficeiency power curve where cards like Goblin Piledriver, Pernicious Deed and Brainstorm live. It's presence contorts the metagame in a subtle but pervasive way, and obsoletes certain strategies and the vast majority of creatures (even the best creatures outside of Tarmogoyf become also rans, except for a select few that may be more powerful when built around, such as Terravore or Painter's Servant or the like). It's continued existence outside of the Legacy (and possibly Extended, although it's somewhat harder for every deck to support there) banned list depends upon two factors; the invisibility of it's influence and the embarassment it would cause Wizards to add a recently-printed card, and a theoretically vanilla creature no less, to the banned list. The second factor will be perpetually decreasing, however; every sin is eased with time, and the farther away from the printing of Future Sight we get, the easier it will be for Wizards to admit to a mistake. There's a limited time before Tarmogoyf gets removed from the cardpool. This would have a limited effect on the metagame (part of the relative invisibility of it's influence comes from the fact that very nearly every archetype can run it), but greatly increse the variety of creatures seeing play.

[xsockmonkeyx]

Don't feel slighted. I don't pay attention to anything anyone says. It's nothing personal.

Fair enough.

I see your side of the argument for CB, and they are two sides of the same coin. Id type more but my head hurts.

[Jak]

Isn't that kind of bad, though? The best way to beat a card is to play it yourself? Kind of like T2 Affinity, hate decks vs. Affinity or Flash vs. hate

[Whit3 Ghost]

Isn't that kind of bad, though? The best way to beat a card is to play it yourself? Kind of like T2 Affinity, hate decks vs. Affinity or Flash vs. hate
I'd say the difference is that the decks that beat CB don't distort their strategies much, yet. Counterbalance has streamlined the format, but hasn't warped it to the degree of Rafinity or Flash.

[FoolofaTook]

Tarmogoyf has a very limited shelf-life. It exists far outside of the maximum efficeiency power curve where cards like Goblin Piledriver, Pernicious Deed and Brainstorm live. It's presence contorts the metagame in a subtle but pervasive way, and obsoletes certain strategies and the vast majority of creatures (even the best creatures outside of Tarmogoyf become also rans, except for a select few that may be more powerful when built around, such as Terravore or Painter's Servant or the like). It's continued existence outside of the Legacy (and possibly Extended, although it's somewhat harder for every deck to support there) banned list depends upon two factors; the invisibility of it's influence and the embarassment it would cause Wizards to add a recently-printed card, and a theoretically vanilla creature no less, to the banned list. The second factor will be perpetually decreasing, however; every sin is eased with time, and the farther away from the printing of Future Sight we get, the easier it will be for Wizards to admit to a mistake. There's a limited time before Tarmogoyf gets removed from the cardpool. This would have a limited effect on the metagame (part of the relative invisibility of it's influence comes from the fact that very nearly every archetype can run it), but greatly increse the variety of creatures seeing play.

This is exactly right. Tarmogoyf is not one of those cards that gets banned quickly, because it is a basic beater that is just very undercosted. However with each new set WoTC is going to be looking at an unenviable choice: either print a creature similar in cost to power as Goyf, which would cause problems in all the formats and fundamentally rearrange the value of creatures as a whole, or recognize that they made a mistake the first time around.

Here's what I think they're going to do: print another Goyf with a different name but the same ability and have it cost GG1. Then they'll ban Tarmogoyf everywhere but Vintage.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I doubt it will have exactly the same templating; sans the extra toughness and with Trample or Regeneration or something is very plausible, however.

[frogboy]

"with regeneration"

lol.