[Premium Article] Innovations - Blame it on the Counterbalance [Archive] - Page 2

undone

03-17-2009, 12:16 PM

I also think that combo is held in check just fine by Chalice, Trinisphere, discard, regular counterspell, Stifle, Sphere of Resistance, etc. And if Counterbalance remained without Top, I find it hard to believe that combo would take over.

MUC combo does just fine against all that hate.

However ANT doesnt have the greatest matchup against the permenant hate but the other hate such as C spell, stifle and spell snare, dont get the job done often enough.

The only arguement for banning here would be that Top leads to unintentional draws. Things do not get banned to make the format interesting, they get banned for one of a few reasons

1) The metagame warped around the card to "Beat this card or lose to it" ( ravanger)

2) The card sees large amount of "32/top8 copies" meaning its so ubiquidious that every deck or nearly every deck MUST play 4 copies. (artifact lands are an example)

3) The card is degenerate and provides cheep overwhelming CA. (Skull clamp)

4) The card draws games unintentionaly or intentionaly by the player (Sharazzad, top in extended)

The 4th one is very rare and to my knowlage occured exactly twice, it MIGHT occur a third time for top in legacy but I doubt it, and if it does than it will occur for vintage as well.

Goyf will not be banned untill it meets the above criteria according to wizards, as of this moment it does not.

rleader

03-17-2009, 12:24 PM

If goyf is banned, Goblins will become the strongest deck in legacy. I don't know about you guys, but legacy has been much more fun for me since I stopped having to worry about whether or not my deck can deal with a first turn Goblin Lackey

Different people hate different stuff.

I remember the thresh/goblins/everything-else metagame and how the self-described smart people (including SCG writers) prefered playing thresh even though they admitted goblins was a better meta-choice for the most part.

Some people hate goblins, don't like any deck with a large amount of permanents in play (and the vulnerability that entails), or where they can't have the option to say "no." Even if that kind of deck was/is the most powerful one in the format, people like Menendian will still never play it (there's nothing wrong with that; he's gladly admitted anti-spike tendencies when it comes to playing cards he doesn't like).

I think in this discussion, hating goblins is seen as more rational than hating counter-balance, when disliking either and wanting to punish it out of the format (or at least make it take a back seat to what we enjoy ourselves), is a completely subjective thing.

/personally, I hate urzatron and 8post decks, but then I don't have to worry about them in legacy.

Omega

03-17-2009, 12:39 PM

By Volt
"Our DTB forum is a pretty piss-poor source for making any sort of argument. I would be inclined to weigh the GP Chicago results much more heavily than the entirety of the DTB forum. I am more moved by the fact that the highest finishing Merfolk deck at Chicago splashed green for Tarmogoyf than I am by the fact that the Merfolk thread in our DTB forum doesn't happen to include any goyf lists."

Actually, a 1 time performance is clearly not enough to establish a standard for a deck type.
For that matters, luck could have helped that merfolk a lot, we do not know. I am more enclined at lists on DTB than at lists that have success once (for now)

Regarding Merfolk : Tarmogoyf yes, is strong. But one the biggest strenght of traditional Merfolk in my opinion is their resilency to non basic hate (except for 4 waste, 4 muta). Splashing green means splashing fetches and Tropical which in turn open them to stifle, wasteland, blood moon. Not to mention that traditional merfolk runs MD Relic of Progenitus that offers them a great game against opposing tarmogoyf, dredge, loam, etc. Should they play their own goyf, they lose that wonderful graveyard hate

Robert

Kuma

03-17-2009, 12:41 PM

emidln

03-17-2009, 12:48 PM

The only reason storm combo has even an even matchup against permanent-based hate is because we choose to attack CounterTop decks. Storm combo could easily smash permanent-based hate like stax/stompy and still destroy aggro. We just can't do that and still expect to have a chance of beating control. Given that blue decks with CounterTop are a lot more prevalent than Chalice decks, we pack blue hate instead of playing X Shattering Spree, X Echoing Truth in the sb or 4 Serenity.

Volt

03-17-2009, 12:51 PM

Actually, a 1 time performance is clearly not enough to establish a standard for a deck type.
For that matters, luck could have helped that merfolk a lot, we do not know. I am more enclined at lists on DTB than at lists that have success once (for now)

If this were some 50-person, 6-round tournament, I would agree with you, but that isn't the case. There were 1200 people at this thing. I'm not sure how exactly many rounds they played, but it was a lot. This tournament is waaaay more statistically relevant than anything in the DTB forum.

Why do you give more value to a single tournament than years of collected data from numerous tournaments?

First, The DTB forum isn't based on "years of collected data from numerous tournaments." Go there and read the "DTBF Philosophy & Deck Selection" thread. It's stickied at the top. Second, even once the forum gets updated to account for the GP Chicago results, those results won't be appropriately weighted, and will soon rotate out.

FoolofaTook

03-17-2009, 12:55 PM

Our DTB forum is a pretty piss-poor source for making any sort of argument. I would be inclined to weigh the GP Chicago results much more heavily than the entirety of the DTB forum. I am more moved by the fact that the highest finishing Merfolk deck at Chicago splashed green for Tarmogoyf than I am by the fact that the Merfolk thread in our DTB forum doesn't happen to include any goyf lists.

Well as long as major Legacy events keep getting won by decks not in the DTB forum I think this is an accurate statement.

Counterslivers might have been an outlier given the lack of attendance at that one, however then having Dreadstill take down the Source Anniversary Tourney when many people here were divided as to whether or not it was really a DTB and then having NLU win in Chicago despite not warranting a thread, other than comments about it in the various Threshold threads. Well that's all pretty damning evidence that DTB on The Source only means "DTB in a relatively small and self-contained meta that does not include most of the USA let alone Europe or Asia."

And BTW, why is Landstill still in the DTB forum? It hasn't won anything major in years. I guess you still have to prepare for it but it's clearly not a highly competitive deck at this point.

Kuma

03-17-2009, 01:44 PM

If this were some 50-person, 6-round tournament, I would agree with you, but that isn't the case. There were 1200 people at this thing. I'm not sure how exactly many rounds they played, but it was a lot. This tournament is waaaay more statistically relevant than anything in the DTB forum.

By my count there were 854 players in the tournaments that were used to make up the DTB forum for March. The Grand Prix may be a larger sample size than March's DTB forum, but the fact that new data flows in every month and the DTBs, DTWs, and ATWs don't change much suggests that the DTB forum is a better representation of the Legacy meta than the Grand Prix.

The GP may be more statistically relevant than just February's DTB forum, but there are months and months of similar data that paints a stronger picture.

First, The DTB forum isn't based on "years of collected data from numerous tournaments." Go there and read the "DTBF Philosophy & Deck Selection" thread. It's stickied at the top. Second, even once the forum gets updated to account for the GP Chicago results, those results won't be appropriately weighted, and will soon rotate out.

I know how the decks in the DTB forum are chosen. What I meant by "years of collected data" was that the decks that are regularly represented in there have been fairly consistent over the years.

Shawn

03-17-2009, 01:46 PM

And BTW, why is Landstill still in the DTB forum? It hasn't won anything major in years. I guess you still have to prepare for it but it's clearly not a highly competitive deck at this point.

Not true, if you look at deckcheck you will see several tournaments wins this year. At least two of them are "major" wins, or more depending on your requirements for that. It's still in the deck to beat forum since it meets the requirements. (6.25% placements over the total Top 8 slots at 33+ person tournaments in the last month's tournaments)

http://www.deckcheck.net/list.php?type=Landstill+Ubg%2FUbgw&format=Legacy
http://www.deckcheck.net/list.php?type=Landstill+UWx&format=Legacy

DTB: Tops 8's in February
Counterbalance Threshold - 12 (4 UGW, 4 UGR, 1 UGWB, 2 Progenitus, 1 Survithresh)
Landstill - 10 (3 4C, 1 4C Goyf, 6 UWB)
Merfolk - 9 (1 /w, 1 /g, 7 U)

Omega

03-17-2009, 02:12 PM

By Volt :
"If this were some 50-person, 6-round tournament, I would agree with you, but that isn't the case. There were 1200 people at this thing. I'm not sure how exactly many rounds they played, but it was a lot. This tournament is waaaay more statistically relevant than anything in the DTB forum.
"

If I remember well, a certain Roland won a Legacy Gp with a deck called Madness. The deck was not on DTB forums, it wasn't even considered as a deck to watch. Many people, and myself included, tried the deck after to see how good it was. It proved to be extremely poor and strictly inferior to Threshold back in the days.
And when we read reports, then we understood how Roland managed to get to the top. I think, if I remember well, that he hadn't met a single Goblin. NOT A SINGLE ONE (if i remember well). And Goblin was truly the deck to beat at that time. Not that I am saying that Roland is all luck. But I seriously believe that a 1 time performance, no matter how important the event may be, is not sufficient to establish a deck, or a list, as a standard. I will repeat that luck can smile on some for one tournament. Therefore, without proper testing, I cannot accept the idea that a Tarmogoyf-Merfolk deck is superior to a mono-blue merfolk list. However, if more and more results prove that merfolkgoyf.deck is better than merfolk, then Ill gladly accept the fact that merfolkgoyf.deck that showed up at GP was a true innovation.

Robert
EDIT : Its like doing empirical tests in science. A single data is not enough to come to conclusions. You have to test it alot.

EDIT 2: We must also take into account that there can be a difference between Local and GP. Gp happens once every year (or more). Otherwise, there are only local metas. I think local are more relevant when determining what is best, because there are a lot more local tournaments. If something can perform well routinely, I think it is safe to say that it is a good deck, even if it showed up poorly at GP.

jazzykat

03-17-2009, 02:32 PM

Firstly, I want to say that I don't want anything banned.

The higher CC curves in some of the GP decks wether they were soley to dodge CB or where there to provide real benefit actually makes me happy. I think sower is a bitching card and it costs 4 MANA! OMG, that's a lot if it's not Tendrils of Agony or Wrath of God. How about shackles.... 3 to cast and 2to activate? I love that higher CC's are sneaking in to even Threshesque decks. I like the fact that we can play with "suboptimal" cards that make CB irrelevant

I would like to echo emidln's comments regarding the ability of storm combo to play through hate.

The fact that we have to deal with permanent based hate, and stack control and counterbalance is what pulls our sb in too many directions.

Storm combo often defeats landstill although it has awesome control of the stack. Even if it sided in canonist's or something we could just bounce it or destroy it and then proceed to duress/orim's chant our way to a clear victory.

Aggro is a joke vs. storm combo so it's not worth mentioning. You can board in Chain of Vapor for their Teeg or Cannonist and move on with life.

Even vs. stax if I could load up my SB with tons of rebuilds, hurkylls recalls, shattering spree, serenity, etc. I would have a pretty good shot at taking them down.

The problem lies with the fact that a counter/top deck will potentially own the storm combo deck very quickly and there will be very few outs. Thus our board gets slanted for the counter/top match and we dedicate less directly at the other types.

Remove some part of counter top and you will need to remove some part of storm combo, wether it be LED, dark ritual, or one or more of the tutors otherwise combo in its current form will run wild on you.

The problem is that I can't just dedicate 8 or 12 cards to beating stax because of counter/top.

I know my opinion will be called stupid but I don't think Tarmogoyf should be banned either.

My reasoning is simplistic it is a 2 mana creature. It is big for sure and it comes down fast with no drawback which makes it broken, but if you can't deal with a large quick creature in Legacy then you should seriously reconsider the deck you are playing.

I understand if this upsets people's sense of fairness because every single other really awesome creature has either a drawback or requires some accomodation besides splashing green.

All in all, this is Legacy 1 step removed from Vintage with the most brokeness we are permitted. If our most broken (maybe only broken?) card is a creature can't we just have it?

For the sake of disclosure I own: 4 Tops, 4 Counterbalances, 11 Tarmogoyf

Oh and here is a stupid idea, if you want to punish decks splashing for Tarmogoyf all they have to do is print another wasteland and these sexy splash for x color mana-bases will have to be seriously re-evaluated.

Peter_Rotten

03-17-2009, 02:33 PM

Eva Green, Goyf Sligh, TA - these are decks that only exist because Tarmogoyf does.
GoyfSligh was Dryad Sligh and had some minor results. TA - I'm not sure about. EvaGreen becomes suicide black. (Which sucks - just like EvaGreen).

You should be considering the ones that have fallen off the map since the opponent can land a turn 2 clock consistently and without design space required.

Which decks are these?

Examples:
1. When Talara's Battalion and Nettle Sentinel came out, I sunk myself into designing a mono-green build with them.
2. Last year, Isamaru and I kicked around some ideas including one to bring Avatar of Might into play quickly and cheaply.

Frankly, those ideas sound cute and casual. But I doubt that they aren't competitive because of Goyf.

Consequently, pretty much anything I put effort into these days has to have Tarmos/SacLands/DualLands/BrainStorm/FoW/StP/ThoughtSieze/be able to deal with CounterTop/etc. in it with a few exceptions. There is little reason to bother on anything else.

Certain cards WILL limit innovation. NOT everything will be playable. Are there enough cards with Goyf in the format playable in Legacy to keep it interesting. I say yes.

Also, I own 100 Goyfs. My GoyfCock is HUGE-AH!

Bardo

03-17-2009, 02:43 PM

I don't think it's mutually exclusive, and that while the argument that the banning of goyf is triggered by its price and ubiquity was not brought up by you, it gets tiresome.

I had this image of those Wall Street / Investment shows on Sunday morning where pundits are required to disclose any potential or actual conflicts of interest they may have in recommending others buy or sell certain stocks.

The theory is pretty obvious: people are less likely to advocate things that will undermine their investments and self-interest. It's not a sole, determining factor, but it would be interesting if there was any correlation between onwing/non-owning [card x] and advocating that [card x] get the axe by the DCI. Obviously, if Tarmogoyf were a $2 card, it wouldn't be much of a factor.

Anyway, didn't want to hijack the thread, just curious.

Volt

03-17-2009, 02:46 PM

If I remember well, a certain Roland won a Legacy Gp with a deck called Madness.

That was at GenCon 2006, and I believe there was somewhere in the neighborhood of 120 people at that event. A far cry from a GP event with 1200+ people.

Its like doing empirical tests in science. A single data is not enough to come to conclusions. You have to test it alot.

Exactly. GP Chicago represents a LOT of test data, as much or more than the entirety of the February results that went into the current DTB forum. Also, there were pros at GP Chicago, so the level of competition was higher. It was BY FAR the most meaningful, statistically relevant Legacy tournament ever played.

Peter_Rotten

03-17-2009, 02:54 PM

It was BY FAR the most meaningful, statistically relevant Legacy tournament ever played.

If we take that statement as true, then we (the site) have really missed the boat on Black Disruption decks.

Seems like a superb Adept Question, no? Someone should get on that. - Bardo

I understand your point, but I think that most Legacy tournies do not see many pros playing. And from what I here of Nadidifgicd's magical skillz, he could have played Madness to the top8.

Volt

03-17-2009, 02:57 PM

If we take that statement as true, then we (the site) have really missed the boat on Black Disruption decks.

That is a possibility that has to be seriously considered. While I consider The Source to be the most expansive Legacy site around, we are still somewhat inbred and set in our ways at times.

Belgareth

03-17-2009, 03:01 PM

GP Chicago represents a LOT of test data, as much or more than the entirety of the February results that went into the current DTB forum. Also, there were pros at GP Chicago, so the level of competition was higher. It was BY FAR the most meaningful, statistically relevant Legacy tournament ever played in the USA.

Fixed.
Apart from Pro's not many people travelled from Europe/Asia, so the sample is skewed.
To me the most relevant tournament ever was Lille as it was on European soil and thus more relevant to my area.
The difference with using somewhere like deckcheck.net is that you get a sample pool from all over the world not just USA.
Yes people in USA look at world data and could have chosen to play any deck but there is always regional preference (Over here Agroloam sees So much more play).
Yes Chicago was valuable but it wasn't the definitive legacy metagame sample for the world.

Volt

03-17-2009, 03:03 PM

@Belgareth: Ok, that's fair.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-17-2009, 04:02 PM

To squash this argument:

No one is saying to ban Tarmogoyf because you can't deal with it. If that were the problem, I'd be advocating banning Counterbalance or Top, which create the only situation in which it is realistically hard for a deck with dedicated removal or a tribal theme to find an answer to Goyf with some reliability.

Even then, though, I might be annoyed at how little effort it takes to make Goyf a threat that must be answered. Regardless, that's not the problem.

The problem is that Goyf obsoletes any reason to run other creatures. It doesn't push decks out of existence; it pushes creature diversity out of existence. Most of the DTB and DTW would remain, but every single one of them would replace Tarmogoyf with a different creature than the other, with the result that combat in Legacy would once again become dynamic.

Legacy had never previously had a creature whose presence on a list didn't even need to be discussed. I for one don't find the change to be benevolent.

They could print more creatures on Tarmogoyf's power curve, but it'd probably be easier and go over better with fans to ban one not particularly beloved card rather than print new creatures that obsolete thirteen years of cards and the entire history of red removal.

Premise: Legacy's popularity is based on it being the most wide open format ever. Dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of decks are potentially viable. Tarmogoyf hurts this appeal. He doesn't ruin it the way something like, for instance, Hulk-Flash did, but he hurts it; not by limiting deck selection specifically, but by making all decks look a little more alike.

BreathWeapon

03-17-2009, 04:31 PM

I don't agree that banning him will diversify the format. What decks will see more play because he is not present? What decks are currently NOT played because of Goyf?

Looking at the DTB Forum (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=23), what decks would fall from prominence? Survival, Thresh, AggroLoam? Probably not.

Looking at the Established Deck Forum (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24), what decks would become better without Goyf in the format? GoyfSligh loses its best beater so becomes weaker. TA suffers the same situation. UG Dreadstill loses its reason to run green, so we lose a a variety of Dreadstill here. EvaGreen loses its best beater and would now run green to... Disenchant things? And what currently Goyf-less decks get better if he is not present? MeatHooks? edit - below my post Arsenal mentions RedDeath becoming unplayable. Fair enough, but would RedDeath really be THAT viable in a-Goyfless meta?

And if Goyf is banned, how threads will we start next year about how Green sucks?

If you ban Tarmogoyf, you open the door for WW, B/x, Slivers and decks revolving around efficient 1cc beaters like Wild Nacatl, Kird Ape etc. in the format. Like IBA said, every deck running Tarmogoyf ends up replacing Tarmogoyf with a dissimilar creature, so even if Aggro-Control remains at the top of the food chain, at least aggro-control has to actually think about its threat composition against aggro, control and other aggro-control decks.

Tarmogoyf is a huge barrier to entry for every creature that is in print or will be printed in the near future, I don't think banning him can do anything but diversify the format.

Eh, we'll probably have less "green sucks" threads than "white sucks" threads, bitching about the color wheel is usually just a waste of time any way; we know which colors always come out on top in this game.

I wasn't trying to start a "I have more Tarmos than you Epeen war," BTW. I'm a middle aged professional, so it's not really a fair comparison to the majority of high school, college and post college people playing the format. My point was you can't let your personal investment in a format deter you from making changes for the greater good, it's just pathetically petty in the long run for the game. I just really hate the " you can't deal with Tarmogoyf" or you " don't own Tarmogoyfs" counter argument, it's just fucking juvenile.

Peter_Rotten

03-17-2009, 04:59 PM

rantrantrant.

What you have just posted used to be said about Lackey and Ringleader. There is always something to complain about.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-17-2009, 05:00 PM

Wah wah wah, I don't have an argument. I'm sad now.

Two can play at this game, good sir.

But in seriousness, the same things that were said in various formats about Skullclamp, Umezawa's Jitte and Armadillo Cloak. What's more relevant is how well they applied. Goblins was arguably overly dominant a few years ago, but I think that was mostly the result of laziness and how many people played the damned thing, although it was still a very good deck. Many cards have been printed since then, and the mana curve has lowered on the format generally, despite the pressure from CB-Top and Chalice. Whether or not people said things that may or may not have been true about Goblin cards three years ago can have minimal influence on the current debate. Especially given that Tarmogoyf, unlike Goblins, isn't a deck but a very, very powerful and versatile card. I have difficulty imagining a natural course that Legacy could take that didn't involve Tarmogoyf dominating the top tables in the future, other than by it's banning.

Solaran_X

03-17-2009, 06:05 PM

The problem is that Goyf obsoletes any reason to run other creatures. It doesn't push decks out of existence; it pushes creature diversity out of existence. Most of the DTB and DTW would remain, but every single one of them would replace Tarmogoyf with a different creature than the other, with the result that combat in Legacy would once again become dynamic.
I know I said I was bowing out of this discussion, but this paragraph has forced a response.

I think I know what Bear's problem is now. He's looking at creatures as just a win condition, and not utility and tricks. Tarmogoyf does not obsolete any reason to run other creatures...it just "obsoletes" any reason to run beaters in the 2CMC range.

But he does not obsolete any reason to run other creatures.

Just using my Aggro-Loam deck as an example, I'll show you why Tarmogoyf doesn't obsolete every other creature (and yes, I know one of my examples is a highly specialized example).

If my opponent is running a lot of small creatures, Tarmogoyf will be ineffective since he'll be constantly chump blocked (remember, you don't need to kill Tarmogoyf to make him useless - just stop him from hitting you). However, Terravore (yes, he requires a deck to be "built" around him...but just like Tarmogoyf, whenever I play him he gets bigger over the natural course of playing my deck) has Trample. So my opponent now has to commit more creatures to blocking Terravore to minimize the damage. As you can see, Tarmogoyf has not obsoleted Terravore because he cannot fill the role that Terravore fills.

My deck requires a lot of thinning to be effective, and lands in my graveyard are actually better than lands in play. So I'd need a creature that effectively puts lands in my graveyard. Once again, this is something Tarmogoyf cannot do. However, Countryside Crusher can. And while he's filling my graveyard with lands and getting bigger (in addition to getting bigger off my Wastelands, Fetchlands, cycled lands, any lands of mine my opponent destroys, and any lands I destroy of my own with Devastating Dreams), he's also making Terravore far bigger. As you can see, Tarmogoyf has not obsoleted Countryside Crusher because he cannot fill the role that Countryside Crusher fills.

Extra card drawing is always nice, even if it costs a little life. That's where Dark Confidant comes into play. Plus, he's always good for two or three early game swings to make later finishing of my opponent easier. But his main purpose in life is to generate card advantage for me at the cost of life (which is usually no life, since 35 of the 60 cards in my deck are 0CMC). As you can see, Tarmogoyf has not obsoleted Dark Confidant because he cannot fill the role that Dark Confidant fills.

Recurring cards from my graveyard is always a bonus. Especially when it's attached to any easily killed 2/1 I can infinitely recur with a land in my deck. This is where Eternal Witness comes into play. I can play her every turn while returning any card from my graveyard to my hand. As you can see, Tarmogoyf has not obsoleted Eternal Witness because he cannot fill the role that Eternal Witness fills.

The last creature in my deck is newer than Tarmogoyf, so we can't really say he obsoleted Vexing Shusher. But the Shusher, by himself, gives counter-based control fits since he single handedly shuts down Counterbalance, Force of Will, Counterspell, Chalice of the Void, and many other obscure occassionally used counters. As you can see, Tarmogoyf has not obsoleted Vexing Shusher because he cannot fill the role that Vexing Shusher fills.

Bear, you need to realize that creatures aren't all about turning sideways to deal damage. For that reason, Tarmogoyf hasn't and never could make running any other creature obsolete. Granted, he's more effective than most other beaters...but in non-Control decks, he's often run alongside other beaters I'm sure you'd say are now obsolete (Kird Apes, Jotun Grunt, Wild Nacatl, etc., etc.). And in other decks, there are beaters that Tarmogoyf could never hope to even hold a torch too (what's more dangerous...a turn 2 Tarmogoyf or a turn 2 Phyrexian Dreadnought?).

Jeet

03-17-2009, 06:35 PM

...it just "obsoletes" any reason to run beaters in the 2CMC range.

It also obsoletes 3CMC and 4CMC. (beaters)

Solpugid

03-17-2009, 07:34 PM

Bear, you need to realize that creatures aren't all about turning sideways to deal damage. For that reason, Tarmogoyf hasn't and never could make running any other creature obsolete.

combat in Legacy would once again become dynamic.

That may clear up a little miscommunication. I assume IBA was mostly referring to combat creatures in the first place, although goyf does to some degree reduce the effectiveness of utility creatures like confidant in that (in most cases) they may as well be enchantments that can sacrifice to fog for a turn.

it just "obsoletes" any reason to run beaters in the 2CMC range.

It also obsoletes 3CMC and 4CMC. (beaters)

Jeet beat me to it, but this is kinda important.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-17-2009, 09:39 PM

Tarmogoyf ended a hundred questions about the nature of ground combat in Legacy. Yes, yes, you can build a deck around Terravore, Phyrexian Dreadnought or Progenitus to have a better creature, or just reanimate a Sutured Ghoul, but unless you're devoting your deck to making guys bigger, there's really no question of which creature you want in a fight, whether 2, 3, or 4 cc. Heck, most 5cc beaters would lose to Goyf by the time they can hit the field.

nitewolf9

03-17-2009, 10:28 PM

Heck, most 5cc beaters would lose to Goyf by the time they can hit the field.

http://sales.starcitygames.com/cardscans/MAGAPO/spiritmonger.jpg

Time to bring him back, guys.

FoolofaTook

03-17-2009, 10:29 PM

It also obsoletes 3CMC and 4CMC. (beaters)

It really doesn't. It just obsoletes a specific class of 2cc green beater (QDryad, Werebear, Wild Mongrel) that otherwise saw a lot of play and now has no valid place in the meta.

It also obsoletes a few questionable previously played creatures (Phyrexian Negator, Psychatog, Morphling) that fit in specific themes that either have rolled over to CounterTop or incorporated Tarmogoyf instead as their main beater.

I see very few decks using Tarmogoyf instead of any creature not listed above.

Solaran_X

03-17-2009, 10:35 PM

It also obsoletes 3CMC and 4CMC. (beaters)
What's more dangerous on turn 3? A 4/5 Tarmogoyf for 1G, or an 8/8 Terravore with Trample for 1GG?

Jeet

03-17-2009, 10:45 PM

What's more dangerous on turn 3? A 4/5 Tarmogoyf for 1G, or an 8/8 Terravore with Trample for 1GG?

How does that argument make any sense? What about a turn 3 reanimated Simic Sky Swallower? Those need decks built around them, while Tarmogoyf doesn't and fits in most decks that aren't combo.

scrow213

03-17-2009, 10:46 PM

What's more dangerous on turn 3? A 4/5 Tarmogoyf for 1G, or an 8/8 Terravore with Trample for 1GG?

Corner-case arguments FTW!

Volt

03-17-2009, 10:53 PM

Corner-case arguments FTW!

Also, 8/8 Terravore on turn 3 is quite... opimistic.

Jak

03-17-2009, 10:59 PM

It really doesn't. It just obsoletes a specific class of 2cc green beater (QDryad, Werebear, Wild Mongrel) that otherwise saw a lot of play and now has no valid place in the meta.

It also obsoletes a few questionable previously played creatures (Phyrexian Negator, Psychatog, Morphling) that fit in specific themes that either have rolled over to CounterTop or incorporated Tarmogoyf instead as their main beater.

I see very few decks using Tarmogoyf instead of any creature not listed above.

Do you not see how bad that is?

It also obsoletes a few questionable previously played creatures (Phyrexian Negator, Psychatog, Morphling) that fit in specific themes that either have rolled over to CounterTop or incorporated Tarmogoyf instead as their main beater.

This is exactly what people have been saying. Do you realize how every card you mentioned is neither Green or costs 2? Do you see how far Tarmogoyf has changed the format? I wouldn't even say it was CB that hurt those decks since most of them are still played (Sui Black, UBg Control - ie Vorosh, and MUC). But now 2 out of those 3 decks splash for Goyf and forgo great creatures in their own colors.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-17-2009, 11:00 PM

Also, 8/8 Terravore on turn 3 is quite... opimistic.

I think the assumption Solaran is making in this case is that you're playing against Ichorid.

Of course, it's a consolation, since he who dies with the most 8/8 Terravores is still dead.

FoolofaTook

03-17-2009, 11:04 PM

Do you not see how bad that is?

It also obsoletes a few questionable previously played creatures (Phyrexian Negator, Psychatog, Morphling) that fit in specific themes that either have rolled over to CounterTop or incorporated Tarmogoyf instead as their main beater.

This is exactly what people have been saying. Do you realize how every card you mentioned is neither Green or costs 2? Do you see how far Tarmogoyf has changed the format? I wouldn't even say it was CB that hurt those decks since most of them are still played (Sui Black, UBg Control - ie Vorosh, and MUC). But now 2 out of those 3 decks splash for Goyf and forgo great creatures in their own colors.

This kind of transition has happened before in eternal formats and it will happen again. Tarmogoyf was a leap and it will probably take awhile for it to be bested, however it's a natural progression. Once upon a time Serra Angels, Juzam and Erhnam Djinns and Mahamoti Djinns were used as the big beaters.

scrow213

03-17-2009, 11:09 PM

This kind of transition has happened before in eternal formats and it will happen again. Tarmogoyf was a leap and it will probably take awhile for it to be bested, however it's a natural progression.

When was the last "leap" of this size? And if they do print something better than a 4/5 for 1G, then Magic is going down the shitter fast, because power creep is the bane of all TCGs.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-17-2009, 11:12 PM

Not all power curves are relative. We've seen gradual improvements in the creature power curve in Magic particularly; we've also seen new spells (Top, CB, P. Needle, Ponder, Thoughtseize, a number of Equipment) emerge in the format as they've been released. What we haven't seen is an abandonment of the curve such as Tarmogoyf represents. Adjusting the creature power curve to make other new creatures that compete with Tarmogoyf would completely obsolete fourteen years of Magic history (hint: this is the format's goddamn draw), and obsolete most red removal. A lot of black removal, too; God knows Ghastly Demise hasn't been seeing much play lately. Jitte and SofI themselves are a lot less potent now.

Powerful cards are fine, but sometimes you have to consider the health of the format overall. Tarmogoyf drags the format off kilter in a way that I don't think will end well.

FoolofaTook

03-17-2009, 11:55 PM

When was the last "leap" of this size? And if they do print something better than a 4/5 for 1G, then Magic is going down the shitter fast, because power creep is the bane of all TCGs.

All they need to do is print a 2cc beater for red that is somewhere in the neighborhood of Tarmogoyf. At that point Threads of Disloyalty, Sower of Temptation and a few other control spells will begin to see a lot more use and goyf (and the new addition) will both become double-edged swords that require more thought than goyf currently does. Path to Exile and Relic of Progenitus are already creating additional options if not ones that are immediately valuable MD.

Path to Exile is widely seen as very inferior to Swords to Plowshares and dismissed as barely playable in Legacy. This is a valid analysis of the card assuming the mana curve in Legacy does not narrow down further to just 1cc and 2cc for 90% of the plays. If the curve narrows that way then the negative effects of handing your opponent an additional land in play probably are mitigated since there's not a lot they can use that additional mana for except to empty their hand quicker, potentially over-extending in the process.

scrow213

03-17-2009, 11:59 PM

All they need to do is print a 2cc beater for red that is somewhere in the neighborhood of Tarmogoyf. At that point Threads of Disloyalty, Sower of Temptation and a few other control spells will begin to see a lot more use and goyf (and the new addition) will both become double-edged swords that require more thought than goyf currently does. Path to Exile and Relic of Progenitus are already creating additional options if not ones that are immediately valuable MD.

Path to Exile is widely seen as very inferior to Swords to Plowshares and dismissed as barely playable in Legacy. This is a valid analysis of the card assuming the mana curve in Legacy does not narrow down further to just 1cc and 2cc for 90% of the plays. If the curve narrows that way then the negative effects of handing your opponent an additional land in play probably are mitigated since there's not a lot they can use that additional mana for except to empty their hand quicker, potentially over-extending in the process.

So the answer to Tarmogoyf is to... print another Tarmogoyf? I guess I need to iterate that power creep is the bane of TCGs.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-17-2009, 11:59 PM

FoaT, there's fourteen years' history of gameplay here. Which is easier; reconfiguring the entire power curve of the game, or ditching one card?

etrigan

03-18-2009, 12:34 AM

Obsoleting something else is not a reason for banning. Lightning Bolt is better than any other burn spell, and Tarmogoyf is quite possibly better than any other creature.

Ban Lightning Bolt? Fuck No.

This entire line of reasoning is flawed.

Here's the argument, Does Tarmogoyf hinder or nourish format diversity?

Here's a hint, you can never actually quantify this, and it's pointless to try, as we're not in a position to decide. For every deck you can say Tarmogoyf pushed out of the format, you can name another that wouldn't exist without it.

The format right now is good. Stop.

FoolofaTook

03-18-2009, 12:46 AM

FoaT, there's fourteen years' history of gameplay here. Which is easier; reconfiguring the entire power curve of the game, or ditching one card?

They've already reconfigured the power curve of the game as near as I can tell. And I don't think the power curve has stayed the same over the period of time that you think it has.

Counterbalance, Tarmogoyf and Stifle/Nought have made 2 mana the tipping point for a lot of successful strategies at this point. There are other 2cc permanents that could easily become dominant if they were exploited often enough. Survival of the Fittest is kind of occupying the niche that Counterbalance did 2 years ago before it was really discovered, as the next great thing we should all be exploiting.

Jeet

03-18-2009, 12:49 AM

Lightning Bolt is better than any other burn spell, and Tarmogoyf is quite possibly better than any other creature.

Ban Lightning Bolt? Fuck No.

Exactly!

Lightning Bolt is only better than other burn spells not all other instants. If there was an instant better than any other instants and would be splashed in almost every legacy deck, I think it too would deserve a ban.

Tarmogoyf is better than any other creature. You said it yourself.

scrow213

03-18-2009, 12:49 AM

Obsoleting something else is not a reason for banning. Lightning Bolt is better than any other burn spell, and Tarmogoyf is quite possibly better than any other creature.

Ban Lightning Bolt? Fuck No.

This entire line of reasoning is flawed.

Here's the argument, Does Tarmogoyf hinder or nourish format diversity?

Here's a hint, you can never actually quantify this, and it's pointless to try, as we're not in a position to decide. For every deck you can say Tarmogoyf pushed out of the format, you can name another that wouldn't exist without it.

The format right now is good. Stop.

Tarmogoyf does more than obsolete "something". Lightning Bolt is not absurdly better than anything else in its category. It also doesn't shift years of Cost:Damage ratio that this game has run on since inception. Yes the curve has slowly changed, but not an enormous jump like this. Very poor logic, sir.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-18-2009, 12:56 AM

Obsoleting something else is not a reason for banning. Lightning Bolt is better than any other burn spell, and Tarmogoyf is quite possibly better than any other creature.

Ban Lightning Bolt? Fuck No.

This entire line of reasoning is flawed.

While we agree on the last line, we're disagreeing on it's application.

Lightning Bolt obsoletes a narrow range of spells, sort of. To a certain extent, Lightning Bolt encourages you to play more burn, to provide redundancy in reach/removal in an aggressive deck. Regardless, Lightning Bolt is the best at a narrow effect in one color.

Every color is a creature color, and Tarmogoyf obsoletes the vast majority of those creatures in a way that discourages competition in every color. Creatures are the fundamental win condition built into the game; in almost every format, in almost every deck, that's how you win.

Tarmogoyf obsoleting other creatures is completely different from Lightning bolt obsoleting other burn spells.

Here's the argument, Does Tarmogoyf hinder or nourish format diversity?

Here's a hint, you can never actually quantify this, and it's pointless to try, as we're not in a position to decide. For every deck you can say Tarmogoyf pushed out of the format, you can name another that wouldn't exist without it.

Actually, Alix was completely unable to do this. Maybe you can step up to the plate; what decks, exactly, wouldn't exist without Tarmogoyf? Decks that build around Tarmogoyf are non-existent because there's no point. You don't build a Tarmogoyf deck. You build a 56 card deck, throw green into the manabase, and then add Tarmogoyf as a foregone conclusion to whatever else your deck is trying to do. This is how Legacy works now.

And saying we can never make value judgments about quality is absurd and idiotic, frankly. Save the would be philosophizing for LiveJournal.

The format right now is good. Stop.

Never stop. Never compromise.

AngryTroll

03-18-2009, 02:44 AM

http://sales.starcitygames.com/cardscans/MAGAPO/spiritmonger.jpg

Time to bring him back, guys.

Actually, it's time to introduce

http://sales.starcitygames.com//cardscans/MAGPRM/spiritmongerGP.jpg

to the format.

Tarmgoyf, Rawr, Rawr, RAWR.

xsockmonkeyx

03-18-2009, 09:57 AM

http://www.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/Armageddon.jpg

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/Rorschach.gif

Never compromise.

GGoober

03-18-2009, 02:13 PM

Wow, so many posts on here. It's great to see the CB/Top/Goyf arguement.

Firstly, I think that out of the 3, either Top or Goyf has to be banned. If Top is banned, then the format would be faster in REAL time. CB without Top is so weak that it wouldn't be run unless some kind of Scroll Rack Engine is involved. Yet, again, I think that Top has to stay in place otherwise Storm Combo would go unchecked and be more prominent, and then we'll be led to issues of banning LED and other items. i.e. a huge mess.

To be honest, I think that Goyf should stick since it "defines" the aggro backbone of Legacy, at least decks that do not build on synergy, but simply pick a win-con. On the other hand, Goyf should get the axe, solely for the sake of diversifying the aggro meta-game. Sure, Goblins will be on the rise since Goyfs are gone, but even with Goyfs, any player still always have to deal with Vial + Lackey. I think that if Goyf is banned, the format would change tremendously, which maybe a bad thing since so many decks are built on the backbone on Goyf as a win condition.

But addressing the posts earlier, we talked about how people wanted to build fairly competitive decks with other creature bases but were stifled since when they reviewed their options, they concluded "Goyf is better in this slot". No shit it would be better. It's just simply an overpowered creature that was a mistake ever to be released. When did Wizards ever want to give a 1G 4/5 without a drawback? Sure you can shrink him, but in a format where cards hit the graveyard like speed bullets, he is often 3/4, 4/5 even after removal.

Many decks would suffer if Goyf is banned, but they won't be decimated. It would diversify the creaturebase and decks can run their own signature creature. E.g. ITF can probably run Knight of the Reliquary as a Goyf replacement which works well with LftL. Goyf Sligh would have to revert to more burn or red creature base, Thresh would revert back to Werebear, Dryad builds. Dreadstill would simply have a non-existing UG build which is fine since the more competitive ones are UR, UW anyway. What I am saying that with Goyf banned, more decks that were inhibited to exist can now exist because they no longer have to resort to running goyfs, or scrap the deck because it has to run 8 hate to goyfs and not fit the deck shell tight enough for the deck to exist.

So out of CB/Top/Goyf, I think although Top is the most troublesome, it should stay with CB otherwise the combo decks would be left unchecked. With CB/Top in place and Goyf out, we can see that Threshold, NLU would not be too strong, but good enough at the same time to find a replacement creature that fits the deck just fine. The banning of Goyf would also revitalize other decks that were thrown away in N&D or obsolete in Developing due to the reason "Why not run Goyfs?"

Countertop is annoying as hell, but so is the comment "Where are the Goyfs?" in decks that were not supposed to run it at all. Hell, UG Merfolk has a better performance than MErfolk? We might as well give Goyf Changeling and justify him being run in ANY deck. He might as well have that ability since it's just so annoying that people need to run him in so many decks for the deck to be competitive. Note that the decks are already competitive, but not competitive against decks WITH Goyfs, so they have no choice but to run him. That is the most annoying part of Legacy, despite my love for the format. The annoying thing is that people have to run Goyfs to be competitive, at least in decks that are not bent on Synergy. The recent Natural Order Elf-Survival has included Goyfs as well as part of a backup plan. Perhaps Goblins one day would include Goyfs as well, giving up some synergy but having a backup plan.

Goyf is the bane of Legacy at the moment. It's not overpowered since the format has many solutions for it, but hell it does stifle the format development, and that to me is the bane of an Eternal format where the format is meant to mutate and evolve. Goyf stops creature evolution.

Seriously, and to think we used to believe that Morphling, Spiritmonger were easily the best creatures in MTG since they are still very playable for their manacost. Goyf just points the middle finger and tells them to GTFO. Or seriously, making Goyf double green, and acknowledge it was a print mistake, and the format would be SO MUCH HEALTHIER. It's seriously that one-colorless that fucks up Legacy. Interestingly, Goyf is much more prominently powerful in Legacy than Extended, and the reason is, Legacy can capitilize on the tempo gains from deck strategies, while Extended is a much slower format.

scrow213

03-18-2009, 02:35 PM

A lot of stuff.

I agree with almost every single thing you said. The one clarification I have is your statement that 'goyf should stick because it lets decks have a wincon without having synergy. I don't think decks deserve a wincon that isn't synergistic with their deck. I mean, the entire deck is supposed to work together, each piece helping another piece, and then you just have Tarmogoyf because... well, he is a beatstick with no strings attached. Lame.

GGoober

03-18-2009, 04:14 PM

To be perfectly honest, that statement is there so that people who are pro-goyf would not feel that they're "losing" too much. I think that every deck's win-con should be more unique or tailored to the deck's need. Goyf right now is just a win-con in almost any deck that can splash green. We're talking about Legacy, so splashing isn't a problem outside of money issues (look at TA I mean). Just as MUC's win-con is Morphling, MWC is Painter Servant/Dragon, we should try to see other decks have a variety of different win-cons rather than just one-creature who makes every deck the same, predictable. I guess that's the draw back of running goyfs, because your win-con isn't as stable, but hell, if he sticks, you're going to have a high chance of winning.

aTn

03-18-2009, 04:38 PM

Volt

03-18-2009, 04:46 PM

I really don't see what the pros are talking about.

Banning Top, Goyf or Counterbalance doesn't make sense to me. All these cards can be (and are handled) by most decks in the format. The fact that most Top8s present a healthy dose of non-Top decks is enough (IMO) to prove that Top isn't "warping the format".

If SDT is banned in Legacy, it will be for the same reason it was banned in Extended: time constraints. It has nothing to do with "warping the format."

aTn

03-18-2009, 04:50 PM

If SDT is banned in Legacy, it will be for the same reason it was banned in Extended: time constraints. It has nothing to do with "warping the format."

I agree, but even the "time constraints" argument is ridiculous IMO. I've played with or against decks playing Top since people have started playing it in Legacy and I've heard only on rare occasions that it "caused a draw". It gives opportunity for people who want to slow play to do so, but if you suspect that, why not call a judge to see if your opponent is simply topping to rearrange 3 lands or irrelevant cards and taking his time ?

Let's say I'm wrong and assume that Top can cause draws with a good probability. People advocating for a ban will have to show (IMO) that decks in tournaments playing it are present in enough numbers to warrant a ban. I don't think the situation in Legacy right now is similar to that in Extended when everybody and their brother (i.e. a signification portion of the field) were playing NLU with CB-Top. Also, CB-Top was wayyyyy more dangerous in Extended than in Legacy.

Volt

03-18-2009, 04:56 PM

I agree, but even the "time constraints" argument is ridiculous IMO. I've played with or against decks playing Top since people have started playing it in Legacy and I've heard only on rare occasions that it "caused a draw". It gives opportunity for people who want to slow play to do so, but if you suspect that, why not call a judge to see if your opponent is simply topping to rearrange 3 lands or irrelevant cards and taking his time ?

Let's say I'm wrong and assume that Top can cause draws with a good probability. People advocating for a ban will have to show (IMO) that decks in tournaments playing it are present in enough numbers to warrant a ban. I don't think the situation in Legacy right now is similar to that in Extended when everybody and their brother (i.e. a signification portion of the field) were playing NLU with CB-Top. Also, CB-Top was wayyyyy more dangerous in Extended than in Legacy.

Well, I assume Wizards got all the data they needed at GP Chicago to make a decision one way or the other. We'll see what they decided in a couple days.

Obfuscate Freely

03-18-2009, 05:38 PM

Actually, Alix was completely unable to do this. Maybe you can step up to the plate; what decks, exactly, wouldn't exist without Tarmogoyf? Decks that build around Tarmogoyf are non-existent because there's no point. You don't build a Tarmogoyf deck. You build a 56 card deck, throw green into the manabase, and then add Tarmogoyf as a foregone conclusion to whatever else your deck is trying to do. This is how Legacy works now.
Please don't use my lapse of participation in this lurid shouting match of yours in an attempt to bully around those who happen to agree with me. It's particularly tasteless, even for you.

Or were you really just throwing out my name as a way to entice me back into the thread? Should I be flattered?

You say that Tarmogoyf pushed weaker cards out of the format, and I agreed. Every playable card does this, some of them to very nearly the same degree as Tarmogoyf, but the fact that it is an easily-splashable and stategically versatile card (a "beater") puts 'goyf on top in this category. You have yet to convince me that the format is really suffering because of this.

Now, as I said before, diversity of decks is far more important than diversity of cards (and yes, even creatures are just cards!) within those decks, and nobody but Finn has claimed that Tarmogoyf has been anything but beneficial on this front. Others have listed decks for you - Team America, Canadian Threshold, Goyf Sligh, Cephalid Breakfast, It's the Fear - decks that would either not exist, or be severely weakened without Tarmogoyf. Beyond that, we can speculate about decks like Landstill that would not be nearly as viable as they are now, if it was not for the metagame shift away from Goblins (and towards CounterTop Goyf decks), that may or may not have been caused by Tarmogoyf.

So there, Jack. I have now satisfied your demand for a list of some of the positive contributions Tarmogoyf has made to the format. By my count, you now owe me a list of 15-18 creatures that are being kept out of the format by Tarmogoyf, which I'm sure you will offer. However, That list will be irrelevant, as, once again, deck diversity is more important than whether or not Descendant of Kiyomaro is playable.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-18-2009, 05:51 PM

Please don't use my lapse of participation in this lurid shouting match of yours in an attempt to bully around those who happen to agree with me. It's particularly tasteless, even for you.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Alix.

Or were you really just throwing out my name as a way to entice me back into the thread? Should I be flattered?

"Lapse of participation or not, after you first failed to name a deck that wouldn't exist without Goyf, you responded at least twice and each time after I asked you again for some examples. I hardly think it's unfair to point out the track record on this matter.

You say that Tarmogoyf pushed weaker cards out of the format, and I agreed. Every playable card does this, some of them to very nearly the same degree as Tarmogoyf, but the fact that it is an easily-splashable and stategically versatile card (a "beater") puts 'goyf on top in this category. You have yet to convince me that the format is really suffering because of this.

Every card either sinks to the bottom or reduces the influence of other cards, yes. Sometimes this effect is mild in Legacy, as with, say, Warren's Weirding. Sometimes this effect is more noticeable, as with Flash-Hulk. Tarmogoyf is somewhere in between, but I would say closer to the latter than the former in the amount of diversity it supresses.

Whether or not you consider that bad, that's up to you. I think Goyf severely reduces the interaction in the format and the possibilities of deck design.

Now, as I said before, diversity of decks is far more important than diversity of cards (and yes, even creatures are just cards!) within those decks, and nobody but Finn has claimed that Tarmogoyf has been anything but beneficial on this front. Others have listed decks for you - Team America, Canadian Threshold, Goyf Sligh, Cephalid Breakfast, It's the Fear - decks that would either not exist, or be severely weakened without Tarmogoyf. Beyond that, we can speculate about decks like Landstill that would not be nearly as viable as they are now, if it was not for the metagame shift away from Goblins (and towards CounterTop Goyf decks), that may or may not have been caused by Tarmogoyf.

So there, Jack. I have now satisfied your demand for a list of some of the positive contributions Tarmogoyf has made to the format. By my count, you now owe me a list of 15-18 creatures that are being kept out of the format by Tarmogoyf, which I'm sure you will offer. However, That list will be irrelevant, as, once again, deck diversity is more important than whether or not Descendant of Kiyomaro is playable.

Canadian Threshold was, in fact, played before Goyf. Goyf Sligh is Tiger Sligh, which won the first Legacy Championship at GenCon, with Quirion Dryad in place of Goyf. Cephalid Breakfast as you well fucking know you lying liar only added Goyf later on, with a rulings change that let Sutured Ghoul + Goyfs work, and was still quite a good deck without it.

I'll give you Team America and It's the Fear, and see you with Flametongue Kavu, Fire/Ice, Lightning Bolt, Ghastly Demise, Fire Imp, Troll Ascetic, Wild Mongrel, Arrogant Wurm, Werebear, Burning-Tree Shaman, Silver Knight, Exalted Angel, Phyrexian Negator and Flesh Reaver. I'll raise you White Weenie, Angel Stompy, Red Death and Deadguy Ale.

I'm going to propose that Legacy is more popular than Vintage, despit the latter often allowing upwards of double digit proxies, partially because "deck variety" actually translates into "card variety", not just the same forty-five card shell with fifteen cards difference.

Obfuscate Freely

03-18-2009, 06:41 PM

Every card either sinks to the bottom or reduces the influence of other cards, yes. Sometimes this effect is mild in Legacy, as with, say, Warren's Weirding. Sometimes this effect is more noticeable, as with Flash-Hulk. Tarmogoyf is somewhere in between, but I would say closer to the latter than the former in the amount of diversity it supresses.

Whether or not you consider that bad, that's up to you. I think Goyf severely reduces the interaction in the format and the possibilities of deck design.
Again, it seems like you are trying to relate Tarmogoyf to Flash purely in the interest of invoking resentment. Flash pushed decks out of the metagame; in fact, it made almost every other deck unviable. Tarmogoyf has pushed cards out of the metagame, just as all played cards do.

Canadian Threshold was, in fact, played before Goyf.
Then, it must have been, in fact, terrible. The deck enjoyed its first notable success at GenCon '07, with Tarmogoyf in it.

Goyf Sligh is Tiger Sligh, which won the first Legacy Championship at GenCon, with Quirion Dryad in place of Goyf.
Do you mean this deck (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=2121), which came in second place? It looks kind of different, to me (where's Dryad?).

We can argue over whether questionably-constructed, burn-heavy aggro decks were good in 2005, but my point is that they benefitted greatly from the addition of such an efficient damage source. In today's environment, Sligh would not be playable without Tarmogoyf.

Cephalid Breakfast as you well fucking know you lying liar only added Goyf later on, with a rulings change that let Sutured Ghoul + Goyfs work, and was still quite a good deck without it.
Tarmogoyf represented a huge boost to Breakfast. While, yes, the deck had enjoyed some success prior to its addition, it wasn't until afterwards that the deck placed at GenCon, and saw subsequent play at Worlds. As with Sligh, losing Tarmogoyf would render Breakfast unplayable today.

I'll give you Team America and It's the Fear, and see you with Flametongue Kavu, Fire/Ice, Lightning Bolt, Ghastly Demise, Fire Imp, Troll Ascetic, Wild Mongrel, Arrogant Wurm, Werebear, Burning-Tree Shaman, Silver Knight, Exalted Angel, Phyrexian Negator and Flesh Reaver. I'll raise you White Weenie, Angel Stompy, Red Death and Deadguy Ale.
A couple of those cards aren't creatures (your attitude seems to be that creature diversity matters a lot more than spell diversity), and several of the others are terrible regardless of Tarmogoyf's existence (I'm looking at you, Madness, as well as those shitty white cards). However, as I said before, I am only really interested in the decks that Tarmogoyf has "obsoleted."

For those, you list White Weenie and Angel Stompy, one of which largely replaced the other, and both of which justified their existence primarily by appealing to nostalgia and a strong matchup against Goblins. These are awful decks, and Tarmogoyf did nothing to hurt them.

Red Death has been bandied about several times in this discussion, but you neglect to mention its sister deck, Eva Green. Now, I would argue that Eva Green is simply an evolution of Red Death, a new build of the deck adapted to both better deal with Tarmogoyf and to incorporate Tarmogoyf itself. You can disagree, and argue that the two decks are distinct, but if that is the case then Eva Green qualifies as another deck that Tarmogoyf has added to the format. Either way, you can hardly say that Tarmogoyf has lessened diversity by replacing one Suicide build with another, so let's call it a wash.

Deadguy Ale is a similar case. The deck still exists, but in a green-splashing form that goes by different names, such as "Doran Rock," or "BGW Goodstuff," or somesuch. Personally, I think the deck was and still is shitty, but Tarmogoyf isn't to blame for that, and it still sees at least as much success as it did before. Hell, the deck even made the Top 8 in Chicago.

I'm going to propose that Legacy is more popular than Vintage, despit the latter often allowing upwards of double digit proxies, partially because "deck variety" actually translates into "card variety", not just the same forty-five card shell with fifteen cards difference.
Tarmogoyf will never be as ubiquitous as Black Lotus, Ancestral Recall, or Moxen, but your point is made even more absurd by your own hyperbole. Surely you will admit that, even if most Legacy decks tend to include a set of Tarmogoyfs, this is nowhere near as severe a constraint on deckbuilding as a "forty-five card shell" of broken restricted cards?

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-18-2009, 08:44 PM

Again, it seems like you are trying to relate Tarmogoyf to Flash purely in the interest of invoking resentment. Flash pushed decks out of the metagame; in fact, it made almost every other deck unviable. Tarmogoyf has pushed cards out of the metagame, just as all played cards do.

Very well; To get right to the point. What do you think the format would look like if Time Walk was legal?

Then, it must have been, in fact, terrible. The deck enjoyed its first notable success at GenCon '07, with Tarmogoyf in it.

Maybe. I can't find any good placements for the deck. Very well, then, since we're on the subject of everybody elses' decks sucking;

Rogue Elephant, Ghazban Ogre, Vine Dryad.

How's them apples?

Do you mean this deck (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=2121), which came in second place? It looks kind of different, to me (where's Dryad?).

My mistake, I was conflating decks in my memory. I was thinking more of decks like this one (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=7667), which won second place at a 76 man tournament.

We can argue over whether questionably-constructed, burn-heavy aggro decks were good in 2005, but my point is that they benefitted greatly from the addition of such an efficient damage source. In today's environment, Sligh would not be playable without Tarmogoyf.

Is "today's environment" explicitly one in which every other deck still has Tarmogoyf? Because then we would be in agreement.

Tarmogoyf represented a huge boost to Breakfast. While, yes, the deck had enjoyed some success prior to its addition, it wasn't until afterwards that the deck placed at GenCon, and saw subsequent play at Worlds. As with Sligh, losing Tarmogoyf would render Breakfast unplayable today.

See above.

A couple of those cards aren't creatures (your attitude seems to be that creature diversity matters a lot more than spell diversity), and several of the others are terrible regardless of Tarmogoyf's existence (I'm looking at you, Madness, as well as those shitty white cards). However, as I said before, I am only really interested in the decks that Tarmogoyf has "obsoleted."

Those white cards did fairly respectably up until Goyf was printed. White's small creatures, in fact, used to be considered fairly efficient.

For those, you list White Weenie and Angel Stompy, one of which largely replaced the other, and both of which justified their existence primarily by appealing to nostalgia and a strong matchup against Goblins. These are awful decks, and Tarmogoyf did nothing to hurt them.

Are you being intellectually dishonest, or do you really think that other decks having access to Tarmogoyf does nothing to hurt Isamaru and Silver Knight? And again, these decks had respectable placings and results, although they weren't Tier 1. It's only in the Goyf-dominated environment that they seem like crap.

Red Death has been bandied about several times in this discussion, but you neglect to mention its sister deck, Eva Green. Now, I would argue that Eva Green is simply an evolution of Red Death, a new build of the deck adapted to both better deal with Tarmogoyf and to incorporate Tarmogoyf itself. You can disagree, and argue that the two decks are distinct, but if that is the case then Eva Green qualifies as another deck that Tarmogoyf has added to the format. Either way, you can hardly say that Tarmogoyf has lessened diversity by replacing one Suicide build with another, so let's call it a wash.

Burn spells were a natural evolution of Sui's strategy, that explicitly functioned well within that archetype by giving it the reach that was usually Sui's biggest weakness.

Goyf was added to Eva Green because, fuck, guess we have to fit Tarmogoyf in here.

I know you had more to do with developing the deck, but I remember specifically sitting around with Dan a month after Flash-Hulk finally died and the entire conversation boiling down to, "Well, how do you fit Tarmogoyf into this damned thing?"

Deadguy Ale is a similar case. The deck still exists, but in a green-splashing form that goes by different names, such as "Doran Rock," or "BGW Goodstuff," or somesuch. Personally, I think the deck was and still is shitty, but Tarmogoyf isn't to blame for that, and it still sees at least as much success as it did before. Hell, the deck even made the Top 8 in Chicago.

The deck used to, as noted, run creatures that worked for it's particularly strategy, not simply the same hyper-efficient beater everyone else is running. If you can't see any value to this, I can't help you, but it does make you a worthless soulless husk of a man.

No offense.

Tarmogoyf will never be as ubiquitous as Black Lotus, Ancestral Recall, or Moxen, but your point is made even more absurd by your own hyperbole.

Well it's already more ubiquitous than Brainstorm, Wasteland, and any given basic land. I don't see why this supposition is unreasonable. Still, suppose it's 80% as ubiquitous as any given Moxen would be, if it were printed tomorrow. Is that reasonable?

Surely you will admit that, even if most Legacy decks tend to include a set of Tarmogoyfs, this is nowhere near as severe a constraint on deckbuilding as a "forty-five card shell" of broken restricted cards?

Of course I do. My point is that Legacy should avoid any move in that direction. Tarmogoyf should, unless you're incompetent, be an auto-include in your deck unless there's a very, very strong and compelling reason not to put it in there. You need to justify not having Goyf in your deck. You don't think that's already more constraint than Legacy deckbuilding should have?

goobafish

03-18-2009, 08:57 PM

Then, it must have been, in fact, terrible. The deck enjoyed its first notable success at GenCon '07, with Tarmogoyf in it.

Actually, the deck took at least 3 local events before Gencon, and 4 day 2 slots at Grand Prix Columbus, with only 5 players playing it. But these were only because of Flash, to which Canadian Threshold was a very good foil, even without Tarmogoyf. Canadian Threshold would not likely have been playable before Goyf and before Flash.

undone

03-18-2009, 09:52 PM

I hate the vintage compairson. It just isnt fair because in vintage you have 1 deck which doesnt start with the same (minimum) 20/30 cards and thats ichorid.

Side note goyf discussion is in another thread.

IMO cards get banned because

1) degenerate card/mana advantage (Skull clamp/vial in extended/ tolarian acadamy exct)

2) they require physical dexterity (not printed any more.)

3) they are a degnerate combo engine (generaly the first one, but druid/recruiter can fall here tutors also fall here)

4)The card is totaly ubiquidious to the point where its 32/top8 (artifact lands)goyf isnt NEAR this

5) The card causes unintentional draws, Shaarazzad fell into this area and top did in extended.

Not because they discourage diversity

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-18-2009, 10:16 PM

IYO or not, cards actually only get banned for one reason; they're too prevalent in the metagame. Well, that or they're random white cards that get banned because Wizards figures white needs some banned cards besides Balance I guess.

Why they're so played varies, and what "too much" is is up to opinion. I would say that if there's a secondary metric to banning besides over-prevalence, however, it's how many other cards they discourage people from playing. It's all well and good to say shit like, "Well Wild Mongrel meant Grizzly Bears didn't get played", but Grizzly Bear was never part of a good strategy. There were lots of good strategies in Legacy prior to Goyf using creatures that don't get played anymore. New creatures since Goyf don't really get played in Legacy outside of Tribal either, which also hits Wizards' wallet.

FoolofaTook

03-18-2009, 10:20 PM

Are there any smaller creatures without any other abilities that get played in Legacy at this point or is Tarmogoyf the weakest vanilla beater in the meta?

I was thinking about this and I'm not sure there are ANY other x/x no ability creatures that see play. In fact I'm not sure there WERE any other x/x no ability creatures that saw play before goyf was printed.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-18-2009, 10:31 PM

FoolofaTook

03-18-2009, 10:42 PM

Technically, Goyf has an ability. Are you talking about abilities that are useful outside of combat? Because Silver Knight, Watchwolf, Phyrexian Negator, Serendib Efreet, and the like all used to see play. Descendant of Kiyomaro in Deadguy Ale was an example given earlier of the sort of niche creature that used to see play because it had synergies that made it strong in a given deck, but that's just always weaker than Goyf now.

Serendib Efreet has flying, so he does not fit. The others would have fit the description.

There are three creatures, now that I think of it, that are in use and do nothing but beat: Tarmogoyf, Kird Ape and Wild Nacatl.

Every other creature that sees play in the Legacy meta right now in competitive decks has either Flying, Shroud, Trample, Mana Production, Card Advantage, Removal, Theft, Disruption of Resources or Pumpability as part of it's contribution. I think this makes Tarmogoyf the only vanilla beater that is also a finisher in the meta.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-18-2009, 11:10 PM

FoolofaTook

03-18-2009, 11:37 PM

I'm not sure where exactly you're going with this, FoaT, but Tarmogoyf doesn't really need things like First Strike, Pumpability, or Protection from Red. Most creature abilities just don't matter against Tarmogoyf. Which, actually, already has "pumpability".

My point, I think, is that Tarmogoyf just occupies the top slot for vanilla beaters in the format. He doesn't displace Tombstalker as the best flyer. He doesn't displace Phyrexian Dreadnought as the overall best beater once landed. He doesn't displace Trinket Mage as the best tutor in a creature. He doesn't displace Dark Confidant as the best card advantage. He doesn't displace Terravore or Countryside Crusher in Loam decks. He doesn't displace Nantuko Shade in Sui Black decks. He doesn't displace Nimble Mongoose as the best untargettable. He doesn't displace Sower of Temptation as the best thief. He doesn't displace Mishra's Factory as the best man-land. He doesn't displace Magus of the Moon as the best disruption.

Really Tarmogoyf only displaces a small handful of creatures who might otherwise see play. Everybody else is still played because they have a function that he, for all of his under-costed goodness, does not fulfill.

I think I actually see only two creatures in the entire meta that he actually replaced without any doubt: Werebear and QDryad. You can make an argument for Mystic Enforcer as well, although 2x ME probably still belongs in Threshold even if it is not played very often. Morphling and Gigapede and Spiritmonger may look like creatures that are not played due to goyf but they are really creatures that are not played due to costing too much in the ever-quickening meta. 5cc is too much to pay for a beater these days, even one with a very nice ability alongside it's beatiness.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-19-2009, 12:14 AM

He doesn't displace Benalish Hero as the best banding creature.

Why do I bother treating you like a person?

jazzykat

03-19-2009, 12:29 AM

You know, there is an alternative to banning...unbanning...Land Tax, Hermit Druid, Earthcraft, Metalworker, maybe even Goblin Recruiter, or what the heck...you want to obsolete Tarmogoyf unban oath of druids...sorry Mr. Tarmogoyf meet Progenitus and eat shit.

I come from a Vintage background and you know what....? My jewlery and the rest of the P9 went into a ton of decks ("SoLoMoxen"). My combo and control decks shared a ton of cards and I don't recall it being much of an issue.

I know he stifles creativity but I don't think banning a creature is the way to go about things. I think we should unban some things.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-19-2009, 12:33 AM

jazzykat

03-19-2009, 12:46 AM

I'm not arguing about power because he is OMG awesome. I think this is an opportunity to open the format back up to other things. I love being able to play with cards and I hate having them banned. For me it comes down to personal preference.

You know I have all sorts of old, expensive cool shit from back in the day, Abyss, Living Plane, Island of Wak Wak, Old Man of the Sea, etc. There is still a place for these cards I love in casual decks (some would argue they were never playable...), I'm sad to see the power level obsolete cards of the 15 years I have been playing, but I accept it as a natural progression.

The last thing I can say about this subject is that the format is constantly changing and while it may be a while to usurp TGoyf I am sure something will come along or a really awesome (even more awesome than relic) graveyard hating machine will come along and he will be checked. Or maybe there will be a bananas removal spell like a really cheap, kill target creature with power 5 or greater or something, that cycles so everyone can play it nuke a goyf and hump down with little dudes.

I think the arguments to ban him are valid, I just have a different preferred vision of Legacy.

The short answer to the bear assassin's last question is, yes. Although, I wouldn't use the word uncomfortable, I would say it is more like my vision of Legacy does not totally coincide with yours. I want it more broken, you want it more open. However, more brokeness may lead to a more open format.... (On the other hand it may lead to a completely unplayable one...)

heroicraptor

03-19-2009, 12:50 AM

I want it more broken

Go back to playing Vintage, kthxbai.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-19-2009, 12:53 AM

Relic of Progenitus and Tormod's Crypt haven't impacted Goyf. Goyf is hard to obsolete. It's not like Tog or Morphling or Mogg Fanatic or any other previous "best creature", because it doesn't require a certain strategy or any kind of commitment. The fact that Goyf is "just" a hyperefficient beater is what makes it so stiflingly prevalent, because nearly any strategy can use him.

Respectfully agree to disagree on the issue of power. While I don't think our visions of Legacy are that different (I'm not advocating banning Brainstorm, Lackey or LED at the moment, for instance), I simply find Goyf to be outside of the curve. He's not insanely outside of it; he's no Flash or Yawg-Will or Bazaar. But he is in the same stratosphere as Skullclamp or Goblin Recruiter; while I don't think they would break Legacy completely by being legal, I think they would detract from it and not improve it.

matelml

03-19-2009, 04:28 AM

undone

03-19-2009, 07:36 AM

Unbanning minds desire is a mistake

Unbanning skull clamp is really crazy.

Unbanning wheel of fortune...

Really? You would even consider that? 2R draw 7 for combo is SO far from fair that it isnt funny it would probably destroy the format as every deck would be burn that tryed to beat combo and had 4 draw 7s and combo which would be hyper fast.

Once again this thread is about top NOT about Tarmogoyf. I think your looking for the other thread. One last time my thoughts on top are the only ligit reason to ban it is time as its power level is in line with other legacy cards.

aTn

03-19-2009, 11:56 AM

Once again this thread is about top NOT about Tarmogoyf.

Thanks for pointing that out (there's already a thread to discuss Tarmogoyf banning etc.).

I have yet to hear a good argument as to why Top should be banned.

Statements like "decks playing Top will end up drawing matches with a high probability" are based on what: experience at the GP alone or a general knowledge of a representative sample of all recent Legacy tournaments ?

The pros who base their opinion on their experience they had at GP Chicago should play a little more Legacy before writing about bannings in articles.

undone

03-19-2009, 12:10 PM

Statements like "decks playing Top will end up drawing matches with a high probability" are based on what: experience at the GP alone or a general knowledge of a representative sample of all recent Legacy tournaments ?

From pros and previous extended players.

The majority of eternal players are ones who also like other formats besides standard this leads to memories of STD in extended where it slowed games far too much. This causes unintentional draws that were unavoidable because of top.

The time arguement isnt bull its real. Lets do some math assuming a GREAT player takes 10 seconds total to tap his mana announce top, see the top 3 and move them back.

Assume just 1 top per turn in a 10 turn game where top T1ed. thats almost 2 minutes on 1 card assuming perfect play with 0 shuffle effects and so on. We will assume a shuffle effect adds 10 seconds, on average 3 of 8 fetch lands will be cracked and a ponder will be played thats another 40 seconds so we are up to 140 seconds on 1 card assuming a perfect and speedy player for a single game.

If both players have top its 280 seconds, if a player isnt perfectly skilled its at least 20 seconds instead of 10 which could lead to 560 seconds easily with NO slow play involved. Thats almost 10 minutes in 1 AVERAGE game on a single card. Time yourself next time you top whats the average? Probably more than 10 seconds from the time you tap your mana to announcement to resolution.

20 seconds per top activation

both players play top

Both have shuffle effects

10 turn game

I dont see the above qualifying for 20 minutes over 2 games under very reasonable circumstances.

Nihil Credo

03-19-2009, 01:09 PM

One thing worth noting is that time issues are somewhat less relevant to Legacy than to other formats: our tournaments last usually six or seven rounds and feature less than a hundred players. There's a lot of wiggle room in that, especially when you consider how we tend to arrange Top 4 splits when possible and Top 2 splits almost always.

On the other side, when you have Extended PTQs regularly attracting over 150 people and lasting eight or nine rounds, the problem balloons up - both because more people means a bigger chance of someone going to turns, and because your day's worth of time is compressed.

In a 50-player tournament, the Swiss rounds are likely to end at a reasonable time even if everyone is playing Landstill with 4 Tops. In a 300-player PTQ, by comparison, you might find yourself playing the decisive match for the Pro Tour invite at midnight.

Kuma

03-19-2009, 01:29 PM

So, is it fair to say that most arguments for Goyf revolve around an uncomfortableness with the concept of banning a creature that only beats for being too efficient? Because strictly on the power curve, I think Goyf is far ahead of any other card on the format and a number of other cards that are reasonably banned. To cite the above examples, I think Goyf is stronger than every card jazzkat named except for maybe, maybe Oath of Druids. I'd also add in some cards like Mind Twist, Vampiric Tutor, Wheel of Fortune, Time Spiral, Mind's Desire and Skullclamp.

I think the pro-goyf arguments revolve around:

1) Banning a card just because it is the most played in a format is wrong-headed and sets a bad precedent.

2) Tarmogoyf is obsoleting a very narrow range of creatures and strategies.

3) Most of the viable decks in the format don't run him. Only about half of the DTB run him and only about 1/3 or so of established decks. The idea that deck design has to start with four goyfs is laughable, as is the idea that many decks are splashing green for goyf. The only decks that spring to mind that splash green for goyf are Eva Green, Cephalid Breakfast, Team America, and some Dreadstill lists.

4) The format is loaded with inexpensive and efficient answers to goyf.

I think goyf is weaker than Wheel of Fortune, Skullclamp, Oath of Druids, and probably Vampiric Tutor. The other three cards you named could probably be unbanned to little fanfare.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-19-2009, 01:35 PM

I think the pro-goyf arguments revolve around:

1) Banning a card just because it is the most played in a format is wrong-headed and sets a bad precedent.

2) Tarmogoyf is obsoleting a very narrow range of creatures and strategies.

3) Most of the viable decks in the format don't run him. Only about half of the DTB run him and only about 1/3 or so of established decks. The idea that deck design has to start with four goyfs is laughable, as is the idea that many decks are splashing green for goyf. The only decks that spring to mind that splash green for goyf are Eva Green, Cephalid Breakfast, Team America, and some Dreadstill lists.

4) The format is loaded with inexpensive and efficient answers to goyf.

I think goyf is weaker than Wheel of Fortune, Skullclamp, Oath of Druids, and probably Vampiric Tutor. The other three cards you named could probably be unbanned to little fanfare.

Whether or not the decks played are only 1/3 Goyf, the decks that Top 8 are at 50% and growing. And judging from the results for Goyf-Sligh and Hymn-based Goyf at Chicago, it would be irrational to think that this trend will discontinue.

on the Top/time issue, from the GP Chicago Blog, Day 2, conversation with Head Judge Jason Ness:

The conversation turned from specific card interactions to the details of handling the largest Grand Prix on the record books for North America. “I was really impressed with the round turnover time, despite the massive amount of players,” Ness exclaimed. It’s certainly something that’s easy to take for granted, but Jason pointed out that because judges must verify a match slip result and pick them up from the table when a match finishes, unlike at many smaller events. Jason’s judge staff could very well spend much of their time in a round rushing around 1,200+ players picking up match slips. “The logistics are certainly challenging.”

Erego, time is clearly not posing an issue.

aTn

03-19-2009, 01:51 PM

From pros and previous extended players.

The majority of eternal players are ones who also like other formats besides standard this leads to memories of STD in extended where it slowed games far too much. This causes unintentional draws that were unavoidable because of top.

I played Extended when Top was legal and the comparison with the state of Legacy now is not good. The Legacy format is totally different from the aformentioned Extended season(s) and Top is way less played in Legacy than it was when NLU and the like flooded Extended. The impact of Top (and CB-Top) on Legacy is way smaller than on Extended.

Pros who were hyping CB-Top pre-GP and blaming CB-Top post-GP probably made the false analogy with their Extended experience of CB-Top. Heck, even the people doing the coverage on MTG.com fell in that trap IMO.

Lets do some math assuming...

I don't agree with your assumptions and hence with the simplistic calculations they generate.

For example, why would a "bad" player take more time topping than a "good" player ? A bad player could also see less possibilities in the cards he looks at via top and hence take less time than the pro player to make his choice.

How did you choose your "top times" ? Why do you assume they are constant and don't vary with gamestate ? Etc. ...

My point is that there isn't a corellation (IMO) between the quality of a player and the time a player takes when using Top's activated abilities. My disagreement is based on my intuitive definition of "the quality of a player" and my tournament play experience.

If I'm wrong and there is indeed such a corellation, then you'll first have to define what "the quality of a player" means and do a study afterwards. Good luck with that.

I think the pro-goyf arguments revolve around:

Wrong thread...

Volt

03-19-2009, 02:14 PM

Erego, time is clearly not posing an issue.

Well, the rounds are timed, after all. The question is how many matches are ending with 1-1 or 1-0 game scores largely because of Top. Mind you, I don't have the answer to that question. Just putting it out there.

undone

03-19-2009, 04:10 PM

I don't agree with your assumptions and hence with the simplistic calculations they generate.

I used assumptions that favored keeping top in every way I could. I seriously think 10 seconds is about the average time of players that play top fairly fast. If you disagree do calculations based on a 10 turn game (again not uncommon)

I dont know what numbers you want to use I understand they will probably be in your favor but try not to mutilate the numbers to suit your position. Topping 2 times a turn while fetching eats up at minimum 20 seconds, and dont tell me that doesnt happend 1/2 times a game.

The problem is that a slow deck vs top or Top vs top lead to unintentional draws for players not playing very speedily which is not the average magic player.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-19-2009, 04:21 PM

Again, 1200 person Grand Prix, with Counter-Top being hailed as the best combo in the format, and the Head Judge said that time wasn't an issue. I don't think there's a case there.

Obfuscate Freely

03-19-2009, 05:13 PM

I used assumptions that favored keeping top in every way I could. I seriously think 10 seconds is about the average time of players that play top fairly fast. If you disagree do calculations based on a 10 turn game (again not uncommon).
Ten seconds is actually a really long time to look at three cards and rearrange them. Pull out a deck, look at the top three cards, and count to ten, and I think you'll agree.

Sure, there will be some times that you do need ten seconds (or a little longer, even) to make a decision, and things get more complicated whenever you activate a fetchland, but spending an average of ten seconds on each Top activation would definitely land someone within the realm of Slow Play.

Arsenal

03-19-2009, 05:39 PM

Assuming no fetchlands/shuffle effects/library manipulation was involved, I don't see how or why people take more than 10 seconds per Top activation.

I mean, you Top eot, then you draw on your draw step. The next time you Top, you've already seen 2 out of the 3 cards. Why are you spending so much time when you've already spent time the turn before looking at almost the exact same cards?

Also, it seems to me that people that are Topping and spending forever are unfamiliar with their own deck (which is largely inexcuseable in a tournament setting) or are stalling intentionally (again, not cool in a tournament setting).

FoolofaTook

03-19-2009, 05:56 PM

1. Activate top.

2. Lay your hand off to the side carefully, making sure you don't accidentally expose any cards.

3. carefully take the top 3 cards of your library off the top and lay them one at a time in front of you to make sure you didn't accidentally pull 4 due to a sticky sleeve, particularly late in a tournament.

4. look at the cards and re-arrange them.

5. Put them back on top.

6. Pick up your hand.

10 seconds sounds like a very short period of time to be able to do this. And there are a few people on this forum who have had unfortunate rulings against them based on not doing one of the steps above.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-19-2009, 06:05 PM

Can you walk and chew gum at the same time?

Congratulations. You can do all of the above in less than four seconds if you're even passingly familiar with your own deck.

Nihil Credo

03-19-2009, 06:09 PM

C.P.

03-19-2009, 06:21 PM

To everyone discussing the subject:

http://www.online-stopwatch.com/

Pick up any random pile of cards, pretend you're Topping, and check your time. I tried a few times and, not counting the time spent purely thinking about the card order, it generally took me ~5 seconds from tapping the 'land' for mana to picking up my hand.

My time is roughly same, but that does not account things like blind counterbalance or other real game decision. Ultimately, I think 10 sec for average is a reasonable estimate.

AnwarA101

03-19-2009, 07:34 PM

So, is it fair to say that most arguments for Goyf revolve around an uncomfortableness with the concept of banning a creature that only beats for being too efficient? Because strictly on the power curve, I think Goyf is far ahead of any other card on the format and a number of other cards that are reasonably banned. To cite the above examples, I think Goyf is stronger than every card jazzkat named except for maybe, maybe Oath of Druids. I'd also add in some cards like Mind Twist, Vampiric Tutor, Wheel of Fortune, Time Spiral, Mind's Desire and Skullclamp.

I think people are uncomfortable banning a card if it isn't obvious that the card in question leads to a solved metagame, by this I mean a metagame where the number of viable decks in question is very low sometimes just down to 1. Flash is an example of that, why play any other win condition when you can play the 2 mana one at instant speed. Tarmogoyf isn't that simple and I think that is why there is disagreement. The number of viable decks isn't low in currently Legacy, but the number of non-Tarmogoyf decks might be. The fact that Tarmogoyf can be played in aggro, combo, and control decks might not be enough to ban especially if it hasn't really given any specific archetype a distinct advantage over the others.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-19-2009, 07:45 PM

I agree that that's where the disagreement is, although I think Tarmogoyf is a card like Skullclamp or Time Walk; it wouldn't lead to one specific deck being dominant, but it would have a notably oppressive effect on the environment; every deck would either play it or play some gameplan aimed at beating the decks that do. Really, Skullclamp in Type 2 was the most similar case where they did end up banning the card.

majikal

03-19-2009, 07:59 PM

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-19-2009, 08:01 PM

And Goyf is broken because it's ludicrously big, whereas Skullclamp just generates card advantage.

You're right in that the two cards have different effects. Further, neither card counters a spell, destroys a land, or causes direct damage over the first few turns, meaning that comparisons to Mana Drain, Strip Mine, or Black Vise also err if they're founded upon the supposition that the cards are exactly the same.

Serendipitously, no one has made that claim. What was said that in terms of presence and influence, they had the same impact. Try to keep up.

FoolofaTook

03-19-2009, 08:08 PM

And Goyf is broken because it's ludicrously big, whereas Skullclamp just generates card advantage.

You're losing your grip on the argument here. Goyf is NOT ludicrously big. Phyrexian Dreadnought? That's ludicrously big. Terravore in a loam-based growth spurt? Yeah, it's ludicrously big. Golgari Grave Troll after Ichorid gets rolling? Ludicrously big.

Goyf is just an undercosted beater that can pretty easily reach the size of a normal 4cc or 5cc beater.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-19-2009, 08:12 PM

You're losing your grip on the argument here. Goyf is NOT ludicrously big. Phyrexian Dreadnought? That's ludicrously big. Terravore in a loam-based growth spurt? Yeah, it's ludicrously big. Golgari Grave Troll after Ichorid gets rolling? Ludicrously big.

Goyf is just an undercosted beater that can pretty easily reach the size of a normal 4cc or 5cc beater.

It's bigger than creatures that cost two, three mana more, in decks that do nothing in particular to support it. What other definition of ludicrously big do you want? Skullclamp is no Ancestral Recall. When it obsoletes the function in every other card and pulls the metagame around itself, can we call a card ludicrously good?

FoolofaTook

03-19-2009, 08:24 PM

It's bigger than creatures that cost two, three mana more, in decks that do nothing in particular to support it. What other definition of ludicrously big do you want? Skullclamp is no Ancestral Recall. When it obsoletes the function in every other card and pulls the metagame around itself, can we call a card ludicrously good?

Well as an example, it's not really bigger or better as a beater than Mystic Enforcer, just a bit easier to play. By the time goyf gets up to 5/6 you could easily have the mana and Threshold to lay out Mystic Enforcer and get evasion as well. Tombstalker also compares very well to Goyf because he really doesn't cost much more, other than the requirement to play enough black to get up BB, and he flys.

The thing that makes Goyf ubiquitous in the meta game is that he scales to the game state really well, being a 2/3 blocker on turn 2 and then ramping up to the power levels necessary to be competitive as the game develops.

If you think about it Goyf is actually a mediocre late game beater compared to some of the creatures that theoretically could be opposite him at that point. Phyrexian Dreadnought laughs at Goyf. A Big Terravore makes him cower, same for Countryside Crusher. A Golgari Grave Troll frequently just doesn't care what is opposite it.

To be ludicrous you have to be great at any point that you hit the board. Goyf is really good early and great in the midgame and then just another beater late - often an undersized one, assuming your opponent isn't just playing Goyf as his biggest beater also.

If Goyf was actually reaching his maximum size on a regular basis he would be ludicrous, if maybe slightly less than some of the other beaters late in the game. As a 5/6 he's pretty average for a Legacy beater.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-19-2009, 08:27 PM

Well as an example, it's not really bigger or better as a beater than Mystic Enforcer, just a bit easier to play.

I've noticed increasingly that it's easier to rebutt your arguments simply by pointing out what they actually are. Actual tailored responses seem unnecessary, even excessive.

majikal

03-19-2009, 08:33 PM

FoolofaTook

03-19-2009, 08:45 PM

I've got to say he's got an extremely valid point, though, Jack. Besides, you can't just quote mine his post, go "hey everyone point and laugh at this out-of-context piece of argument" and then slide away while everyone's distracted.

He's arguing like a true conservative: lay out your position forcefully and then belittle the responses to it, implying in a condescending manner that while they do not deserve a response you'll deign to step in with a misleading answer that cherry picks the points that you think you can browbeat people on and ignores the ones that you recognize to be valid.

There's a reason conservatism is dying a slow death in America, and it's not Rush Limbaugh's idiotic rants, it's the inability of conservatives to actually look at both sides of an argument and come to a rational consensus on an issue. Over the course of time fewer and fewer people are willing to engage in rational debate with conservatives and they all wind up arguing with each other as their circle shrinks inexorably in the process.

I remember vividly the days when conservatives were thought of as behind the times and hidebound. We're rapidly approaching that point again.

majikal

03-19-2009, 08:47 PM

One can only hope. :)

Volt

03-19-2009, 08:48 PM

I've got to say he's got an extremely valid point, though, Jack. Besides, you can't just quote mine his post, go "hey everyone point and laugh at this out-of-context piece of argument" and then slide away while everyone's distracted.

Please. FoaT's blockheaded arguments have been repeatedly slammed into oblivion in this thread and the other ongoing Tarmogoyf thread. You can either take my word for it or do some reading. I don't know why Jack is even bothering to respond to him anymore.

Pointing out that there are 3 or 4 creatures played in Legacy that are bigger or potentially bigger than Goyf is not much of an argument, particularly since all of those creatures require a significant investment beyond tapping a Tropical Island and another land and dropping Goyf into play. "Ludicrous" is of course a subjective term, and nobody is ever going to win an argument about whether Tarmogoyf is ludicrous or not. Nobody. Ever.

He's arguing like a true conservative: lay out your position forcefully and then belittle the responses to it, implying in a condescending manner that while they do not deserve a response you'll deign to step in with a misleading answer that cherry picks the points that you think you can browbeat people on and ignores the ones that you recognize to be valid.

There's a reason conservatism is dying a slow death in America, and it's not Rush Limbaugh's idiotic rants, it's the inability of conservatives to actually look at both sides of an argument and come to a rational consensus on an issue. Over the course of time fewer and fewer people are willing to engage in rational debate with conservatives and they all wind up arguing with each other as their circle shrinks inexorably in the process.

I remember vividly the days when conservatives were thought of as behind the times and hidebound. We're rapidly approaching that point again.

This is not a path you want to go down.

majikal

03-19-2009, 08:53 PM

You're missing the point here. If Goyf gets the axe, what's to stop everyone from playing, say, Tombstalker and having a metagame full of TS decks? It's not hard to pay BB with all the duals and fetches, black plays just as well with blue as green does, and between the two colors you'll have no trouble at all filling your yard up for Delve.

The point is, if Goyf goes, something else just slides up and takes its place. We will keep seeing creatures that are situationally busted, and eventually they will print one that obsoletes Goyf, maybe not by just being bigger, but it could have an ability that makes it a suboptimal strategy. Power creep? Maybe, but it happens, it has happened before, and it is happening now.

Probably something like:

Anti Goyf 1B
Creature - Lhurgoyf (why not?)
When Anti Goyf comes into play, remove your graveyard from the game. If a card would be put into your graveyard, remove it from the game instead.

Anti Goyf has power and toughness equal to the number of cards in your opponent's graveyard.

Volt

03-19-2009, 08:56 PM

You're missing the point here. If Goyf gets the axe, what's to stop everyone from playing Tombstalker and having a metagame full of TS decks? It's not hard to pay BB with all the duals and fetches, black plays just as well with blue as green does, and between the two colors you'll have no trouble at all filling your yard up for Delve.

Just move on. If Goyf goes, something else just slides up and takes its place.

Somebody is definitely missing the point here.

C.P.

03-19-2009, 08:59 PM

Solpugid

03-19-2009, 08:59 PM

majikal

03-19-2009, 09:10 PM

Mystic enforcer stops tombstalker cold. It does not stop goyf, either because goyf hits home before you get to 4 mana or because goyf outgrows enforcer. Tombstalker is also much more susceptible to tormod's crypt, and does not come down turn 2.
I want to know what kind of matchups you're playing where Goyf wins by itself before turn 4!

Re: Tormod's Crypt - They have to blow Crypt in anticipation of Tombstalker. After it's already in play it doesn't matter anymore, so what do you do? Mulligan until you find Crypt? What if they sided him out? Bad beats. With Goyf in play you can use Crypt or Relic during combat and eat their tiny little green dude all day long. It's pretty much the same, only Tombstalker is a couple of turns slower, but still just as cheap.

Be advised, though - I'm just putting up theoretical situations here. I'm not saying Tombstalker is the end-all, be-all creature outside of Goyf. I'm just saying we've got enough undercosted fat running around that banning Goyf wouldn't do a whole lot to change things.

We've gone through this whole argument before when it was "Ban Lackey!" and that didn't go anywhere.

Banning a creature is never the answer. It might be unfortunate that it exists, hell it's unfortunate that half of the cards in the format exist, but does it need to be banned? No.

Volt

03-19-2009, 09:24 PM

Banning a creature is never the answer.

Never? Why? Don't just say it. Explain why. Let's see if you can do any better than FoaT.

Guevera59

03-19-2009, 09:31 PM

Well as an example, it's not really bigger or better as a beater than Mystic Enforcer, just a bit easier to play. By the time goyf gets up to 5/6 you could easily have the mana and Threshold to lay out Mystic Enforcer and get evasion as well. Tombstalker also compares very well to Goyf because he really doesn't cost much more, other than the requirement to play enough black to get up BB, and he flys.

Its important to note that 1G and 2GW are completely different mana costs. Just because, in theory, that in the time it takes for a goyf to become a 5/6 you will be able to play Enforcer doesn't mean that you will have the mana or luxury to do so. Decks like threshold don't need to drop a land each turn, they can function off of 2-3 lands per game. Just because it is late game doesn't mean you can afford dropping an expensive beater. Costing 1G is just as important in the late game as in the early game, you want to drop a beater while being able to back it up with StP's, Spell Snares, BS's, drop SDT/CB, etc., or even multiple goyfs.

@Majikal-
See Metalworker, seems like banning it was a good answer to me....

FoolofaTook

03-19-2009, 09:41 PM

Its important to note that 1G and 2GW are completely different mana costs. Just because, in theory, that in the time it takes for a goyf to become a 5/6 you will be able to play Enforcer doesn't mean that you will have the mana or luxury to do so. Decks like threshold don't need to drop a land each turn, they can function off of 2-3 lands per game. Just because it is late game doesn't mean you can afford dropping an expensive beater. Costing 1G is just as important in the late game as in the early game, you want to drop a beater while being able to back it up with StP's, Spell Snares, BS's, drop SDT/CB, etc., or even multiple goyfs.

@Majikal-
See Metalworker, seems like banning it was a good answer to me....

This is all true. A Mystic Enforcer beats for 6 though with evasion and blocks a Tombstalker all day if need be. Goyf can't claim either of those distinctions.

In the late game are you better off having 2 goyfs or a goyf and an enforcer?

Guevera59

03-19-2009, 09:54 PM

FoaT, that's not the point. Of course it would be nice to have an Enforcer in play with Goyf, I'm arguing that just because Enforcer can be as big as or bigger than Goyf at some point in the game, that doesn't mean it's better or as efficient. You argue that Enforcer is a better beater, but harder to play; the fact that Goyf is ONLY 1G makes it that much better than any other beater (besides things like Vore in Loam). The flexibility of its mana cost makes Goyf a one of a kind beater, the most efficient beater ever printed.

majikal

03-19-2009, 10:24 PM

See Metalworker, seems like banning it was a good answer to me....
Metalworker wasn't really a creature though. It was closer to Tolarian Academy.

What does Goyf do that warrants banning it? Being huge and cheap is not good enough, or else you'd have to stick Dreadnought in the same camp, and if you stick Dreadnought in that camp, then you've got to stick Hunted Horror in that camp, and that would just be ridiculous. You can't say "Oh Dreadnought requires you to play certain cards!" because the cards you need to play (read: Stifle) are just good cards to play to begin with.

Never? Why? Don't just say it. Explain why. Let's see if you can do any better than FoaT.
Because they don't do anything! And if they actually do do something, then it's the ability that warrants the banning, not the fact that it's a creature. Tarmogoyf doesn't do anything. It's just big. That's it.

C.P.

03-19-2009, 10:44 PM

Metalworker wasn't really a creature though. It was closer to Tolarian Academy.

What does Goyf do that warrants banning it? Being huge and cheap is not good enough, or else you'd have to stick Dreadnought in the same camp, and if you stick Dreadnought in that camp, then you've got to stick Hunted Horror in that camp, and that would just be ridiculous. You can't say "Oh Dreadnought requires you to play certain cards!" because the cards you need to play (read: Stifle) are just good cards to play to begin with.

See Kird Ape. Banned for being too efficient did happen before.

nitewolf9

03-19-2009, 10:44 PM

I don't really want to delve too deeply into this argument, but I will ask this: would you rather be playing a deck with 6 Tarmogoyfs or a deck with 4 Tarmogoyfs and 2 Enforcers (If you could play 6 Goyfs, obviously)?

I've swung through Mystic Enforcer with Tarmogoyf before, after getting a Top and a Counterbalance in the yard (which isn't an unlikely scenario, especially post board, by the time Enforcer is relevant). I've played against a Reanimator deck and turned Akroma, Angel of Wrath into a CHUMP BLOCKER for my 6/7 Tarmogoyf. He took 8 off the Reanimate and swung, I got an artifact into the yard and swung away (my Counterbalance had been countered earlier). Should this type of a scenario EVER happen? A single 1G creature swinging through a fucking Akroma? I don't think so.

Even after all that however, I'm still not sure if he should be banned or not. The fact that he is so easily splash-able kind of makes up for how stupid of a creature he is because everyone can run him. However, that makes blue decks that much better because they will find more than you will if you're not playing blue. So yeah, I guess my conclusion is a resounding "I duno man, but that card is dumb".

C.P.

03-19-2009, 11:06 PM

So yeah, I guess my conclusion is a resounding "I duno man, but that card is dumb".

+1. Well, we'll get to find out the results in an hour. My money is on no change.

I wonder, if goyf was in beta so people chould play him all long, kinda like StP in Removal department, would people act this way?

EDIT: To make my point clear, when we see StP obsoleting Condemn, PtE, Exile, Crib Swap, and any targeted black removal, I don't see any complaints about it. It is like a Goyf in a way that it is miles better than any other available removal in the format, and is infinitely splashable. We've seen decks running white just for the Swords. Is Goyf the same, although it is more frequent? I have to wonder if people would have reacted to StP the same way of it was printed in FS for the first time.

FoolofaTook

03-19-2009, 11:24 PM

See Kird Ape. Banned for being too efficient did happen before.

As I recall these are the creatures that were banned, in a terrible decision, shortly after the format split, and then reinstated when WotC realized what idiots they had been.

Kird Ape
Hypnotic Specter
Juggernaut
Ernham Djinn

Juzam Djinn did not have to be banned because it was never reprinted after Arabian Nights so it wasn't in the type II format. Even so it would not have been OP for the format unless Swords to Plowshares was removed also. Probably not even then.

WotC was among the last participants in the competitive Magic universe to recognize that creatures were among the weakest parts of the game. This is still true today. Sorceries, Enchantments and Artifacts can be very scary things. Creatures mostly aren't.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-20-2009, 12:25 AM

You're missing the point here. If Goyf gets the axe, what's to stop everyone from playing, say, Tombstalker and having a metagame full of TS decks?

Do you know why Flash is banned, and Doomsday isn't?

Wait, you probably won't understand that. Let me simplify it. Do you know why Ancestral Recall is banned and Aeon Chronicler isn't?

Solpugid

03-20-2009, 12:31 AM

I have to wonder if people would have reacted to StP the same way of it was printed in FS for the first time.

This is actually a really interesting thought. It's kinda like the "dingos in Australia" argument. They were introduced hundreds of years ago, but eventually became so ecologically connected to the environment that they are now considered more or less native.

Still, it doesn't keep goyf from reducing my enjoyment of the format.

majikal

03-20-2009, 12:31 AM

Do you know why Flash is banned, and Doomsday isn't?

Wait, you probably won't understand that. Let me simplify it. Do you know why Ancestral Recall is banned and Aeon Chronicler isn't?
:confused: Are you really comparing a vanilla creature to combo pieces and card advantage engines?

I know why Tarmogoyf isn't banned. Because it's just a creature that doesn't do anything.

You do know how this game works, right?

PS, way to cherry pick a comment out of context. Must make you feel smart. ;)

Volt

03-20-2009, 12:41 AM

Because it's just a creature

I just knew those words were going to come out of your keyboard. Are you FoaT's twin brother? I mean, really, that argument is so dead it ought to be embalmed and put on display next to the pharaohs at the Smithsonian.

majikal

03-20-2009, 12:47 AM

Volt

03-20-2009, 12:55 AM

Are you Jack Elgin's twin brother or something? Seriously, it really is just a creature. It doesn't do a goddamn thing except be big. Nobody cares. The only leg you have to stand on is the argument that in your opinion it stifles creativity, but on the other hand, there are plenty of people who feel like it does exactly the opposite and gives credibility to entire archetypes that otherwise wouldn't be able to compete.

Tarmogoyf is neither good nor bad for Legacy. It just exists. Yes, it might edge out some other creature, BUT SO WHAT? They would serve the exact same purpose. But if you feel like banning a (merely) good creature so little Timmy can play his Black Knight, then that's your opinion, but Wizards of the Coast obviously disagrees with you.

The thing about enabling archetypes is a valid (if debatable) point.

The oft-repeated "just a creature" comment, on the other hand, is grating in its utter stupidity. Ancestral Recall is just an instant. Black Lotus is just an artifact. Yawgmoth's Will is just a sorcery. See where I'm going?

This is the problem with arguing with people who just showed up 5 minutes ago and didn't read the thread.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-20-2009, 12:58 AM

:confused: Are you really comparing a vanilla creature to combo pieces and card advantage engines?

No, categorically I am not doing that. I am comparing card advantage against other card advantage, and ld against other ld. It would, for instance, be silly to try and compare Strip Mine to Skullclamp, because they do such different things.

I am merely examining the issue of dominance of function, and seeing if anything can be gleaned from that. Do try to keep up, won't you?

I know why Tarmogoyf isn't banned.

Causality and the nature of time?

Just for the record, you are trying to counter-argue that Goyf shouldn't be banned with "Because it's not banned"? You really think that that's a good idea?

Because it's just a creature that doesn't do anything.

Anything? Really? So I should call the judge next time my opponent kills me with it, since this is somehow, you say, illegal.

You do know how this game works, right?

Someone has to, it seems.

PS, way to cherry pick a comment out of context. Must make you feel smart. ;)

My ability to connect ideas rationally and in such a manner that they may be explained to others is what makes me feel smart. That, and my overwhelmingly astounding level of smartness. But that's neither here nor there.

Are you Jack Elgin's twin brother or something?

SpatulaOfTheAges is my twin brother. I have no idea what his opinion on this subject is. Why do you ask?

Seriously, it really is just a creature. It doesn't do a goddamn thing except be big. Nobody cares.

If no one cares, it seems strange that a card which costs, as a playset, more than any of the dual lands Top 8s more frequently than any other card in the format.

The only leg you have to stand on is the argument that in your opinion it stifles creativity, but on the other hand, there are plenty of people who feel like it does exactly the opposite and gives credibility to entire archetypes that otherwise wouldn't be able to compete.

Although you attempt to make this sound somehow sinister or incompetent, this is exactly the issue as it's understood to be, and no one contends differently. Some people have the opinion that it's effect is good, some that it's bad; hence the other thread. In fairness, very few people on the other side, however, can actually name decks it enabled more than it obsoleted.

Tarmogoyf is neither good nor bad for Legacy. It just exists.

This seems like a dubious claim. You would expect the most played card to have some impact on the format, for good or ill, and if not for good then almost certainly for ill.

Yes, it might edge out some other creatures, BUT SO WHAT?

So... people don't like that because they think it makes the game less interesting? Have you not been paying attention?

They would serve the exact same purpose.

Categorically untrue. No creature in existence could be played in half the decks Tarmogoyf is in effectively.

But if you feel like banning a (merely) good creature so little Timmy can play his Black Knight is the right move, then that's your opinion, but Wizards of the Coast obviously disagrees with you.

Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of cowardice, laziness, and intellectual shortcoming.

majikal

03-20-2009, 01:10 AM

The oft-repeated "just a creature" comment, on the other hand, is grating in its utter stupidity. Ancestral Recall is just an instant. Black Lotus is just an artifact. Yawgmoth's Will is just a sorcery. See where I'm going?

The problem with your argument is that all of those cards actually do something. Ancestral gives you massive card advantage. Black Lotus accelerates you into other broken plays. Yawgmoth's Will does, well... all of that.

Tarmogoyf.... is just big. Dark Confidant is a more broken creature than Goofy ever will be. Likewise Meddling Mage. There are two-drops in the format that far outclass Goyf as a creature. As a beater? Not so much. But that's the beauty of it. You can still play your other creatures, but if you need a beater, play Goyf.

I don't see a thing wrong with that. It's like playing fetches and duals. They're the best available option, so you play them.

I'm intentionally ignoring Jack's post because it smacks of narcissism and condescension.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-20-2009, 01:12 AM

Tarmogoyf does something. Get that through your head. He's so good at doing something, in fact, that he's the most successful card in the format, in terms of top 8s.

I'm intentionally ignoring Jack's post because it smacks of narcissism and condescension.

That's a good one, I'd go with that one. It sounds vaguely tenable.

Volt

03-20-2009, 01:14 AM

The problem with your argument is that all of those cards actually do something. Ancestral gives you massive card advantage. Black Lotus accelerates you into other broken plays. Yawgmoth's Will does, well... all of that.

Tarmogoyf.... is just big. Dark Confidant is a more broken creature than Goofy ever will be. Likewise Meddling Mage. There are two-drops in the format that far outclass Goyf as a creature. As a beater? Not so much. But that's the beauty of it. You can still play your other creatures, but if you need a beater, play Goyf.

And why is hitting someone for 4-6 points of damage per turn inherently worse than drawing a card? Or chanting a spell that your opponent may or may not have in his hand? I keep asking people to explain what's so useless about doing lots of damage, but nobody seems to be able to give me any sort of answer. By the way, I think you're going to have a hard time getting even most of your fellow pro-goyfers to agree with the statement that Dark Confidant and Meddling Mage are "more broken" than Tarmogoyf.

Because they don't do anything! And if they actually do do something, then it's the ability that warrants the banning, not the fact that it's a creature. Tarmogoyf doesn't do anything. It's just big. That's it.

I'm not going to bore everyone by once again bringing up apagogical arguments and 9/9 creatures for :g: and whatnot. Suffice it to say that if you care to find out why the above argument is completely and utterly nonsensical beyond any shadow of a doubt, read the "....more interesting without Tarmogoyf" thread.

majikal

03-20-2009, 01:16 AM

Tarmogoyf does something. Get that through your head. He's so good at doing something, in fact, that he's the most successful card in the format, in terms of top 8s.
Okay, you're right. He does do something - he turns sideways. :rolleyes:

And why is hitting someone for 4-6 points of damage per turn inherently worse than drawing a card? Or chanting a spell that your opponent may or may not have in his hand? I keep asking people to explain what's so useless about doing lots of damage, but nobody seems to be able to give me any sort of answer. By the way, I think you're going to have a hard time getting even most of your fellow pro-goyfers to agree with the statement that Dark Confidant and Meddling Mage are "more broken" than Tarmogoyf.
Because you're not guaranteed to do any damage! As a creature, it is the easiest type of permanent to deal with in the game! It has every weakness of every other card type ever made and then some: You can counter it, you can steal it, you can block it, you can remove it, you can make them discard it, you can prison lock it... I mean if it were an enchantment that cost 1G and read "At the end of your combat phase, deal X damage to target opponent, where X is the number of card types in all graveyards.", maybe then you'd have a case for banning it.

I'm not going to bore everyone by once again bringing up apagogical arguments and 9/9 creatures for :g: and whatnot. Suffice it to say that if you care to find out why the above argument is completely and utterly nonsensical beyond any shadow of a doubt, read the "....more interesting without Tarmogoyf" thread.
We have a 12/12 for :1: that only requires you to play cards that are useful anyway, and I don't see anyone bitching about that. Your argument fails.

Volt

03-20-2009, 01:23 AM

Okay, you're right. He turns sideways. And he's good at it. :rolleyes:

Turning sideways is a really good thing to be good at. In fact, I would say that turning sideways is perhaps the best thing there is to be good at.

We have a 12/12 for :1: that only requires you to play cards that are useful anyway, and I don't see anyone bitching about that. Your argument fails.

And you choose to wallow in ignorance. If you continue to insist that 1=0, I cannot help you.

majikal

03-20-2009, 01:30 AM

You are an idiot. If you can't see that Tarmogoyf does something to a game or even does something to this format, then you must be an idiot. Keep calling attacking nothing and you will continue to be an idiot. Your whole argument is idiotic. You are an idiot.
Do you even know how to read? I acknowledge that it is a creature, therefore it is implied that I know what creatures do, which is attack. At the end of the day, it is still just a creature, the weakest card type in the game. It's not like it has shroud or anything. It's not like anyone ever goes, "FUCK, THAT GUY IS PLAYING WITH GOYF! I QUIT!"

You don't need specific Goyf hate. Regular creature hate does just fine.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-20-2009, 01:30 AM

At the end of the day, it is still just a creature, the weakest card type in the game.

So, I know you don't actually read things, and are perhaps incapable of it, but this was addressed.

Statistically, Tarmogoyf is the strongest card in the format. It is the card most likely to get you into a Top 8. More so than StP, Brainstorm, Force of Will, or any Dual Land.

Now, that alone isn't an argument for banning- there will always be a most played card. However, if you're going to continue to assert that creatures are the weakest card type in the game, despite direct evidence to the contrary, perhaps you should try to validate it somehow.

Because you're not guaranteed to do any damage!

I may say that this applies to Black Vise. Rather more so, in fact; they can always mulligan.

I should point out that even if you were to be able to throw Ancestral Recall into your decks, sometimes you would draw three lands.

But Jak said it better.

majikal

03-20-2009, 01:40 AM

TheInfamousBearAssassin

03-20-2009, 01:50 AM

because that's pretty subjective

More than a century ago, Albert Einstein proved that space and time themselves were subjective.

I don't know why your standards are so high for an argument over a pretendy fun time game about whether or not summoning the Tarmogoyf monster in a magical wizarding duel is too powerful.

No one's ever said that the argument wasn't subjective, so this sounds like sour grapes, to be honest. You quite wanted to play this game until it was evident that I was better at it.

Jak

03-20-2009, 01:51 AM

Whatever Jack. I'm not going to play this game with you. If you would give actual, legitimate reasons why it should be banned apart from the whole "stifling creativity" thing - because that's pretty subjective and most likely unfalsifiable- then I might be willing to debate you, but all you're doing so far is changing the subject and trying to trap those who disagree with you with rhetoric.

I know this was directed at IBA, but what the hell! This is fun, right?!

Jack has actually said repeatedly (you would know this if you had read anything) that he isn't hunting for a ban. He started the poll (in the other thread) as a way of gathering information. Numerous times, he has provided data (ie Tarmogoyf doubling FoW numbers in the GP Top 8, Tarmogoyf being in the top 10 most played cards and that goes back years, etc). You haven't really provided anything other than the fact that Tarmogoyf can be killed by a StP. Thanks for that, btw. I was unsure. Sure, Goyf can be removed easily, but isn't it odd how he continues to be run in pretty much every archetype and most of the decks in the format? Can you answer that? Can you tell me why everyone is conforming and using this stupid creature?

majikal

03-20-2009, 01:59 AM

Sure, Goyf can be removed easily, but isn't it odd how he continues to be run in pretty much every archetype and most of the decks in the format? Can you answer that? Can you tell me why everyone is conforming and using this stupid creature?
Because it doesn't require you to jump through hoops. Isn't it obvious? :really:

Personally, I play it because it's better than Werebear, but I mean in a format where you've got all kinds of cards flying into the graveyard at such an extremely fast pace, a cheap, scalable creature that relies on just that happening seems like a good choice. Also the fact that Thresh is so popular makes running him seem good for other decks that may not be so good at putting things in their own yards.

It's not really very odd at all when you think about it. It's just a byproduct of the way the format works at the moment. If anything I'd say the fetchlands are responsible for his ubiquity as they enable you to simultaneously and consistently play him and make him a 2/3 on turn 2.

Jack has actually said repeatedly (you would know this if you had read anything)
Meh, that thread was TL;DR.

Jak

03-20-2009, 02:04 AM

Volt

03-20-2009, 02:04 AM

Because it doesn't require you to jump through hoops. Isn't it obvious?

It is, in fact, quite obvious. We just wanted to hear you say it. The heart of our argument is that a 4/5 or 5/6 for :1::g: ought to require you to jump through a hoop or two.

majikal

03-20-2009, 02:07 AM

Why are you just talking about Thresh? Goyf has made it into other decks if you haven't noticed. That is the big problem we are all talking about here. How can a 2 mana green card fill the roles that cards double the cost in all different colors would fill? It gets to the point where it is boring building decks, it is boring playing (because of Goyf stalemates), and it is boring not being able to play with good red, black, white, and blue cards because of him. I wouldn't mind at all if Goyf only replaced Werebear, but that isn't the case here.
I said that's why I play it. See my comment about Fetchlands for why other decks play it.

It is, in fact, quite obvious. We just wanted to hear you say it. The heart of our argument is that a 4/5 or 5/6 for :1::g: ought to require you to jump through a hoop or two.
I tend to disagree. While Goyf might be pushing it in terms of power (as far as vanilla creatures go), I feel like it's pretty balanced because of (a) its mana cost being 2 and therefore vulnerable to CB and Snare, (b)the fact that any deck that chooses to can run it, (c) the fact that it doesn't have any kind of evasion.

Nobody is saying that it isn't overpowered, because it clearly is, but just how overpowered is kind of a grey area. I personally think it falls somewhere between "Really Good" and "Borderline-Busted". Not quite broken, but slightly above the curve.