[Free Article] Would Legacy Be Better Off Without Tarmogoyf? [Archive]

Aggro_zombies

12-28-2009, 12:55 AM

I happen to think the card is warping, but subtly so.

The fact that he shows up so often is a testament both to his power and to his effect on the format. The so-called "Tarmogoyf logic," that every deck gets better by running Tarmogoyf because it's Tarmogoyf, is a symptom of this. The kinds of cards that we generally think of as auto-includes in the vast majority of decks are things like lands, not two-mana 4/5s.

However, most of this was discussed in the article. One thing the writer didn't touch upon (and his name sounds familiar...is he one of you guys?) is that Tarmogoyf is a large part of why the format has stagnated as a pile of aggro-control decks.

The simple truth of the matter is that Tarmogoyf is the best control card in the format right now, or one of the best. It single-handed eats almost every creature played in the format for breakfast, and is the best foil to your opponent's Tarmogoyfs. The fact that it costs two mana means that it comes down at a pivotal point in the game for aggressive decks - right when they're looking to start getting in the first few points of damage, you stabilize by dropping something that outclasses all of their threats. Sure, your opponent can attack with his 3/3 Nacatl, but he's going to have to 2-for-1 himself to get around your 3/4 Tarmogoyf.

On the other side of the coin, Tarmogoyf neatly solves one of control's traditional problems: how to win within the time limit. In a controllish deck, he can often get to 5/6 proportions, ending the game in four turns when swinging onto an empty field. Even as a 4/5, he ends the game twice as fast as a lone Mishra's Factory, and requires no mana input to do so. Sure, he may be more vulnerable than Factory is because he's always a guy, but I don't think he's significantly more vulnerable since so many of the removal spells played in the format are instants and he quickly gets out of single-spell burn range, something Factory rarely does. If anything, his greatest fault in control may simply be that you can't recur him with Crucible of Worlds or Life from the Loam.

Because Tarmogoyf is both an excellent creature controller and a great finisher, he's pushed traditional control strategies more firmly into the aggro-control realm. Let's face it: if Supreme Blue dropped Tarmogoyf and RWM and added some manlands and Standstill, it would be considered a real control deck. As it is, its guys are one of its best control elements, and the deck is essentially an aggro-control-control deck capable of occasionally winning with fast beats but preferring to control the game with Countertop and removal instead.

Supreme Blue isn't the only sign of Tarmogoyf's effects, though: we have tempo-aggro-control (Canadian Thresh, Team America), aggro-combo-control (Progenitus Thresh), aggro-aggro-control (Zoo, especially slower builds with Library that operate almost like The Rock), and then a million shades of straight aggro-control and midrange (Survival, Rock, Aggro Loam, Eva Green, etc). Even among the decks that don't normally run Tarmogoyf, we have aggro-control decks: Merfolk is an aggro-control deck if I ever saw one, and even it sometimes run Goyf. The last really true aggressive deck in the format, Goblins, is hanging on to Tier Two by the skin of its teeth, having fallen quite a long ways since its heyday a few years ago. And even that deck isn't clearly an aggro deck in the same way that, say, Boros Bushwhacker is in Standard.

Tarmogoyf, by contributing to such powerful blue aggro-control strategies, also helps to suppress combo and regular or "pure" control that runs few to no creatures. What would Counterbalance decks do if he were banned? They're ill-equipped to return to the original Threshold creatures like Werebear that were run before Tarmogoyf was printed, simply because it takes them so long to get threshold. They might turn into :w::u:/x Fish decks using things like Jotun Grunt and Serra Avenger, but I'm sure most people would agree that that sort of build is a lot less scary/irritating/interesting (depending on your point of view) than the current model. Or they may simply all move to Progenitus Thresh, which would need to find another green creature to replace Tarmogoyf to keep its Natural Orders effective. Regardless, losing Tarmogoyf would break open the format by slowing it down and forcing aggro-control decks to make true concessions; right now they don't need to strike a balance between control and aggression because Tarmogoyf does both, and equally well.

Of course, none of this matters. Most players are happy with the current state of Legacy or finger things like Counterbalance or Sensei's Divining Top when the real culprit behind those cards' power is the Big Green Monster that helps them get set up and then finishes the game. To the untrained eye, the format is incredibly diverse right now, with numerous Tier 1 decks and a staggering array of Tier 2 builds. However, the majority of these are all variations on a common theme, and people who do a lot of deck building or development in this format quickly come to realize that adding Tarmogoyf is probably one of the best ways to shore up whatever weakness your deck has.

I say all this with the caveat that I'm just a bitter control player who keeps finding that the best way to make his control decks viable is to make them aggro-control decks with Tarmogoyf. Feel free to discredit me as being biased.

Rico Suave

12-28-2009, 01:03 AM

It's pretty tough to justify a ban.

It's even tougher to justify a ban on a creature.

It is the toughest of all to justify a ban on a creature that has no abilities. It can't combo out, draw cards, or interact with opponent's permanents (outside of blocking). Put simply, the card basically kills your opponent turn 7-8 on average.

Banning Tarmogoyf wouldn't change much. So a number of decks change 4 creatures in their deck, who cares? The creature doesn't do anything, it is just a body and will simply be replaced by whatever is next in line.

Aggro_zombies

12-28-2009, 01:15 AM

Rico Suave

12-28-2009, 01:18 AM

I say all this with the caveat that I'm just a bitter control player who keeps finding that the best way to make his control decks viable is to make them aggro-control decks with Tarmogoyf. Feel free to discredit me as being biased.

I am just going to discredit you as being biased.

If you think that control doesn't do well because of Tarmogoyf, you are sorely mistaken.

And as for what is "next in line" it depends heavily on the deck, obviously.

snackfu

12-28-2009, 01:20 AM

I watched a CounterTop player last week get utterly demolished by Fish and a little 1cc card called Relic of Progenitus. That seems to make the Tarmogoyf menace, well, not so menacing.

Aggro_zombies

12-28-2009, 01:28 AM

And as for what is "next in line" it depends heavily on the deck, obviously.
The fact that you say this proves my point. When a card is so clearly head and shoulders above the opposition that it gets run in very different types of decks as a four-of, you're either dealing with a land or something format warping.

I watched a CounterTop player last week get utterly demolished by Fish and a little 1cc card called Relic of Progenitus. That seems to make the Tarmogoyf menace, well, not so menacing.
Anecdotal evidence is, well, anecdotal. I can personally say that I have played an Aggro Loam deck through not one, but two Relics, and won the match predominantly on the back of Tarmogoyf. Tarmogoyf only stays as a 0/1 if your opponent follows Relic with a Planar Void.

Smmenen

12-28-2009, 01:31 AM

It's pretty tough to justify a ban.

That depends on what the standard for banning is. That's a very debatable question.

Avier

12-28-2009, 02:14 AM

I would say that if I owned a play set of Goyf I certainly wouldn't want him banned. On the other hand, not owning one, banning him could be interesting. I lose no value and get to see a bunch of new dudes running around.

Someone over at SCG made the comment that if Bolt can't kill a two drop you need to examine the two drop. He certainly makes red seem less good. Outside of Canadian thresh what tier one decks use red for removal? Zoo has Bolts and Chains but they also have Path which clears the road. Could Zoo beat Goyf if they didn't have Path/Swords? Lavamancer helps but doesn't just answer Goyf right away like the white removal does.

Then again, Merfolk loses hard core to red, keep Goyf.

hungryLIKEALION

12-28-2009, 02:47 AM

And as for what is "next in line" it depends heavily on the deck, obviously.

That is the whole point of why Tarmogoyf is warping; Right now, it doesn't matter WHAT type of deck you're playing; Tarmogoyf is likely to improve it. If he was gone, as you just said, decks would once again have to choose their own creatures to run again. Tempo Thresh would probably go back to werebear, Zoo would probably go to Watchwolf or maindeck Gaddock Teeg, Eva Green would probably play Putrid Leech (or drop green altogether?), and so on. You'd see a lot more creatures running around that do a lot more things.

That being said, I don't want them to ban goyf since I own a playset, but I can't say I wouldn't find the format a little more interesting without it. Still, I don't believe it needs to be banned.

MMogg

12-28-2009, 03:08 AM

I watched a CounterTop player last week get utterly demolished by Fish and a little 1cc card called Relic of Progenitus. That seems to make the Tarmogoyf menace, well, not so menacing.

But in the article, as he was discussing Skullclamp, one of the ways to show how something is warping is not only its prevalence, but also that people also pack ways to deal with it. If people SB Relic to deal with Tarmo, that just adds to the "should be banned" argument, not the other way around.

I really liked the article, as it tried to objectively examine the precedent from previous banning rationales and applied it to Tarmo. Seems the bottom line is he isn't at the level where he should be banned, but he is creeping up slowly. If there were a watch list announcement, perhaps he should go on that.

I find it very hard to choose which side to support, actually. I don't own them (damn), but that doesn't make me want him banned. It's obvious he replaces so many other creatures – as the article pointed out – but with ANT and other combo decks potentially going off on turn 2, is Tarmo really a threat to the whole environment? I don't think so. Legacy – as an eternal format – is about powerful cards. It's like drag racing or something. :smile:

Finally, the fact that we can even have a debate/discussion makes me convinced he doesn't need banning (i.e., it isn't obviously dominate/problematic/warping/ruining Legacy). If something is so borderline as to be debatable, I think it should stay unbanned.

Pastorofmuppets

12-28-2009, 03:47 AM

I stopped reading when he said that Goyf is good in Merfolk. He needs to test his Ug list a little more.

heroicraptor

12-28-2009, 04:12 AM

I stopped reading when he said that Goyf is good in Merfolk. He needs to test his Ug list a little more.

The writer didn't necessarily say it was a smart choice, just that people were doing it.

Ozymandias

12-28-2009, 04:19 AM

Legacy is, at a fundamental level, comprised of two things: a) a list of about (50-100) cards that get shuffled into various powerful decks (Force, fetches, Brainstorm, LED, Dark Ritual, Lightning Bolt, Wasteland) and b) strongly linear decks that can leverage their internal synergy to the point where they are as strong as or stronger than a), oftentimes borrowing some of the strongest cards (Dredge and Tribal Aggro are the most successful examples.)

Tarmogoyf is one of the strongest type a cards available on both a raw power and mass playability level, so it's completely unsurprising that it sees as much play as it does. On a certain level, it's the Green Glue of the format, (Force is the Blue Glue, and I guess Swords may be the White, etc.) in that it enables a host of decks to survive an increasingly strong creature set without going creature-packed themselves. Banning Tarmogoyf would only serve to make Aggro stronger, and as it stands, Aggro is doing fine. I think that the claim that Tarmogoyf stifles creativity ignores the ravening hordes of nacatls, Piledrivers, and the like that would crush "creativity" in much the same fashion.

hyc8028

12-28-2009, 04:46 AM

There are some good points mention in that article. I still don't think WOTC will ban Goyf in the near future. When "ban Tamogoyf" topic come up, I always ask myself this.

What are the faces of Legacy?

Wasteland, Force of Will, Brainstorm, Tamogoyf, Fetches, A/B/U Duals, StP

Goyf is powerful critters and the face of legacy. There are less critter choices when goyf is around. He makes other cards better, but he is just a undercost powerful critter. He can only attack or block. Just because everyone is using him and he eats everything for lunch, it just doesn't mean he should be ban. Without Goyf, there isn't much reason to play green. Without StP/PtE, there is no reason to splash white.

Digital Devil

12-28-2009, 05:18 AM

Merfolk with Goyf, Landstill with Goyf, I even saw a 4x in a ANT sideboard, not to mention all of the competitive archetypes. I can't blame those who play it, though, because it's WotC that gave them such a powerful tool. I remember in 2006 when Jotun Grunt was considered powerful, or when Wild Mongrel and Arcbound Ravager were everywhere. That said, it's inevitable that something like the printing of an "uber creature" would have occurred, I simply think Tarmogoyf was released too early.

4eak

12-28-2009, 06:15 AM

Some people may not find these sorts of discussions to be productive; and, honestly, the only productive things we can accomplish here is to gain insight and perhaps (however unlikely) form a consensus on these topics which may eventually permeate to the ears and eyes of those who can do something about it. We take measurements, consider the arguments, and make normative claims. It may amount to nothing more in actual gameplay or the decisions which WotC will make the foreseeable future, but that shouldn't prevent us from at least learning about and acknowledging reality. I realize some people will find this topic overworked and talked about too often; I think he's a card worth talking about (a lot). I also can't help but wonder if people who quickly dismiss the topic haven't already made up their minds and aren't actually interested in looking for truth on the topic.

In addition to the enormous complexities of magic as a game, this isn't an easy topic to discuss with so many wallets, egos, pet-decks, playstyle preferences, experiences, and knowledge-bases at stake. Tarmogoyf is a contentious card, which isn't easy for a "vanilla beater" to achieve. Obviously, he has impact; enough for us to say that some of our experience and knowledge would be obsolete if Tarmogoyf was removed; enough for us to say that our wallets and collections could be hurt by a ban; enough for us to contemplate some serious change in the overall Legacy metagame in Goyf's sudden absence (remember that Goyf-less tournament?) which would be to the benefit of some playstyle preferences and to the detriment of others. It isn't easy to look at this card without subjective bias and outside influences determining our position on the card.

In that context, I thought the article was restrained and very brief.

I appreciate the Skullclamp comparison. It is a simple way for us to consider not only WotC's historical perspective, but it also gives us a chance to consider the effects of a single card on a metagame. In particular, we are forced to ask ourselves a pretty simple question: at what point is a card of any function "broken, "banworthy", or warping the metagame "too much"? Do not consider just the function(s), consider the degree to which a card performs that function compared to its cost. It is all too easy to say a "vanilla beater is answerable, so it isn't broken" (ironically, a "warped metagame" is basically trying to answer what is warping it) and completely fail to consider the line at which we should begin to say a "vanilla beater" is "broken" and bannable.

Ancestral Recall is clearly too warping, but perhaps Peek or Brainstorm aren't. Would this be too warping: "U, instant: Draw 2 card"? I'm pretty sure most of us would agree that is too powerful for Legacy. The line exists somewhere for card drawing; it exists for mana acceleration; and I'm sure it exists for vanilla beaters. A hypothetical 1cc 20/20 creature is obviously crossing that line, Isamaru obviously isn't.

Now, Tarmogoyf isn't exactly a vanilla beater; it is vulnerable to GY-hate, varies at different stages of a game, and scales down with a lack of card type variety in matches. Clearly, it is a bit more complicated than a plain vanilla beater. However, it isn't out of our reach to take into account its average P/T. Even if we disagree about the exact average, we do have an acceptable metric to understand the power level of this card.

To those who believe Tarmogoyf isn't banworthy, here's a homework problem which might give us equal terms to consider:

Define a (hypothetical) vanilla beater which is on the edge of banworthy in Legacy. Tell us why you place the "banworthy" line there (if you answer, please give a well-reasoned argument).

Those in favor of Tarmogoyf's banning draw this line more restrictively than those who aren't in favor of banning it. One of the clearer arguments presented against Tarmogoyf is that he's too efficiently costed. Some might say he "out-classes" other creatures by too large a margin. Perhaps a 3/4 (on average) for :1::g: (which is still stronger than the vast majority of creatures with similar conditions to play) is acceptable, but a 4/5 (on average) wouldn't be when compared to the other functions in this game or the swathe of creatures which would be obsoleted. But, perhaps that argument isn't good enough; perhaps future Legacy creatures should be at similar powerlevels. Perhaps another might be able to provide reasoning for such a thing.

peace,
4eak

Illissius

12-28-2009, 06:50 AM

alderon666

12-28-2009, 06:57 AM

Tarmogoyf makes the format dumber.
While making a deck Tarmogoyf is simply a black hole the sucks you in. Unless you're playing decks like Stax or Ad Nauseam you're always thinking "Could Goyf make this deck better?", are you running 2 or 3 colors? "Could a green splash for Goyf make this deck better? I even get Krosan Grip!".

Even fucking green Staxx plays Goyf! Think about it, a deck that is made to make 2G and 3G easily chooses to play a 1G creature because it's that much better than 2G threats available.

Off the top of my head the only 1G threat that comes close to Goyf power is Wren's Run Vanquisher. It's a 3/3 deathtouch for 1G with a severe casting restriction. Even without the restriction the +1/+2 or +2/+3 Goyf has over is it separates them by an abyss.

There's not much point in even thinking about banning him now. He may still be the best creature ever, but he's no longer magnitudes stronger than everything else -- a lot of creatures printed since then are on a similar level. Tombstalker, Doran, Wild Nacatl, War Monk, Thoctar, Crusher, KotR, Leech, etc. These creatures coexist happily with Goyf. If you ban Goyf, these same creatures will still be holding back all the other creatures that Goyf is nominally holding back now.

How is Tombstalker holding Nacatl?

While I do agree that recently printed creatures are way better than the old ones, none of the mentioned comes close to the splashbility and indenpendency of Goyf. Goyf gets bigger for the steep price of you and your opponent playing Magic.

Goyf is 1G, Nacatl needs land types, Doran/Rhox/Thoctar/Knight are double/triple colors, Leech dies to removal in response to pump and can't be used as blocker for control. The list of creatures could go on, but one way or the other Tarmogoyf is still the king of the jungle.

jazzykat

12-28-2009, 07:01 AM

Here is my take.

0. Goyf is an R&D mistake.

1. Throughout the history of magic there has been power level creep. There are also periods of dominance. Sometimes a ban desroys the dominance, but a fair amount of instances evolution errodes the dominance. New cards are printed each year and more and more hate is packe for a dominant deck.

2. The most recent evidence of evolution is counter top declining. The months of krosan grip, and more varied CC's have taken their toll on the Juggernaut.

I know what you all are saying about now but Tarmogoyf isn't just in blue decks it's in just about all decks. While true, if Tarmogoyf didn't exist would you stop playing removal? Granted goyf makes red removal less effective, but there is still Lavamancer which becomes MUCH better in the face of omnipresent goyfs.

3. IMO goyf outclasses the old fatties "with draw backs" su-chi, juggernaut, blastoderm. The problem is so do planeswalkers for that CC.

I believe the best way to put Goyf "back in his place" is to unban cards (land tax, monolith, etc.) to make other strategies viable.

I.e. Tax may help some land based strategy become more powerful.

Monolith will again speed out tubbies and help power out massive robots,making not just the welder a threat but the actual fat.

I think we need to bring other strategies power level's up so they can tangle with goyf, instead of getting rid of goyf. Otherwise we will go back in large part to pre-goyf decks and what is the point of all this evolution.

Jak

12-28-2009, 07:14 AM

It's funny. I was looking at my deck and realized that all my creatures are new bordered (except two but those aren't in the deck to be in play) and all my spells are old bordered (except Spell Snare which is a meta card). It just shows how obvious it is that newer creatures are better than old and how Wizards is trying to bridge the gap between the power of creatures and non-creatures. A year ago I wanted Goyf banned because it did suck every deck into it, but creatures have continued to become better that we are seeing other creatures. I of course still want to ay with FtK, Negator, and Serendib Efreet which is the only reason I want Goyf out, but I am not hating Legacy because Giyf is in it.

Waikiki

12-28-2009, 07:34 AM

MMogg

12-28-2009, 08:04 AM

Just look at the difference from

GG rare
2/1

1G sac destroy arti/enchantment

to

GW common
2/2
exalted
1 sac destroy arti/enchantment

Thats just sick imo. Same happened with goyf creatures just get stronger all the time. I wonder what we got in a few years.

It may not necessarily increase all that much over the next few years. For the longest time the standard was 2/2 for 2 or sometimes 2/1 for 1, but maybe we are starting to see 2/2 for 2 with abilities (Qasali Pridemage) or 2/2 for 1 with drawbacks (Goblin Guide) as the new standard upon which to build. If anything, Tarmogoyf and power creep just means an upgrade on all creatures, for example, instead of Flesh Reaver at 4/4 for 2, maybe a 3/3 Flesh Reaver for :b: is printable. Is it not possible that once they find the right power level "formula", they can maintain that and still keep making creative and cool creatures without "power creep"? Tog was an example of a strong but not broken creature. Maybe they can do the same thing again (I mean make a good, creative creature, not necessarily another Tog) but on a slightly different/higher standard of power level than Tog was.

jazzykat

12-28-2009, 08:27 AM

Speaking of Reaver I would love a 5/6 Flesh Reaver!!!! He would be some type of flipped out goyf, but man 5 to the face every time he attacks or blocks would be something scary.

arebennian

12-28-2009, 08:42 AM

Just look at the difference from

GG rare
2/1

1G sac destroy arti/enchantment

to

GW common
2/2
exalted
1 sac destroy arti/enchantment

Thats just sick imo. Same happened with goyf creatures just get stronger all the time. I wonder what we got in a few years.

I've seen this comparison made before, but this one misses the mark in my opinion.
Would Pride-Mage see print as is in a block devoted to artifacts? I think that you would find more than the rarity changing.

The problem is that you are looking at the cards in a vacuum, or at least in the vaccum known as Legacy. Sure Wizards want to push the envelope with creatures and they are getting better, but they also create cards to fit into specific sets and solve problems in standard (although previously these may have been printed as spells).
If Mirrodin wasn't Artifact based, the 2/1 Elf may well have been stronger stats or activation wise. Similarly, if Pride-Mage wasn't part of the 'answer' cards printed to hate Faeries out of the top spot in Standard, it might have been a 1/1 with Exalted or had 2 in the activation cost. It might not have been created at all.

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that creatures are getting stronger, just that the rational behind comparing some creatures with one another (particularly the above example) isn't always so simple.

Rico Suave

12-28-2009, 09:10 AM

That is the whole point of why Tarmogoyf is warping; Right now, it doesn't matter WHAT type of deck you're playing; Tarmogoyf is likely to improve it.

At the St. Louis SCG 5k tournament, in the top 8 there were as many copies of Life from the Loam as there were copies of Tarmogoyf. And there sure were a lot more Wastelands.

Several of those decks were even running green, but no Tarmogoyf.

Is Tarmogoyf warping? Maybe. Is it on the level of Skullclamp, which would take up 4 slots in 7-8 decks of every top 8?

No. It's not even close.

DownSyndromeKarl

12-28-2009, 09:59 AM

Eva Green would probably play Putrid Leech (or drop green altogether?),
idk if it would drop it. Maelstrom Pulse is kind of the go-to for Counterbalance, Planeswalkers, and hell, Zoo.

On Topic: I think Goyf is one of those annoying cards that's so good, and you have to have them and they're going to cost $100+ to run.(now it's like $200). Look at FoW, and the Duals too. Should Goyf be banned? No, he should be reprinted and therefore more accessible.

Solaran_X

12-28-2009, 10:00 AM

There's not much point in even thinking about banning him now. He may still be the best creature ever, but he's no longer magnitudes stronger than everything else -- a lot of creatures printed since then are on a similar level. Tombstalker, Doran, Wild Nacatl, War Monk, Thoctar, Crusher, KotR, Leech, etc. These creatures coexist happily with Goyf. If you ban Goyf, these same creatures will still be holding back all the other creatures that Goyf is nominally holding back now.
This, word for word.

Even with Goyf banned, would cards like Wild Mongrel and Psychatog and Morphling (and others allegedly killed by Goyf) resurface in this format?

Highly unlike. Aside from a handful of exceptions (such as Goblins and Slivers, when it surfaces from time to time), the majority of creatures played in Legacy today are also legal in Extended and Standard. Even without Goyf, it's a likely (and probably right) assumption that these newer generations of beat sticks would have shouldered out the old favorites eventually with their staggered printing. The "old favorites" have been being shouldered out since Day 2.

Like it or not, there will come a day when even Tarmogoyf is no longer good and is shouldered out of the format. And everyone's hatred of Goyf will lead them to rejoice at his passing, without thinking about how powerful it's successor would have to be to kick him to the curb.

Illissius

12-28-2009, 11:09 AM

I wonder when power creep went from this scary thing that had to be avoided at all costs to just a fact of life, with nary a cry of "Magic is dying!" in between.

I guess we all just like our powerful cards.

That, and it's probably not called "creep" by accident.

SpatulaOfTheAges

12-28-2009, 11:41 AM

Is Tarmogoyf warping? Maybe. Is it on the level of Skullclamp, which would take up 4 slots in 7-8 decks of every top 8?

No. It's not even close.

Skullclamp isn't actually that powerful in Legacy.

Unless you meant in terms of SBs.

There's not much point in even thinking about banning him now. He may still be the best creature ever, but he's no longer magnitudes stronger than everything else -- a lot of creatures printed since then are on a similar level. Tombstalker, Doran, Wild Nacatl, War Monk, Thoctar, Crusher, KotR, Leech, etc. These creatures coexist happily with Goyf. If you ban Goyf, these same creatures will still be holding back all the other creatures that Goyf is nominally holding back now.

...

That's exactly the goddamned point. Tarmogoyf takes the place of dozens of creatures, and if he were removed, you would see a lot more variety in creatures.

Just compare Goyf's 1G to the creatures you named; Tombstalker's double black + a full graveyard, War Monk, Thoctar and Doran's 3 colors, Nacatl is effectively three colors, Crusher's RR plus deck constraints, KotR being in the two weakest colors, and Leech isn't even comprarable.

Illissius

12-28-2009, 11:49 AM

I never said he's not the best. But except for decks which don't even want to play more than 4 creatures, those other creatures still see a lot of play alongside Tarmogoyf. Even if you banned Goyf, you wouldn't see a return to people playing all those other creatures that people used to play before Goyf. You'd see an uptick in how often all these other new creatures see play. Would that be a positive development? Probably, yes. Does it justify banning Tarmogoyf? No.

andrew77

12-28-2009, 11:56 AM

For all of you who say tarmogoyf isn't warping lets look at the metagame from some events. let's examine it though and not just count the number of goyfs.

SCG St Louis...

Aggro Loam- 4 goyfs
43 Lands- no goyfs, but running goyfs wouldn't make sense.
Merfolk- bad deck that should run goyfs
Zoo- goyfs
Fish- Awful looking deck, should run goyfs
Aggro loam- goyfs
43 Lands- can't run goyfs
So out of 6 decks that can run goyfs 4 do and the other 2 should. Seems pretty warping to me...

SCG Philly...
Trinistax- no goys, but they kind of go against the decks game plan
Threshold- goyfs
Dredge- no goyfs, but deck is noninteractive so no need for them
Countertop- goyfs
Countertop- goyfs
Belcher- no goyfs, but once again noninteractive deck
42 lands- can't run goyfs
hexmage depths- goyfs even though its based on a different combo
So out of 5 decks that can run goyfs 4 do. Only stax doesn't and it really shouldn't, but some might argue it could.

SCG Charlotte...
Zoo- goyfs
43 land- can't run goyfs
zoo- goyfs
countertop- goyfs
goblins- no goyfs
dreadstill- no goyfs, but they should be there
zoo- goyfs
goblins- no goyfs
WOW!!! Finally an event where 1 archetype that has a game plan of winning with creatures that doesn't and shouldn't run goyfs. Too bad goyf is part of the reason goblins is terrible nowadays.

So yeah, if you are going to say goyf isn't format warping because he is only in 50% of decks you have to realize that out of the remaining 50% of deck something like 20% should be running him, 20% don't care because they are non-interactive and will win via combo or lock and 10% do not want him because they have better options. THAT LOOKS PRETTY DAMN FORMAT WARPING TO ME.

Illissius

12-28-2009, 12:35 PM

That just means it's a staple, not that it's broken.

Happy Gilmore

12-28-2009, 12:35 PM

Does any of this matter? WoTC will NEVER EVER ban a vanilla creature from any format. Raging about it won't change anything. I've been playing the format for many years, and I've seen first hand the changes Goyf has made on the metagame. I've also seen the format adapt, and the Big Green Man has become less and less scary.

Solaran_X

12-28-2009, 12:44 PM

That's exactly the goddamned point. Tarmogoyf takes the place of dozens of creatures, and if he were removed, you would see a lot more variety in creatures.

Just compare Goyf's 1G to the creatures you named; Tombstalker's double black + a full graveyard, War Monk, Thoctar and Doran's 3 colors, Nacatl is effectively three colors, Crusher's RR plus deck constraints, KotR being in the two weakest colors, and Leech isn't even comprarable.
You MISSED the point. Or warped it to suit your own needs.

Every single one of those creatures listed see plays DESPITE Goyf, or ALONGSIDE Goyf. Goyf is the most widely played creature, sure. I won't argue that. But the format has a long way to go until it's warped because of a simple vanilla creature.

Does Legacy even remotely compare to Black Summer, Combo Winter, or Mirrodin Standard in terms of deck variety and Top 4/8 variety?

Not even close.

When Legacy comes down to where two decks exist - one abusing Goyfs (similar to Necropotence dominated Black Summer, Academy dominated Combo Winter, and Ravager/Disciple/Artifact Lands dominated Mirrodin Standard) and one designed solely to beat the deck abuse Goyfs, we'll talk about a warped format.

But until that point comes, stop claiming the format is warped. Legacy is considered the healthiest format around right now, with the variety of viability of a massive selection of decks - many of those decks existing SOLELY because of Goyf. Take out Goyf, you get "creature variety" (although how many old creatures will see play with the rest of the Extended/Standard legal creatures currently taking up most the creature slots in Legacy, I don't know) but you'll lose all that deck variety that was kept alive solely because of Goyf.

Ask yourself this question.

Would you rather play in a tournament with 20+ different deck types all sharing Tarmogoyf, or would you rather play in a tournament with 3 or 4 different deck types and no Goyf?

Fuzzy

12-28-2009, 12:46 PM

Solaran_X

12-28-2009, 12:53 PM

Kird Ape? Juggernaut?
When was Juggernaut banned?

As for Kird Ape, it was banned back before Extended was Extended, when it was called Type I.X. This was because of Taiga, in a format where a turn 1 2/3 was too much because removal was basically limited to Swords to Plowshares or Lightning Bolt or Terror. Then the only two sets it was in (Revised and Arabian Nights) "rotated" out.

You will notice that when Kird Ape was reintroduced in Ninth Edition, no action was taken against it because the formats had more removal and could adequately deal with a turn 1 2/3.

Volt

12-28-2009, 12:57 PM

Legacy is considered the healthiest format around right now, with the variety of viability of a massive selection of decks - many of those decks existing SOLELY because of Goyf. Take out Goyf, you get "creature variety" (although how many old creatures will see play with the rest of the Extended/Standard legal creatures currently taking up most the creature slots in Legacy, I don't know) but you'll lose all that deck variety that was kept alive solely because of Goyf.

Serious question... Which existing deck archetypes do you think would die if goyf were banned?

SpatulaOfTheAges

12-28-2009, 01:00 PM

You MISSED the point. Or warped it to suit your own needs.

Every single one of those creatures listed see plays DESPITE Goyf, or ALONGSIDE Goyf. Goyf is the most widely played creature, sure. I won't argue that. But the format has a long way to go until it's warped because of a simple vanilla creature.

1) I haven't really seen Leech running rampant, but they all see play, yes, and it's the "beside" Goyf that's particularly interesting.

Let's look at a random decklist;

http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=30538

Now this deck all ready plays Crusher. If Goyf were banned, what would take that slot? More Terravores? Probably at least one more, but a full set seems like it would choke out the 3CC spot. I think it would be interesting to find out how that hole would be filled.

Or this list;

http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=30590

I kind of doubt that Werebear would see play again. I'm not sure how you would fill that hole.

I'm not suggesting that the format is in trouble because Troll Ascetic and Wild Mongrel don't see play anymore; certain older creatures rotate out after a while, that's natural. I'm suggesting that Tarmogoyf is too ubiquitous, that it's largely a deckbuilding crutch. And if it were banned I think players would be forced to innovate in exciting ways.

2) Stop referring to it as "just a vanilla creature". That's disingenuous to the extreme.

Let's imagine this card:

0
Artifact Creature
4/4

Is this card fair? I even made it an artifact, so that Pridemage and Grip can kill it. It's not card advantage. It's just a vanilla creature.

Anusien

12-28-2009, 01:18 PM

I've played just about every creature Tarmogoyf is supposedly holding back. I don't think Wild Mongrel is coming back to the format, Tarmogoyf or no.

Illissius

12-28-2009, 01:25 PM

I'm not suggesting that the format is in trouble because Troll Ascetic and Wild Mongrel don't see play anymore; certain older creatures rotate out after a while, that's natural. I'm suggesting that Tarmogoyf is too ubiquitous, that it's largely a deckbuilding crutch. And if it were banned I think players would be forced to innovate in exciting ways.

Okay. These are two different questions then. One is, can any case be made for banning Tarmogoyf based on anything remotely similar to the policy the DCI actually uses when deciding to ban a card? The answer to this is clearly no. The other is if you throw that out the window and consider things purely speculatively, would banning Tarmogoyf result in a "better" format? And for that I think you could make a compelling case that the answer is yes.

But if you actually want them to do this you don't only need to make the case for why banning Tarmogoyf would be a positive development, you also need to make the case for why their current policy is wrong and they should adopt a much more interventionist policy instead, and why that would work better. Personally, given that accurately predicting the long-range effects of any given banning/printing on the metagame is extremely hard, I'd rather stick with the conservative approach. If you ban Tarmogoyf, maybe the format turns into some kind of nirvana, but maybe in its absence something else will turn out to be at least as much of a detriment to the format as Tarmogoyf was beforehand -- maybe Goblins, maybe Boros, maybe combo, I don't know. But you can't really tell. You might wind up having to play whack-a-mole, always banning the most powerful card only to see another one take its place. And right now, the format is pretty good -- not perfect, but pretty good -- so I'd rather not find out. If it's not broken, don't fix it, basically.

(For the record, if I were God acting purely on my own whim with little regard to consequences, what I'd do is ban Counterbalance, Tendrils of Agony, Brain Freeze, and Ignite Memories (edit: probably Grapeshot too), and unban Vampiric Tutor and Grim Monolith. But let's not discuss.)

Solaran_X

12-28-2009, 02:08 PM

Serious question... Which existing deck archetypes do you think would die if goyf were banned?
I was out getting lunch, so didn't see this until I got back. I will, however, acknowledge your question and answer it. I will, without research, name two decks off the top of my head that exist because of Tarmogoyf.

#1) Eva Green. Eva Green is an evolution of Suicide Black, which has been a dead deck for some time, even prior to Tarmogoyf being a sparkle in Mark Rosewater's eyes. However, the creation of Tarmogoyf gave Suicide Black a second lease on life, as Eva Green. With the elimination of Goyf, do you think Eva Green would stick around with only Krosan Grip and Seal of Primordium to give it a reason to keep green? Unlikely. It would probably crawl into a corner somewhere and die silently.

#2) Goyf Sligh. Like Suicide Black, Sligh was a dead deck long before Goyf. Also like Suicide Black, it was occasionally played - but never to great success. Vial Goblins did the creature game far better, and Burn did the burning game far better. Sligh was sort of a bastard child that just couldn't survive in a format with only a marginal amount of the specialties the other two mono-red decks had. Tarmogoyf, however, supplemented Sligh's creature base and gave it a much better ground game (still not as good as Goblins, but significantly better) with the support of some burn. With the elimination of Goyf, Sligh loses it's improved creature game and would likely find a corner near Eva Green and die silently.

If I felt like doing research, I'm sure I could find another ten (or more) decks at least that have the same stories. Only marginal success, if any, before Tarmogoyf, and significantly more noticeable success after Tarmogoyf.

SpatulaOfTheAges

12-28-2009, 02:26 PM

Eva Green was redevelopment of Red Death, which could not compete in a format with Goyf present. Further, black Hymn-and-Sinkhole based decks had never disappeared from the format.

Ironic choice.

Illissius - I would disagree with the first part because the DCI simply does not have any consistent and clear criteria as to what cards deserve to be banned.

I'm not sure it's even possible to come up with such criteria. I think the question has to be "would the format be better or worse with X card present?" The answer to any debatable case will always be complicated and unique.

Edit: Also, for a while after the formation of Legacy, Goblin Sligh was a popular choice, and I think was actually a pretty good deck. To tie its re-emergence entirely to Goyf is kind of misleading, since the basic strategy has always been solid, but it wasn't always viable in the metagame. Obviously, this strategy was in a great position to benefit from an unbalanced beater, but it's not as if the deck hadn't been heard from since '97.

Bardo

12-28-2009, 02:45 PM

Powerful cards are powerful. All poweful things warp their environment to one degree or another (in MtG and not). Tarmogoyf is a powerful card, but warped =/= broken. Tarmogoyf is not breaking the environment (though I'll admit he's warping it) and the DCI have not published hard and fast criteria for banning cards, nor should they (it would be more of straight-jacket than anything, and we have to have a bit of trust that they know what they're doing, more or less).

Basically, all colors have their most powerful cards. White has Swords; blue has Force and Brainstorm; red has ... stuff; green has Tarmogoyf. If the DCI banned Swords to Plowshares we'll see greater diversity of spot removal, though diversity =/= better (not necessarily, anyway).

Illissius

12-28-2009, 02:50 PM

Illissius - I would disagree with the first part because the DCI simply does not have any consistent and clear criteria as to what cards deserve to be banned.

You're right in the sense that they don't have anything you could run through a computer or a lawyer and come out with a yes or no answer. But their general approach is pretty clear: don't ban anything unless we have to; keep the banned list as small as possible. Where "have to" is probably defined as something like a very large part of the playerbase complaining and being put off from the format/game, not just a small, if vocal, minority. (Or it being highly predictable that this would happen -- there wasn't so much grousing about Flash because everyone expected they would ban it and the only question was whether they'd do it preemptively; if they hadn't, I'm sure you would have seen quite a bit of discontent.) It's difficult to apply this to preemptive bannings like Top -- maybe it was completely and utterly dominating their Future Future Leagues, I don't know -- and Vintage is in another class entirely, but for real formats I think it generally holds up.

Basically, their criteria isn't "can we make it better?"; it's, "do we have to?". And I should also note that in their calculation the number of their own cards people are allowed to play with / prevented from playing with factors in very significantly, it's not just the diversity of a format and the satisfaction of the people playing it.

MattH

12-28-2009, 02:55 PM

Tempo Thresh is one of maybe two reals deck I could see dying from lack of Goyf. I guess it could try Quirion Dryad but that seems unlikely to work except in the least-aggro of metagames.

The other is Countertop/Progenitus, although Mongoose and Werebear are both pretty decent replacements in that deck.

Without Goyf, Eva Green gets easily replaced by some other deck built around the black core of Ritual/Hymn/Sinkhole/Confidant. Perhaps Red Death, perhaps Deadguy, perhaps some kind of greenless Team America build. Or combine those last two into some kind of UBW Dump Truck/EBA descendant!

Even if Goyf would get replaced by newer creatures, keeping Wild Mongrel out in the cold, that's acceptable. A top 8 that goes -12 Goyf, +4 KotR, +4 QP, +2 Baneslayer (!), +2 Putrid Leech is JUST FINE BY ME, thankyewver'much.

That said, Goyf doesn't NEED to be banned. Like every good virus, Tarmogoyf doesn't kill its host, it only makes it sick.

Nessaja

12-28-2009, 02:56 PM

If the DCI banned Swords to Plowshares we'll see greater diversity of spot removal, though diversity =/= better (not necessarily, anyway).
This pretty much.

Tarmogoyf has made the format "worse" for a long time but they're catching up with recent printings, the Legacy creature diversity is in a pretty good spot right now to the point we could probably even do without Goyf without seeing any archtypes dissapear but it's not really neccesary. Printing all these new creatures was a long process though, it would've been much easier to just ban Goyf early so other creatures didn't need to be powercreeped quite as much.

SpatulaOfTheAges

12-28-2009, 03:05 PM

If the DCI banned Swords to Plowshares we'll see greater diversity of spot removal, though diversity =/= better (not necessarily, anyway).

You're wrong for a few reasons;

A) Answers are always worse than threats. People won't go out of their way to splash for white, JUST to get StP.

B) Aggro decks don't like using StP; see Zoo running Path to Exile.

C) There is nothing even close to StP in terms of white removal, except PtE in aggro. Banning StP wouldn't encourage diversity, it would eliminate one of the very few reasons to run white in the first place. The same isn't true of green beaters, for those decks with Goyf that actually run other green cards.

Preemptive edit: the same argument fails for Brainstorm. Ponder is the next closest in power level, and it's simply not the same power level. So you might see more Portents being played if BS were banned, but that's about as exciting as the innovation would get.

Basically, their criteria isn't "can we make it better?"; it's, "do we have to?". And I should also note that in their calculation the number of their own cards people are allowed to play with / prevented from playing with factors in very significantly, it's not just the diversity of a format and the satisfaction of the people playing it.

Then explain

A) Land Tax
B) Shaharazad

I could name others, but those are good to start with.

Bardo

12-28-2009, 03:12 PM

My analogy could have been more apt, but I think my point remains, diversity =/= "better." (Again, not necessarily.)

To me, it's an aesthetic question, which is why it's a hard debate to resolve.

You're right in the sense that they don't have anything you could run through a computer or a lawyer and come out with a yes or no answer. But their general approach is pretty clear: don't ban anything unless we have to; keep the banned list as small as possible. Where "have to" is probably defined as something like a very large part of the playerbase complaining and being put off from the format/game, not just a small, if vocal, minority. (Or it being highly predictable that this would happen -- there wasn't so much grousing about Flash because everyone expected they would ban it and the only question was whether they'd do it preemptively; if they hadn't, I'm sure you would have seen quite a bit of discontent.) It's difficult to apply this to preemptive bannings like Top -- maybe it was completely and utterly dominating their Future Future Leagues, I don't know -- and Vintage is in another class entirely, but for real formats I think it generally holds up.

Basically, their criteria isn't "can we make it better?"; it's, "do we have to?". And I should also note that in their calculation the number of their own cards people are allowed to play with / prevented from playing with factors in very significantly, it's not just the diversity of a format and the satisfaction of the people playing it.

I think this a very accurate guesstimation on how it works. Well done.

Shaharazad was explained as a concession to TOs about operational complaints about the card (having to find new tables, time issues, etc.) . I can dig up the link if you want it. Made sense to me--it's still played casually.

Edit. Found it. http://www.wizards.com/MagiC/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af186

Land Tax forever remains inexplicable.

SpatulaOfTheAges

12-28-2009, 03:21 PM

Then Shaharazad wasn't banned because "they had to".

That's not an argument for why diversity isn't always better, then. The cards you're comparing Goyf to do not suppress diversity by their presence.

Illissius

12-28-2009, 03:31 PM

Then explain

A) Land Tax
B) Shaharazad

I could name others, but those are good to start with.

Basically, what Bardo said. First of all, unbannings are a distinct question from bannings. If Land Tax had started out as legal I highly doubt they would be going out of their way to ban it right now. (Unless it actually did turn out to be overpowered, but I doubt that). That said, they really do have no possible consistent rationale that I can think of for keeping it banned, so if they have any kind of principles regarding unbannings -- which, for the record, I don't think they do -- then they're violating them. But even the provable presence of some inconsistency in their decision making doesn't, I think, imply the total lack of any consistency whatsoever.

As for Shahrazad, I never cared about it one way or another so I couldn't really say.

SpatulaOfTheAges

12-28-2009, 03:36 PM

Smmenen

12-28-2009, 03:46 PM

and what are those principles? Has anyone actually been able to articulate the grounds for banning? Until you can, I suggest this article is moot.

Illissius

12-28-2009, 03:56 PM

The very idea that bannings and unbannings should be considered seperate questions is itself inconsistent; they are the same question "What cards belong on the banned list?" It shouldn't matter whether it's banned or not, the principles should be the same.

This is assuming that the principles are (or can be) based solely on some kind of technical measure of a card's power level or impact on the format. But that's pretty much impossible to do in any consistent way. As I said, it's really based on a basically naked measure of public sentiment. In cases where they've banned things, there's generally been huge public sentiment against a format as it stood, causing the DCI to step in and change things. But no one's going to quit playing Legacy just because Land Tax is banned.

Bardo

12-28-2009, 04:31 PM

But no one's going to quit playing Legacy just because Land Tax is banned.

Hmm. Is this what we have to do to get it off the banned list? :smile: Drastic times... Drastic measures.

Grollub

12-28-2009, 04:49 PM

"Could a green splash for Goyf make this deck better? I even get Krosan Grip!".
You don't splash 4 'Goyfs into your deck, you splash your deck into 4 'Goyfs.

Banworthy. Hell yeah. It's the definition of format warping and innovation limitting...

alderon666

12-28-2009, 04:58 PM

Summing up the problem with Goyf if: YOU HAVE TO PLAY IT! It makes every other creature in the format look bad, if you don't play they'll just counter your removal on their Goyfs and own you with them. Adding 4 Goyfs to the deck is actually adding 4 more removals for theirs Goyfs.

Goyf limits your options of creatures you can play in your deck and still be competitive. While other creature recently printed are very undercosted they are all somewhat niche creature. Either 2/3 color, have conditions to be met to be good, etc. Goyf is just plain stupid fat for 2 no strings attached.

If it's banning make a deck like Goblins rise to the top, then it's fine. At least you can sideboard against that! Plagues, Fallouts, etc. Yeah sure, Relic of Progenitus is good against Goyf, but really? Siding in grave hate to deal with their vanilla 2 drop? If they are playing recursion then it's fine, but if they're not...

keys

12-28-2009, 05:05 PM

I stand by my statement that Tombstalker is still the best threat in Legacy. Goyf is just more splashable, and I don't see any problem with that. There was no reason to splash green before Goyf. Green is the color of cheap fatties. It seems appropriate to me.

DownSyndromeKarl

12-28-2009, 05:08 PM

Tombstalker > Goyf. Just sayin'.

"That's just like you're opinion man."

I run both, but Tombstalker is much harder to splash, and that's where the problem lies: If Goyf cost :g::g: He'd be played less. Would he still be amazing? Absolutely, but double *on-color* really makes you check your mana base.

EDIT: Thanks for editing your post after I've quoted you.

Bardo

12-28-2009, 05:25 PM

Then Shaharazad wasn't banned because "they had to".

There's no moral or policy imperative so "they had to" is probably an overstatement since, technically, they don't have to do anything. "They had to" should probably be replaced by "sufficient compelling reason."

I still think Illussius' central point remains: given the choice between action and inaction, the DCI will err on the side of inaction, up until the point they're moved to action by "sufficient compelling reason" (i.e. a critical mass of annoyance from players / fear of lost profits). I don't think the same standards apply when it comes to unrestrict vs. when to ban. Banning is serious business and is sure to create waves. Cards that are unbanned are judged to not be a serious threat (and again, they can always re-restrict/ban; e.g. Gush).

The sufficient compelling reason to ban Shahrazad came from TOs, not players. TOs are an important segment of their customer base and Organized Play has the DCI's ear.

majikal

12-28-2009, 06:30 PM

2) Stop referring to it as "just a vanilla creature". That's disingenuous to the extreme.

Let's imagine this card:

0
Artifact Creature
4/4

Is this card fair? I even made it an artifact, so that Pridemage and Grip can kill it. It's not card advantage. It's just a vanilla creature.
You mean this guy?
http://sales.starcitygames.com/cardscans/MAGMDN/myr_enforcer.jpg

DownSyndromeKarl

12-28-2009, 06:36 PM

If Myr Enforcer were truly free, he'd be broken, but his drawback is hefty. The guy is unsplashable. A zero cost 4/4 would be awesome.

Bardo

12-28-2009, 06:38 PM

That's not a fair comparison. I'm not aware of any serious deck that splashes for Myr Enforcer. But I played in a tournament yesterday and splashed 4x Tarmogoyfs in my Landstill deck.

Even I'll admit, that's weird.

Other than power level, it's Goyf's inimitable splashability that's arguably the problem.

FoolofaTook

12-28-2009, 06:44 PM

Tarmogoyf is clearly the most warping card in the format at this point. Very few decks splash blue just to put in Brainstorm, despite it's clear power level vs the format. More decks splash white to put in Swords to Plowshares. Half the format splashes green to put in Tarmogoyf.

Half the format.

If that's not warping I don't know what is. Tarmogoyf has become the power 9 of Legacy.

majikal

12-28-2009, 06:51 PM

I still don't see the big deal about Goyf. Yes, it's big. Yes, it's ubiquitous. Who cares? The wealth of decks that use him is enormous. It's better to have a super-splashable, super-efficient beater and put all kinds of different archetypes on somewhat equal footing than to have a super-efficient beater that only one deck can use and have that deck dominate everything.

Aggro_zombies

12-28-2009, 07:00 PM

majikal

12-28-2009, 07:10 PM

Except those decks aren't on equal footing. Aggro control decks benefit enormously from Goyf, more so than any other deck type.
What's your point? Aggro control is what you get when you pile up all the best cards in the format, Tarmogoyf or not.

Aggro_zombies

12-28-2009, 07:20 PM

What's your point? Aggro control is what you get when you pile up all the best cards in the format, Tarmogoyf or not.
That was not the case prior to the printing of Tarmogoyf. At that point in time, aggro-control decks had to make real decisions about the right balance of aggressive and controlling elements. Those decks' creatures were usually guys with threshold buffs, who were notoriously bad at blocking anything prior to getting threshold. Now Tarmogoyf is the best aggro and best control element in all of those decks, which does a number of things:

- It drives traditional control decks in the direction of aggro-control because Goyf is the best answer to early beats and opposing Goyfs, as well as the best way to win within the time limit.

- It drives traditional aggro decks in the direction of aggro-control because Goyf gives those decks both better quality creatures and a way to fend of early rushes from a deck like Goblins.

Prior to the printing of Tarmogoyf, there were much more balanced and distinct archetypes: Landstill on the control end, Goblins on the aggro end, Threshold in the aggro-control end, and various decks for combo. Tarmogoyf's printing made Landstill obsolete because that deck just can't compete on the same level as Countertop with Goyf, and it only continues to show up because of people playing it as a pet deck. Goyf's ability to stall the board and then end the game in a few turns is the primary reason Counterbalance sees as much play as it does, which in turn has driven combo to the margins of the format. As long as Goyf continues to exist, aggro-control piles will continue to be the best decks in the format.

alderon666

12-28-2009, 07:21 PM

What's your point? Aggro control is what you get when you pile up all the best cards in the format, Tarmogoyf or not.

It allows them to play a early blocker that also happens to be a huge beater for 2 mana. Turn 2 goyf followed by turn 3 goyf backed up by FoW, Daze, Bolt gives ******** the chance to end the game VERY quickly. Name a creature that could do the same thing.

Goyf is too big, too splashable and too cheap.

Reliquary, War Monk, Nacatl all have upsides and downsides. Goyf's only downside is being green.

Tacosnape

12-28-2009, 07:30 PM

Goyf's only downside is being green.

This is wrong. Goyf also struggles against graveyard hate. Relic of Progenitus has wrecked my Goyfs at key times quite often.

Legacy is better off -with- Tarmogoyf. It's the flagship vanilla creature of Legacy.

Volt

12-28-2009, 07:54 PM

This is wrong. Goyf also struggles against graveyard hate. Relic of Progenitus has wrecked my Goyfs at key times quite often.

I am skeptical, sir.

Wargoos

12-28-2009, 09:28 PM

Legacy is better off -with- Tarmogoyf. It's the flagship vanilla creature of Legacy.

Soo much this.
That's why I love the sucker so much.
(Yes, I own a staple..)

Although I remember the good old times having 4/4 bears.
Bears are just more synergetic with Mongeese than some freaky lhurgoyf-thrash thing.
Why couldn't it be a bear?
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Brown-Bear-in-stream-w-pink-salmon-_D4I2670-Geographic-Harbor-Katmai-National-Park-AK1.jpg
<3
http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2009/kreul_kyle/images/yellow-mongoose--cynictis-penicillata.jpg

herbig

12-28-2009, 10:46 PM

Goyf also struggles against graveyard hate.

Why do I keep reading posts where you say Goyf struggles against graveyard hate? Have you ever actually played this format?

Yeah Relic can be a bit annoying, but that's about it. Whenever an opponent drops a Crypt or something on me I kind of chuckle.

Why are my Goyfs so much stronger than yours against graveyard hate?

caiomarcos

12-29-2009, 12:06 AM

I was out getting lunch, so didn't see this until I got back. I will, however, acknowledge your question and answer it. I will, without research, name two decks off the top of my head that exist because of Tarmogoyf.

#1) Eva Green...

#2) Goyf Sligh...

Two decks that show the case for "every deck is better with 4 Goyfs".

If you don't plan to kill your opponent using some LED trick, you HAVE to kill him with Goyfs. Even goblin can't handle a turn 3 4/5 "vanilla". Merfolk is showing up preying on all those blue based goyf aggro-control that became ubiquitous after its printing, because now you can pack the best control and the best "vanilla" creature in the same deck with no mana problems.

Whoever didn't realize that every non-combo deck is better with Goyf is clearly missing something for the past 2 years. Your deck not only is better with them, but only VIABLE with 4 Goyfs, because if you don't have it, your opponent will.

By the way, Goyf IS NOT A VANILLA CREATURE FFS!!! It is a turn 2 drop FINISHER, CONTROL ELEMENT, BEATER, FATTY, BLOCKER etc...

wolfstorm

12-29-2009, 01:19 AM

Eva Green would probably play Putrid Leech (or drop green altogether?)

I think Eva Green might go back to being Red Death :)..

FieryBalrog

12-29-2009, 01:25 AM

I think Aggro Zombies post on the first page wraps up the most sophisticated argument for banning Goyf. Its not so much "Goyf is holding back creature diversity" (although he is), its more that Goyf makes aggro-control the most dominant archetype by far. To the point where yes, a lot of the diversity in Legacy is really superficial, and boils down to many different variations on a common theme of aggro-control, whether its UGx or UGxx or RGx or BGx. Control is dead because of Goyf; why NOT play him in a control shell and move towards aggro-control? He's too efficient to give up, and what you replace him with (UWx Landstill) isn't worth the loss of Goyf's power as a control card.

At the same time, Goyf punishes aggro decks. Sure, they can run their own Goyfs, but it makes a lot of their other creatures really shitty when it comes to attacking. A Zoo player with Nacatl + Goyf attacking into a Goyf is still facing a bad situation.

Goyf even punishes combo (although IMO this is the one effect of his that I like) because he provides aggro control strategies with a powerful enough clock to beat down combo fast.

This is the real problem with Goyf. Traditionally you would expect to find the cheapest, most efficient beaters in AGGRO decks (and you would have to dedicate a lot of slots to them), and the resilient, mana-hungry win-cons in CONTROL decks. By giving control decks access to the best and most efficient beater in the format- a beater so efficient that just 1 is a good enough clock- you essentially warp the format towards the stagnant aggro-control environment its become for 2 years now.

What's your point? Aggro control is what you get when you pile up all the best cards in the format, Tarmogoyf or not.

Absolutely not, usually you get a dedicated control deck when you do that (see: Keeper in T1, or in recent Standard, Quick n' Toast or 5 color control). Sometimes you get an aggro deck (Zoo). Aggro Control decks are usually NOT full of the best cards in the format- they're full of very efficient, synergistic cards. You think the original aggro control decks in extended ran Quirion Dryad because it was one of the best cards in the format?

Edit: Also, I just have to say the "only a vanilla creature" argument is retarded. There is no axiom which equates "vanilla creature" with "automatically fine." Wizards could print a vanilla creature which deserves to be banned; I don't think any sane person can question that. Its only a matter of which vanilla creatures are fine and which aren't.

And yes, I own 4x Goyf.

Forbiddian

12-29-2009, 05:15 AM

This article is just meanders around, moving from factoid to factoid, attempting to find some meaning, purpose, or conclusion. It has no point, draws no conclusions, and is horribly written.

Specific example of the bad writing style:

The mechanics of Magic are set up to maintain a balance: If there's a powerful card at a low casting cost, there's usually a condition that must be met or a state that must be achieved.

He goes on to discuss Rogue Elephant and Flesh Reaver, neither of which, by any stretch of the English language, require a condition to be met or a state that must be achieved (the condition of having a Forest?). He did say "usually," did he mean to say that Rogue Elephant and Flesh Reaver were the two exceptions to the above rule? A decent author would have written "has a drawback" to avoid the ambiguity, but I guess this author really needed to buffer his word count.

Is it supposed to be left as an exercise to the reader to decipher what the hell he's talking about?

The average post on the Source is much more coherent, well-thought, and about as well researched. I pay the same amount, so I guess it's only my irrational belief that the published word is held to a higher standard than a free forums, but I'm never going to read another article from Jeremy Edwards if I can help it. EDIT: Actually, he's only written like 10, and only randomly chose to write this one, so it's unlikely that I ever will again. But he has been writing for 8 years, how the hell is someone still this bad?

Would Legacy be better off without Tarmogoyf? Consider that at your next tournament. He'll be there.

I like how you did that one thing where you draw no conclusions and then pretentiously drift off into the distance, your job of imparting your wisdom to the world finished.

OMG, I just looked up other articles from this guy. The most recent is titled: "The Day the Magic Died" and then he changes the lyrics to American Pie in the teaser. I've met upper management at large corporations who aren't half as pretentious as this twit. I'm not going to read it or anything, but damn, just the title!

Aggro_zombies

12-29-2009, 05:39 AM

Forbiddian

12-29-2009, 05:55 AM

You do realize that the point of the article was not to draw conclusions but to serve as the basis for discussion, right?

Discussions tend to be colored by conclusions drawn in their source material.

If his point is to be pretentious and he actually thinks that the world needs another Tarmogoyf conversation, then ok, I still categorically reject his position, but I can at least see why his article meandered so pointlessly. Point taken.

Even so, his writing style is fucking awful and I have more a problem with that than the fact that he said nothing. I've liked plenty of articles that said nothing and had no conclusion, but were readable and entertaining.

I also disagree with your underlying premise. For instance: We are having a conversation now, that only started because I drew a definite conclusion: "The article is fucking horrible." I supported that with evidence and you're responding to one of my points and supported it with evidence, and I'm in turn responding to yours.

A controversial conclusion supported by evidence is a better conversation starter than a series of unrelated statements.

ddt15

12-29-2009, 06:01 AM

I've always found Quirion Dryad to be the standard 'fair' creature for aggro control decks. Noone's splashing it though, even though it is a very synergetic card in aggro-control (basically gets better with every spell you play), its clearly inferior to Tarmogoyf. The biggest problem is that Goyf is fat the moment he enters play, basically acting as a Moat (in the same way that Masticore in the old days acted as a Moat for control strategies), that can kill the opponent in 4 turns. Doing all this for only 1:g: is over the top imo.

Rico Suave

12-29-2009, 09:56 AM

This is the real problem with Goyf. Traditionally you would expect to find the cheapest, most efficient beaters in AGGRO decks (and you would have to dedicate a lot of slots to them), and the resilient, mana-hungry win-cons in CONTROL decks. By giving control decks access to the best and most efficient beater in the format- a beater so efficient that just 1 is a good enough clock- you essentially warp the format towards the stagnant aggro-control environment its become for 2 years now.

The idea of using "mana-hungry" win conditions in control decks has died long ago. Even Extended control decks are running a combo kill.

People aren't quitting control because of Tarmogoyf. They are quitting control because Landstill is a bygone relic of years past and just isn't a good deck anymore. There are so many people who don't know what else to do, so they pick up a different deck.

EDIT - What I mean to say is that people equate Landstill with control, and think if Landstill isn't good then control isn't good.

Tinefol

12-29-2009, 10:52 AM

All of the sudden, Landstill isn't good anymore. Anything to prove that point?

SpatulaOfTheAges

12-29-2009, 11:03 AM

This article is just meanders around, moving from factoid to factoid, attempting to find some meaning, purpose, or conclusion. It has no point, draws no conclusions, and is horribly written.

It has no point AND draws no conclusions. It meanders AND moves from factoid to factoid? Double trouble!

Specific example of the bad writing style:

He goes on to discuss Rogue Elephant and Flesh Reaver, neither of which, by any stretch of the English language, require a condition to be met or a state that must be achieved (the condition of having a Forest?). He did say "usually," did he mean to say that Rogue Elephant and Flesh Reaver were the two exceptions to the above rule? A decent author would have written "has a drawback" to avoid the ambiguity, but I guess this author really needed to buffer his word count.

In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something?

Jesus Christ man, everyone knew what he meant. You don't read Magic articles for the writing, you read them for the content; if they're coherent, then the rest is pretty irrelevant.

Is it supposed to be left as an exercise to the reader to decipher what the hell he's talking about?

The average post on the Source is much more coherent, well-thought, and about as well researched. I pay the same amount, so I guess it's only my irrational belief that the published word is held to a higher standard than a free forums, but I'm never going to read another article from Jeremy Edwards if I can help it. EDIT: Actually, he's only written like 10, and only randomly chose to write this one, so it's unlikely that I ever will again. But he has been writing for 8 years, how the hell is someone still this bad?

I like how you did that one thing where you draw no conclusions and then pretentiously drift off into the distance, your job of imparting your wisdom to the world finished.

OMG, I just looked up other articles from this guy. The most recent is titled: "The Day the Magic Died" and then he changes the lyrics to American Pie in the teaser. I've met upper management at large corporations who aren't half as pretentious as this twit. I'm not going to read it or anything, but damn, just the title!

[/troll]

Clearly he didn't mean for the article to draw a conclusion. Any intelligent and mature person reading it would see that it was probably meant to be a launch pad for further discussion. Clearly you are neither of those.

undone

12-29-2009, 11:18 AM

This discussion sounds sadly to me like "Goyf is too good so goyf should be banned" When IMO There are at least a half dozen cards WAY above goyf in power that are unbanned in legacy.

1) Brainstorm - this card is beyond absurd and reduces the land count in all blue decks in addition to nearly countering duress/seize. This card should be 1/2 on all the "ban this card" discussions way before goyf.

2) Top - This card takes a long time and its sheer powerlevel is absurd it can just beat some decks on turn 1 (discard just eats it to a top, and LD decks like tempo are alot worse off)

3) LED - Really? We want to ban a big dude before psudo black lotus with an UPSIDE for dredge and ANT (If Tutor is involved)?

Thats just off the top of my head others come to mind as well. Goyf helps the format keep combo down and still keep goblins down. The bottom line is that combo isnt as good when there are creatures which put it on a 3/4 turn clock with countermagic disruption. However if we go back to the old ways of "my clock is 7+ turns with some disruption" Combo improves significantly.

The real reason people complain about goyf IMO is that it is the strongest fair card which they interact with. Its hard to see abstractly how strong LED, top and brainstorm (and force of will and daze) are as they blend into whatever the deck does and FEEL like just part of the format when in reality are the real culprits for X where X is something overpowered.

It is fair to preface this with the fact I own 9 goyfs however I mostly just play combo (dredge and ANT)

DownSyndromeKarl

12-29-2009, 11:20 AM

Any intelligent and mature person

wrong forum.

FoolofaTook

12-29-2009, 11:21 AM

The real question here is whether a metagame dominated by Aggro Control to the extent that the Legacy metagame is dominated by that theme is healthy or not. Do more people play Legacy and enjoy it because Aggro Control is dominant or would more people try it out if there was a much wider range of competitive decks available?

WotC has always favored a give-and-take metagame in which both players get a real chance to participate. The bias towards blue is designed to create that kind of metagame and generally has pushed the format towards Control and Aggro Control as the dominant decks with Control fading now as Aggro Control becomes the center of the universe. It's no accident that Goblins have been pushed off the stage by CounterTopGoyf. It's the plan.

The question is whether it's a plan that we like as a community or one that limits us.

Illissius

12-29-2009, 11:28 AM

The real question here is whether a metagame dominated by Aggro Control to the extent that the Legacy metagame is dominated by that theme is healthy or not. Do more people play Legacy and enjoy it because Aggro Control is dominant or would more people try it out if there was a much wider range of competitive decks available?

I believe the top deck in Legacy right now is Zoo, though obviously the situation is fluid.

WotC has always favored a give-and-take metagame in which both players get a real chance to participate. The bias towards blue is designed to create that kind of metagame and generally has pushed the format towards Control and Aggro Control as the dominant decks with Control fading now as Aggro Control becomes the center of the universe. It's no accident that Goblins have been pushed off the stage by CounterTopGoyf. It's the plan.

I highly doubt that R&D designs cards with Legacy explicitly in mind. It's a good thing too, if they did they'd probably fuck it up. (See also: Vintage.)

Tacosnape

12-29-2009, 12:11 PM

Why do I keep reading posts where you say Goyf struggles against graveyard hate? Have you ever actually played this format?

Yeah Relic can be a bit annoying, but that's about it. Whenever an opponent drops a Crypt or something on me I kind of chuckle.

Why are my Goyfs so much stronger than yours against graveyard hate?

Maybe because I'm playing in a format where Relic of Progenitus is the signature graveyard hate card (Called "Legacy"), and you're playing off in crazy land where people actually board in Tormod's Crypt against Tarmogoyf.

When Relic lets a group of Merfolk swarm in against my 0/1's, and I have very limited time to get them back to full size? Or when two Relics come down in the first couple turns and just gnaw on Tarmogoyf all game? They become less than awesome. Not so awesome that you don't still run Tarmogoyf, just that they're capable of being controlled.

FoolofaTook

12-29-2009, 12:32 PM

I believe the top deck in Legacy right now is Zoo, though obviously the situation is fluid.

You can make a pretty good argument that Zoo is Aggro Control tending towards aggro. It's clearly a deck in which both players input will matter in the results, but the Zoo player is ahead of the curve from the get-go.

I highly doubt that R&D designs cards with Legacy explicitly in mind. It's a good thing too, if they did they'd probably fuck it up. (See also: Vintage.)

I wasn't talking about card design so much as what is allowed to see play afterward. The bias towards blue, with Brainstorm (in particular) and Counterbalance still legal despite the fact that they have power levels that are off the curve for Legacy, is apparent in the ban decisions that the DCI has made for Legacy.

Cards that will win the game for you reliably and quickly assuming the opponent does not have disruption or counters (all the banned mana accelerants, all the banned black tutors, Hermit Druid, Goblin Recruiter, Flash, Necropotence, etc) are put on the list as soon as they are discovered to allow this to happen. Cards that will win the game for you reliably over time if played are not. A well-played Brainstorm often wins a game although something else is the actual kill instrument. The power of seeing 3 fresh cards and potentially keeping them is just too strong for the format. When Counterbalance lands early you win probably 90% of the time except in the mirror. It's the most win now card in the format, even if you actually win 5 or 8 turns after it lands.

caiomarcos

12-29-2009, 12:54 PM

Maybe because I'm playing in a format where Relic of Progenitus is the signature graveyard hate card (Called "Legacy"), and you're playing off in crazy land where people actually board in Tormod's Crypt against Tarmogoyf.

When Relic lets a group of Merfolk swarm in against my 0/1's, and I have very limited time to get them back to full size? Or when two Relics come down in the first couple turns and just gnaw on Tarmogoyf all game? They become less than awesome. Not so awesome that you don't still run Tarmogoyf, just that they're capable of being controlled.

Yeah, because a swarm of merfolk and their lords is not enough against a 1G 5/6, so here it comes Progenitus' trinkets for the aid, poor fish if they don't show up. All that trouble - swarm of fish, one or two hate cards - to fight Goyf alone, and you need time to what? Keep playing cantrips and cracking fetches? Like someone said, Goyfs only requirement is that you and your opponent play Magic, there's no effort involved in growing it.

Don't forget that Relic is the signature grave hate because of Goyf, otherwise Tormod's would do a much better job on foiling your opponent's grave strategy and not removing your threshold, lands for Loam or fodder for Stalker at the same time. Hell, I bet that Relic was only printed for the sole purpose of gnawing on Goyfs.

When there's so much hate against a "vanilla" green beater, something is going wrong.

Volt

12-29-2009, 01:35 PM

Maybe because I'm playing in a format where Relic of Progenitus is the signature graveyard hate card (Called "Legacy"), and you're playing off in crazy land where people actually board in Tormod's Crypt against Tarmogoyf.

Agreed that boarding in Tormod's Crypt against Goyf is crazy. However, I would strongly dispute you calling Relic of Progenitus the "signature graveyard hate card" in Legacy. Tormod's Crypt earns that moniker, hands down. When Relic shows up in sideboards at all, it's usually as a 1- or 2-of, supplementing some number of Crypts. Btw, let's back up for a second so I can stress the point that we're talking about a sideboard card here, not something that is commonly (ever?) maindecked. So, basically, you're making kind of a big deal about the fact that Tarmogoyf "struggles" against a card that is pretty much never maindecked and is occasionally found as a 1- or 2-of in some people's sideboards. And most people would tell you that particular sideboard card is nothing more than a minor nuisance to Tarmogoyf anyway. I remain skeptical.

My position regarding whether or not Tarmogoyf should be banned is much closer to neutral than it was several months ago, but I would like it for once if people would be intellectually honest when having this discussion.

Michael Keller

12-29-2009, 02:24 PM

Does Legacy even remotely compare to Black Summer, Combo Winter, or Mirrodin Standard in terms of deck variety and Top 4/8 variety?

Not even close.

You're also digging back in time when the card pool was vastly smaller, the mechanics of the game were different, and the stack wasn't even conceived yet. Ernham Djinn was the best green beater then, and he was similar in nature to Tarmogoyf in just about every which way except for his casting-cost (which in 1995 was hardly even a debate whether or not that was a problem) and the negligent forestwalk-giving "drawback".

And some people might argue the "Black Summer" could also be called the "White Summer" due to the copious amount of "white-weenie" decks running around just as rampant with four Balance and four Strip Mines to boot.

Point is, Tarmogoyf doesn't warp the format; he's just a nuisance that deserves to be dealt with when in play. Swords to Plowshares was around long before Goyf and everyone talks about how now everyone needs to play it in order to compensate for Goyf's presence. We all know that isn't true and it is not a generalization because people are placing cards like Swords in the debate on whether or not it is now necessary to splash white for the best spot-removal for the best creature in existence.

I also want to add how I get a chuckle everytime someone refers to Tarmogoyf as a "vanilla" creature. I'm sorry, but its casting-cost alone gives it somewhat of a special distinction as opposed to a creature with a special ability. That IS...its special ability.

I ain't 'fraid of no Goyf.

Rizso

12-29-2009, 02:29 PM

I really doubt legacy would be a better format with ban on Tarmogoyf. IMO the format is very healthy right now. More decks then any other format.

Sure he is played in lots of decks but so are wastelands, Brainstorm, Force of will, Daze, Sensei's Divining Top, Swords To plowshares, Lightning Bolt and other staple cards.

IMO a tarmo ban wouldnt be good for legacy.

Dembones

12-29-2009, 02:37 PM

Sure he is played in lots of decks but so are wastelands, Brainstorm, Force of will, Daze, Sensei's Divining Top, Swords To plowshares, Lightning Bolt and other staple cards.

None of those staples have nullified any other creature based win condition like goyf has.

Solaran_X

12-29-2009, 02:58 PM

None of those staples have nullified any other creature based win condition like goyf has.
Merfolk doesn't use Goyf and wins with creatures.
Goblins don't use Goyf and win with creatures.
Stax decks don't use Goyf and win with creatures.
Ichorid decks don't use Goyf and win with creatures.

And there are plenty of decks that use Goyf alongside other win condition creatures. In fact, aside from CounterTop...I don't think there are very many decks that rely almost solely on Tarmogoyf for the win.

Oops...looks like your point was just invalidated.

Nessaja

12-29-2009, 03:04 PM

And there are plenty of decks that use Goyf alongside other win condition creatures. In fact, aside from CounterTop...I don't think there are very many decks that rely almost solely on Tarmogoyf for the win.

Oops...looks like your point was just invalidated.

You can make the point that tribal is the only viable option for an aggro gameplan if you're not going to use goyfs. But stax and ichorid don't "win" through aggro, stax wins by locking out your opponent and ichorid has much more of a combo win.

Belcher doesn't win through aggro either.

Solaran_X

12-29-2009, 03:09 PM

You can make the point that tribal is the only viable option for an aggro gameplan if you're not going to use goyfs. But stax and ichorid don't "win" through aggro, stax wins by locking out your opponent and ichorid has much more of a combo win.

Belcher doesn't win through aggro either.
Once Stax establishes it's lock, it has to win somehow or draw through time. It wins, most often anymore, with either Knight of the Reliquary or Baneslayer Angel.

Ichorid is a combo finish, but it still wins with an aggro method. And Ichorid has also had many, many games where Ichorids and, sometimes, Nacromoebas go the distance.

And looking at other decks, Tarmogoyf is not the only win condition. Zoo and Bant Survival use Tarmogoyf alongside Qasali Pridemage, Rhox War Monk, and Trygon Predator (and a Rafiq of the Many in Bant Survival). Aggro-Loam uses Tarmogoyf alongside Countryside Crusher and Terravore. Dreadstill uses Tarmogoyf alongside Phyrexian Dreadnought. Team America uses Tarmogoyf alongside Tombstalker.

The point is, Tarmogoyf has not (by any stretch of the imagination) invalidated every creature win condition as said by the previous poster. It was the final nail in the coffin for some, but Goyf is mostly used as another win condition alongside other strong win conditions.

MattH

12-29-2009, 04:07 PM

Phoenix Ignition

12-29-2009, 04:20 PM

I'd just like to remind everyone that this happened:

Although this comment bears no constructive ideas, I felt it was worth mentioning that '39-Land-and-4-goyf' prophecy has materialized.

How does that not cry of a broken card. This new deck (quite good too) that is based around being a 43 land variant with a combo kill throws in 4 goyfs just because they are that good.

I too miss the days when not every aggro control deck played a green splash exclusively for Goyf. Team america, eva green, dreadstill, landstills, and plenty of other decks I'm not going to look up have no business splashing an awful color like green if it weren't for a stupidly cheap huge beater.

Sure there are removal cards that take care of him (almost all of them), but what creature cards take care of him that aren't hugely overpriced in comparison? Nekrataal, Troll Ascetic (doesn't even kill him and needs 5 mana to chump right away), Deadly Recluse??

Having one card in a type (instant, sorcery, etc) that completely blows away every other card in that type unless they cost more than double (remember the days when people played Ravenous Baloth and Spiritmonger in the rock?) is just plain stupid, and making it easily splashable is even worse. I own 8 goyfs and I would be so very happy to see them banned from Legacy. That's almost like saying I'd pay 300$ to have him banned.

Volt

12-29-2009, 04:24 PM

Digital Devil

12-29-2009, 04:25 PM

With a card pool as vast as Legacy's you'd expect to find solutions to a :1::g: creature. In fact, there is an infinite number of cards which take care of Goyf, even those who are not broadly played and therefore recognised as "staples". I see as the only problem that Goyf tends to be your cards 1-4. You aren't thinking about a deck and need to find slots for your Goyfs, you're basically thinking about a 56 cards deck, because it doesn't matter what kind of archetype (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30180) you're going to play, Tarmogoyf usually makes it better. From a designing perspective, you're either playing him or asking yourself "what can I do against a resolved Goyf?". Merfolk is the obvious candidate for this natural selection. It started with Relic of Progenitus maindeck, but it turned to be more productive to run 4x Goyf. That's normal, playing the good cards is usually better than having to hate them. But stressing the aspect to the point that either you run Goyf, or you're exiled into a circle of suboptimal decks (there is always the third option: you have different win conditions, mainly combo), then it's not fair. If I want to play an aggro deck, the questions are:

1- Can I play my own Goyfs?
2- Can I remove my opponent's Goyf?

If I want to play control, the questions are:

1- Can I withstand an early Tarmogoyf?
2- Isn't it better to just stall the ground with my own Goyf?

That is the thing I noticed. Many aggro-control decks are basically control decks, but they tend to be misunderstood in their essence, since 4x Tarmogoyf suddenly make them AGGRO-control decks. While I do believe that both Deed/Counterbalance/Chalice are healthy for the format, because while they make design constraints, they basically encourage you to play higher casting cost spells. This avoids a format of 1/1s for 1, and makes comfortable to play 3 or even 4cc spells. On the other side, Goyf punishes you for playing heavier spells (plus, if you're playing Goyf in conjunction with Counterbalance, you are reaching a dead end). If you're playing low cost spells, they're either utilities/removal, or they're suboptimal cards. No creature in the 1-2 cc range matches Goyf's everlasting power. The fact is that to compete with Goyf you're usually playing uncastable juggernauts, or smaller creatures. And by the time you are able to succesfully cast your 4/4, Goyf is still usually bigger (since sometimes it even grows as the game goes on), and you are at such a low amount of life points you're usually cursing Wizards for not letting you committing suicide via mana burn. This factor makes people run Goyfs themselves. And the consequence is that most decks are UG-something. Just to point out what Aggro_Zombies said, it's like the Goldberg Variations. They are 32, but they all sound the same.

Illissius

12-29-2009, 04:35 PM

What most of us miss is not Wild Mongrel, Psychatog, and Serendib Efreet. What we miss is the days when there used to be real decisions to be made in deck construction. You could choose creature A, B, or C for your deck, and none of them was "just better" than the others - they all had strengths and weaknesses, and you had to choose the right one for your deck, and for your metagame. That isn't true anymore, at least not for the first four creature slots.

Swords to Plowshares suffers from the same effect, but to a lesser degree. The debate used to be: Smother kills a lot, but not everything, and is 2cc. STP kills everything, but it makes you play white, which sucked. Ghastly Demise was 1cc, instant, and in a good color, but was sometimes useless. Edict could kill things other spells couldn't, but sometimes would hit the wrong guy, and was terrible against goblins. There was a real skill to selecting the proper mix of removal. That can't happen now, because spot removal is dependent on the creatures that see play, and when Goyf is some large fraction of all creatures that need killing, only STP is good, and Smother is only used in nonwhite decks.

Tarmogoyf being legal means the decision has been made for us. It thereby reduces the strategy, and the skill, of the game. And that is a reason for asking to leave the format.

Maybe so. But I don't think deckbuilding complexity is, so to speak, a scarce resource. Personally speaking, at least, building decks hasn't gotten any less interesting for me since the advent of the Age of Tarmogoyf. The reverse, if anything. But of course, tastes differ.

I think a large component of this is just driven by people's preferences for what kind of format they like to play in, coupled with intellectual opportunism. And I'm not saying that like it's some horrible thing -- I think it's a very, very rare person who can get away from it entirely. Me, I like formats with large cardpools and a wide variety of viable strategies, and where various forms of aggro-control, control, combo-control, and toolbox control are highly viable strategies. So right now, I like Legacy. Back when Legacy was Goblins versus Solidarity, I didn't like it so much. Back then I was in slightly in favor of banning Goblin Lackey. In hindsight I was wrong about that, because they ended up printing (ironically enough) Tarmogoyf which fixed things; without hindsight, I don't know if you could've counted on them doing that. But in any case, I'm not sure you can expect people to have this amazing ideological consistency and be opposed to bannings on principle even when the format as it stands is one they don't enjoy. Of course, when someone doesn't enjoy a format, they're going to want it to change in some way, any way. But the DCI is only going to step in and ban something when it's *a lot* of people who feel that way. So I guess that's just the natural (and rightful?) way of things.

The fact that both the players and the DCI are going to attempt to rationalize their feelings using some kind of other explanation (and why this is would be an interesting discussion unto itself) doesn't really change the underlying dynamics.

FoolofaTook

12-29-2009, 06:15 PM

The logical answer to the conundrum of what to do about a creature that is in the majority of decks is to find a way to hate on the concept of ubiquitous creatures particularly viciously so that there are also drawbacks to playing them.

Maybe a :1::w: enchantment that reads something like: Name a creature when this enchantment comes into play. The named creature has its power and toughness set at 0/1 and does 1 damage to its owner at the beginning of each of your upkeeps. Sacrifice this enchantment: Draw a card.

Of course this wouldn't just be an answer to Tarmogoyf, it would be an answer to whatever the new power creatures were as the format developed. It would also change the "must splash green in most decks" to "must splash white in most decks". It would also make Tarmogoyf just as ubiquitous as it is now because if you were going to get hammered by your own creature it might as well be the best possible creature, which is what Tarmogoyf is. Or maybe it would make Meddling Mage the most ubiquitous creature...

FieryBalrog

12-29-2009, 06:25 PM

That card still sucks as an answer to Goyf.

There IS no answer to Goyf. All answers are generally inferior to just playing your own. Because your own Goyf answers opposing Goyfs, and can win the game to boot.

The only decks that don't run Goyf are usually incredibly linear: tribal (that actually do sometimes splash for Goyf, which is insane and an indication of just how stupid Goyf is), storm combo (obvious), dredge (obvious).

Or you have some niche Tier 2 decks (Prison, like Stax or Enchantress; various Bx decks that should have become BGx like everyone else did; some random things like Reanimator, etc.).

Landstill is about the last holdout from this trend and its not surprising that Landstill isn't going great. It just swaps out Goyfs and aggro-control elements for slower win-cons and slower card advantage elements.

FoolofaTook

12-29-2009, 06:45 PM

Well I think it's pretty obvious that the best answer to an ubiquitous creature is to ban that creature, however I wanted to lay out the weirdness that other solutions would create.

And BTW, I think that white enchantment would be played in almost every control deck and that control decks would be at least on the same footing as aggro control if it were printed. I'm not advocating that because I think cards that are auto-includes are stiflers not enablers, but I think that's how it would go down.

Otter

12-29-2009, 06:58 PM

Nothing quite like getting to rehash this topic every two weeks. Goyf sends some strategies under the steamroller, but the format is still pretty diverse. It's best for aggro-control shells, but it goes in a lot of places and helps a variety of decks. A lot of decks dip into green for Goyf (hello Eva Green) but there are still decks in green that don't play Goyf (43lands), so it works both ways. It's also risky for monocolor decks to splash green for Goyf because that chucks your tempo thresh matchup into the shitter, so it's not purely a good thing to splash Goyf everywhere. Are all the bases covered now? Can we please stop "stimulating discussion" on this topic every time the moon changes phases?

Kuma

12-29-2009, 07:04 PM

Back when Legacy was Goblins versus Solidarity, I didn't like it so much.

Truth. Legacy used to be defined by having to run eight answers to a turn one Goblin Lackey from an opponent who went first or being able to win by turn three or four fairly consistently. I'd rather have the format defined by Tarmogoyf.

People seem to think that Goblins is "dying" or has been "killed" by Tarmogoyf despite the fact that Goblins has been a DTB or a DTW since Tarmogoyf was printed. The deck is stupidly good and is 50/50 or better against most decks running Tarmogoyf. Tarmogoyf may constrict deck design a little, but compared to the days of decks running shit like Piracy Charm I think that's the lesser of two evils.

Back then I was in slightly in favor of banning Goblin Lackey. In hindsight I was wrong about that, because they ended up printing (ironically enough) Tarmogoyf which fixed things; without hindsight, I don't know if you could've counted on them doing that.

Agreed 100%.

Solaran_X

12-29-2009, 07:23 PM

It's good to see that some things never change. Solaran_X continues his months-long debate with some imaginary person who, apparently, says that Tarmogoyf is the only creature played in Legacy anywhere by anybody. Rest assured, Solaran_X. If that imaginary person were to somehow manifest before us, we would all tell him what an idiot he is, as we point to Tarmogoyf having a beer with all his little buddies.
Perhaps you missed the post by Dembones, which I previously quoted in a manner identical to this, that proclaimed that Tarmogoyf nullified any other creature win condition.

Go ahead and read it, I'll wait here for your apology in regards to this "imaginary person".

Volt

12-29-2009, 08:05 PM

Perhaps you missed the post by Dembones, which I previously quoted in a manner identical to this, that proclaimed that Tarmogoyf nullified any other creature win condition.

Go ahead and read it, I'll wait here for your apology in regards to this "imaginary person".

You'll be waiting a long time. I'll let Dembones speak for himself, but I somehow doubt that he meant "Nobody plays any creature other than Tarmogoyf in Legacy." And I doubt you thought that's what he meant, either. But that doesn't matter to you, since you have never been interested in rational debate. You're interested in pouncing on minor ambiguities, driving home obvious points that nobody actually disputes, and then spiking the ball in your opponent's face while doing the chicken dance.

Nonex

12-29-2009, 08:33 PM

Rico Suave

12-29-2009, 11:44 PM

Something that is interesting to note, in regards to the topic of aggro-control infesting Legacy, is just how few people play the decks that are typically strong against aggro-control.

We could see this change become more pronounced with the recent St. Louis SCG 5k tournament. Half the decks in the top 8 are mid-range decks that are just amazing against aggro-control, regardless of whether it's very aggressive (Merfolk) or very controlling (CB-Goyf).

Why don't people play more decks like Aggro Loam, 43 land, or any of the other various mid-game decks?

All of the sudden, Landstill isn't good anymore. Anything to prove that point?

Landstill isn't good because it's nowhere to be found in any large tournament. I think in the past 6-12 months I've seen it top 8 one tournament larger than 40 people.

Look at the SCG 5k tournaments. There is *no Landstill* at all. I can't even recall seeing one in the top 16. So yes, Landstill isn't good anymore, and this has been pretty obvious to a lot of people for a very long time.

Hell, Planeswalker Control made top 8 at the Boston SCG 5k tournament. There is a serious lack of development in this format regarding good control decks. It doesn't help that so many people get into the rut where they always stuff Tarmogoyf into their deck, even if it's a really bad decision to do so.

Tinefol

12-30-2009, 04:24 AM

Look at the SCG 5k tournaments. There is *no Landstill* at all. I can't even recall seeing one in the top 16. So yes, Landstill isn't good anymore, and this has been pretty obvious to a lot of people for a very long time.

Hell, Planeswalker Control made top 8 at the Boston SCG 5k tournament. There is a serious lack of development in this format regarding good control decks.

Legacy isn't only just SCG5k, you know. There are other tournaments. Some of these are posted on deckcheck, right?
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=31042 50
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30613 51
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30451 72
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30373 177
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30319 45
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30213 46

That's only just in the last two months (nope, not twelve; and many more placements in smaller tournaments). Granted its mostly Europe, but it certainly places a lot of top8, despite you claiming otherwise. These people probably don't know yet their deck isn't good anymore.

Citrus-God

12-30-2009, 05:13 AM

Legacy isn't only just SCG5k, you know. There are other tournaments. Some of these are posted on deckcheck, right?
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=31042 50
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30613 51
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30451 72
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30373 177
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30319 45
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30213 46

That's only just in the last two months (nope, not twelve; and many more placements in smaller tournaments). Granted its mostly Europe, but it certainly places a lot of top8, despite you claiming otherwise. These people probably don't know yet their deck isn't good anymore.

He's going to use the "European metagame is trash" argument against you. Watch out. ;)

I think Digital Devil has the right idea of how people should be approaching the Legacy format when it comes to deckbuilding and in-game decision making. If you think about it, it sort of makes the format into a bit of a pseudo chess game. Chances are, both players will have Goyfs, but you also need a balance of other control elements and threats to still function properly. Zoo can definitely function very well against a Goyf on the opposite side of the table with a board of Kird Ape and Pridemage and a hand consisting of burn (2 for 1-ing a Goyf is a very good play here. Of course, there are many variations there if the opponent with the Goyf decides not to block, but let's not get into that).

Also, the printing of Goyf has allowed a deck with Goyfs to function as an aggro deck, a midgame deck and a control deck if your deck runs actual control elements alongside Goyf. Isn't that good for the game? Why should a player limit himself to just one archetype when he can play three? By playing those decks, it's encouraging a player to look at in-game decisions in a different light. Imagine what that player with the lone Goyf facing down an is thinking when the Zoo players swings with a Pridemage and an Ape. He's probably thinking he's got Burn. Now, if the Zoo player is anticipating his opponent's train of thought, and decides not to attack, what will the player with the lone Goyf do on his turn? If the Zoo player has done this, it's a deliberate scheme to trick the player with the lone Goyf into attacking so that he can trade with him, as the player with lone Goyf will suspect that the Zoo player does not have burn in hand. Obviously, these plays are everywhere back then and now, but it's a lot more blatantly obvious now that every deck with Goyfs against one another tends to lean more towards 50/50. Just sayin', enjoy it for what it is, because this is essentially a very back to basics form of playing Magic. And this also encourages you learn when to block with Goyfs and when to attack with Goyfs, and if done right, you can stay up on top. Don't see much skill involved when it's Sui Black with Hatred vs. White Weenie back in those silly Tempest T2 days.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

12-30-2009, 05:33 AM

If the question was "Is there any new and productive conversation to be had on the topic of banning Goyf?" the question is clearly no.

Nothing has changed.

1) Tarmogoyf is still ubiquitous.

2) Solaran is still a troll.

3) "It's a vanilla beater" is still a terrible argument.

http://imgur.com/Nq4eF.jpg

That card is a vanilla beater. And you even get StP when you splash for it! And it's even got a drawback! Balanced, right?

alderon666

12-30-2009, 08:41 AM

Although I understand the comparison between Tarmogoyf in Legacy and Skullclamp in Standard, I think it's not entirely accurate. Instead I have always compared it to Umezawa's Jitte. IIRC, people in Standard ended up realizing that the best card to combat Jitte was Jitte itself and the legend rule because if you drew it you could just destroy his/her copy if it was there or just win otherwise, so strategies that didn't need Jitte ran 4 anyway. I think this is just what's happening with Tarmogoyf. Jitte never got the axe despite some people asking for it, but I guess rotations played an important role there. Anyway, people had to adapt to Jitte's omnipresence like we did with Tarmogoyf, but the similarities end here; I don't know what would have happened in the end if Jitte didn't leave Standard.

I think he got it right on.

The problem is, we have to live with Goyf forever!

Sure there are a whole slew of strategies that don't need Goyf to be good, but there's much more that aren't good because of Goyf.

Would Legacy Be Better Off Withouth Tarmogoyf? Yes. I just think the death of a few deck like It's the Fear, ******** (as we know it, at least), etc are worth a healthier metagame where you can actually play creatures that make sense with the rest of your deck, instead of just playing undercosted fat.

4eak

12-30-2009, 09:51 AM

J_suschr_stit'salion:
Soft kitty, warm kitty
Little ball of fur.
Happy kitty, sleepy kitty
Purr purr purr.

I think I've thrown away 4 or 5 different posts to this thread just because I'm not sure it is worth the effort. Sad results up in here (with a few exceptions; Aggro_Zombies, etc.).

Spat (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=413455&postcount=40) and IBA were the only people who even remotely offered something akin to an answer to my initial challenge (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=413382&postcount=18); and they aren't defending Goyf! They both argued that the "vanilla creature" argument made by proponents of Goyf lacks context and completely fails to account for the cost/benefit of this card.

The original article in question has pointed us towards this issue. Someone who is a proponent of Goyf legality, please answer the challenge:

Define a (hypothetical) vanilla beater which is on the edge of banworthy in Legacy. Tell us why you place the "banworthy" line there (if you answer, please give a well-reasoned argument).

To make it easy, make the creature cost :1::g:. For those who have a problem with the "averaging" issue (as I explained in the linked post), then offer your examples with Tarmogoyf's ability in mind, something like 1+X/2+X, X = number of card types in GYs.

If you think Goyf isn't banworthy as a "Vanilla beater", then show us what you think is banworthy and why that would be the appropriate line. At least we would have more common ground on which to debate.

peace,
4eak

eq.firemind

12-30-2009, 10:20 AM

1) I don't own Goyf right now.
2) I'll feel good if they ban it. It'll be interesting to build and play Goyfless Legacy.
3) I feel good now with Goyf. It's interesting to build and play Legacy right now.
4) All I say is my opinion.
5) I already facepalmed myself for joining another Goyf debates :smile:

Now I'll try to be on topic:

4eak's question is the right way to go if we want constructive discussion.
I think we can simplify it.

Cheap Fatass :1::g:
Creature - Fatass

Vanilla Beater
4/5
Is it above the power level?
Wizards will print Leatherback Balothin in Worldwake, wich leads to the conclusion that 4/5 for even :g::g: is too powerfull to exist.

Now let's examine Goyf closer.
Goyf comes in early in the game as 3/4 (rarely 2/3)
Lategame Goyf is 4/5 (rarely 5/6)
So the general Goyf size is 3/4 early and 4/5 later.
So we can say that Goyf's average size is 4/4.
4/5 for :1::g: deserves to die before being born. Now, is 4/4 for :1::g: worth being banhammered? - This is the question we came to. Looks much easier to answer.

The paragraph above is not a statement, this is an example of how we should try to solve the situation once for all - mathematic rules the world.
I think someone more expirienced in game of Magic cards can calculate Goyf's average size better than me and that'll give us better material to work with (yeah, something like "Goyf's average size is 3.9/4.4").

Tao

12-30-2009, 11:01 AM

I like the discussion. IBA is clearly right about his itsalion thing, I was always annyoed by people who always say "yes but he is vanilla". That isn't even an argument, it is a card description, but people use it like an argument.

I hope that Goyf will get banned soon, it is overpowered and to the challenge: I think Goyf crosses the line, but not by far. If he started as 0/0 (realistic bolt range early game, getting Kavu'd, trading with threshed Werebear, Loxodon Hierarch or Baloth) or would cost GG it would be exactly the edge and I wouldn't mind ban or not ban, but the way it was designed it is clearly overpowered.

baghdadbob

12-30-2009, 11:22 AM

I should start by saying I don't own 'Goyfs but have used them on MWS. I personally have only been beaten down and killed with 'Goyf about 10 times. Is he broken? I think we can all agree yes. 2 mana for a 4/5 or 5/6... ouch. Should it be banned? In my opinion no. I have more problems dealing with Nimble Mongoose then him. I think the problem isn't that Goyf is TOO good. I feel that if all these people are really having that much trouble dealing with a creature they need to start packing double the creature removal. I do think it's lame that even merfolk splashes green for 'Goyf. If there is a merfolk player on here could they speak up and give us the skinny? Does splashing for 'Goyf make the deck better? However I would personally say ban Tendrils of Agony/Brainfreeze before 'Goyf. Storm decks ruin the game in my opinion they take away almost all the interaction between the players. Exchanging blows and stomping face with big creatures (admit you had a wurm deck when you were younger) isn't that all we wanted to do when we first started playing? Also why pay 120 bucks for a playset when you can get some control magics for like 50 cents and beat them to death with them? Isn't that more fun anyways? It's kinda like owning a playset... To wrap things up 'Goyf is really good but should not be banned instead tell the storm players to eat a pee-pee, or ban top. :smile:

Aggro_zombies

12-30-2009, 11:25 AM

The easiest way to make Goyf more fair would simply be to make its power and toughness the same. Goyf would be so much more killable if it had one less toughness. Just think: if it were only, say, a 3/3 or 4/4 on turn three, there would be little difference between playing your own Tarmogoyf and playing Swords on your opponent's. Either way, you'd be down a card to get rid of one creature. Plus, as a 3/3, Goyf could be profitably killed by burn - at least, the first one would, anyway. It would also be easier for other creatures in aggro to get around him.

Solaran_X

12-30-2009, 11:25 AM

I like the discussion. IBA is clearly right about his itsalion thing, I was always annyoed by people who always say "yes but he is vanilla". That isn't even an argument, it is a card description, but people use it like an argument.
First off, there is a massive span of difference between the "vanilla" Tarmogoyf and the "vanilla" Jesuschristit'salion. Creating that card to attack the "vanilla" defense of Tarmogoyf is certainly worse than my citing Black Summer, Combo Winter, and Mirrodin Standard as examples of a warped format to counter the claims that Goyf has warped Legacy.

1) Jesuschristit'salion would come down on turn 1, Tarmogoyf would come down on turn 2.
2) Jesuschristit'salion would require only two unblocked/unanswered swings to win on average, Tarmogoyf requires 5 unblocked/unanswered swings by itself to win on average.
3) Your opponent would have until turn 3 to answer a turn 1 Jesuschristit'salion, while with Tarmogoyf your opponent would have until turn 6 on average to answer a turn 2 Tarmogoyf.

I hope that Goyf will get banned soon, it is overpowered and to the challenge: I think Goyf crosses the line, but not by far. If he started as 0/0 (realistic bolt range early game, getting Kavu'd, trading with threshed Werebear, Loxodon Hierarch or Baloth) or would cost GG it would be exactly the edge and I wouldn't mind ban or not ban, but the way it was designed it is clearly overpowered.
The only creatures currently banned in Legacy right now involve either ante, or are a combo engine that allows their player to win the turn after, or the turn, they come into play.

Goblin Recruiter sets up a Food Chain combo that usually wins that turn.
Worldgorger Dragon sets up an infinite mana loop that does win that turn.
Hermit Druid sets up a winning Ichorid graveyard with a single activation.

Tarmogoyf does nothing of the sort. Is Tarmogoyf unarguably the most efficient beater ever printed in the history of Magic? Damn skippy it is. But that is all it is - an efficient beater.

Does Tarmogoyf shoulder out less efficient beaters from the Legacy metagame? Most definitely it contributed, but it was merely the deciding factor. Many other factors contributed to the demise of creatures many people claim Tarmogoyf was the sole reason for their now-unplayability (my personal favorite was someone claiming Tarmogoyf was the reason Juzam Djinn is no longer played). In fact, if anyone would take an objective look at the current creatures played in Legacy, well over half are also currently Extended legal. A banned Tarmogoyf isn't going to mysteriously bring all those dead creatures back, since the heavily used Extended creatures in Legacy would keep them shouldered out.

What Tarmogoyf has done to beaters (I specify beaters, not the utility creatures), Force of Will has done to counterspells and Brainstorm has done to draw spells.

Should Force of Will and Brainstorm be banned to encourage diversity among counterspells and draw spells?

Nessaja

12-30-2009, 11:30 AM

CleverPetriDish

12-30-2009, 11:37 AM

SolaranX, do you realize that you are now arguing exactly what IBA wanted you to argue? You have allowed the discussion to move to degree rather than category. This was his entire point, and you are actively making for him.

What Tarmogoyf has done to beaters (I specify beaters, not the utility creatures), Force of Will has done to counterspells and Brainstorm has done to draw spells.Right. People routinely drop 4 Brainstorms and 4 Force of Will into their R/G-aggro decks and call them AggroControl.

Solaran_X

12-30-2009, 11:43 AM

I'm actually quite curious - from your perspective, Solaran when is a vanilla creature "too powerful" obviously you found jesuschristit'salion too powerful, where do you draw the line?

It basically seems to come down to, do you find a 4/5 for 2 mana too strong, and if not would a 5/6 for 2 mana be too strong or not either? For myself, I'm fairly sure that 4/5 for 2 mana (especially splashable) is too much of a no-brainer for the format. In fact, I also think a 3/4 for 2 mana is really pushing it, but atleast more fair. And a 4/3 for two mana would be extremely powerful but a lot more fair.
A "vanilla" creature (by vanilla, I mean a creature with no evasion abilities, protection abilities, or tap abilities - a vanilla creature is a creature that does nothing but attack or block, regardless of it's P/T in relation to CMC) is clearly too powerful if it requires an answer in-hand or within two turns, or lose the game.

A 17/17 for CMC1 is clearly over the line. A 4/5 for CMC2 is pushing the line, but not over it. A 5/6 for CMC2 is definitely over the line, but Goyf is not a 5/6 for CMC2 on a regular basis in Legacy (typical Legacy graveyards tend to hold lands [fetch lands primarily], creatures that have died, instants and sorceries that have done their duty and went away) due to graveyards not having Enchantments, Artifacts, Planeswalkers, or Tribal in them on a regular basis (there are times when some of those are in the yard, but that is not something that happens regularly).

Many times, your typical Goyf will enter play as a 2/3 (due to a fetch land in the graveyard, and either a turn 1 Brainstorm or Ponder) and grow from there. Assuming it was a Brainstorm that grew Goyf to 2/3, it is indeed removable by red removal (I've seen more than a few Tarmogoyfs killed by a Lightning Bolt or Chain Lightning, cast based on whether there is an Instant or Sorcery in the graveyard).

If Tarmogoyf was regularly a 5/6 for CMC2, I may be swayed to agree with the banning bandwagon. However, until it does become a 5/6 for CMC2 regularly, I will remain against it's banning primarily for the concern of what would happen once the precedent was set for banning a creature strictly based on P/T to CMC ratios.

4eak

12-30-2009, 11:52 AM

@ Solaran_X

If Tarmogoyf was regularly a 5/6 for CMC2, I may be swayed to agree with the banning bandwagon. However, until it does become a 5/6 for CMC2 regularly, I will remain against it's banning primarily for the concern of what would happen once the precedent was set for banning a creature strictly based on P/T to CMC ratios.

So, at 5/6, you wouldn't really be concerned about "what would happen once the precedent was set for banning a creature strictly based on P/T to CMC ratios", but at 4/5 you would be concerned. That is your primary argument? Elaborate please. That isn't even a denial that 4/5 for 2cc is mathematically banworthy; it just means you have doubts about whether future bannings would be correct.

Surely you have better reasons for drawing the 'banworthy' line where you have other than this precedent argument and what amounts to "your feelings".

peace,
4eak

FieryBalrog

12-30-2009, 12:16 PM

Funny thing is Goyf isn't even vanilla as he has a characteristic-defining ability right there in the text box.

So yes, Goyf is overpowered because of his abilities. Can the "its-a vanilla, that's all-a it-a is" argument please die in a fire now.

Nessaja

12-30-2009, 12:21 PM

Yeah there is the funny thing that Goyf actually becomes better when it's dropped when the game progresses. That's pretty crazy for a 2 drop, but also part of its balance, I guess.

Anyway, how do you rationalize that a 4/5 for 2 mana is not good enough, we're not talking about goyf here, we're talking about vanilla creatures. I absolutely see no good reason for allowing a 4/5 for 2 mana. Heck, as I said, I have trouble with finding a good reason to allow a 3/4 (splashable) for 2 mana, and a 4/3 would be very fair because it's 1 power above the usual curve and still killable by bolts and alike (also firespout). What other cards in magic give you the idea that a 4/5 is fair when the second best vanilla 2 drop is a 3/3 (iirc).

Nelis

12-30-2009, 12:22 PM

Can this whole Tarmogoyf discussion die in a fire now? Its absolutely pointless.

It´s not Tarmogoyf that ruins Legacy it´s you guys. If you would be spending your time on deck innovation this whole discussion wouldn´t even be necessary.

Volt

12-30-2009, 12:24 PM

Can this whole Tarmogoyf discussion die in a fire now? Its absolutely pointless.

No. Go away if you don't want to be here.

hungryLIKEALION

12-30-2009, 12:31 PM

http://imgur.com/Nq4eF.jpg
I absolutely require a playset of this.

Illissius

12-30-2009, 12:37 PM

For the record I agree that the "but it's just a vanilla creature!" argument is bullshit. So is all the contrived silliness about format warping. They'll ban it if/when a critical mass of people are sufficiently pissed off about it. And we're clearly not even close to that. Nobody is saying "man Legacy just sucks balls with Tarmogoyf in it, let's go play Standard instead". (I would've said Extended, except, er, Tarmogoyf is legal there too.)

I'm not saying you have to stop bitching and moaning and hoping that they ban it. Hell, I reserve the right to bitch and moan and hope they ban things as much as I want if Storm, Tribal, or Counterbalance ever become dominant decks again. The fallacy is going from "I don't like it" to coming up with all kinds of bullshit technical arguments for why they're objectively required to (alternately, not to) ban it.

Solaran_X

12-30-2009, 12:41 PM

@ Solaran_X

So, at 5/6, you wouldn't really be concerned about "what would happen once the precedent was set for banning a creature strictly based on P/T to CMC ratios", but at 4/5 you would be concerned. That is your primary argument? Elaborate please. That isn't even a denial that 4/5 for 2cc is mathematically banworthy; it just means you have doubts about whether future bannings would be correct.

Surely you have better reasons for drawing the 'banworthy' line where you have other than this precedent argument and what amounts to "your feelings".

peace,
4eak

First off, you flipped my statement. I said at 5/6 on a regular basis, I'd be concerned. But at 4/5 on a regular basis, I am not concerned.

Now, as to your point at a 4/5 on CMC2 is mathematically ban worthy, then what about a 3/3 for CMC1 or a 3/2 Shroud for CMC1? Are they also mathematically banworthy? What about a 5/5 for CMC3?

Finn

12-30-2009, 12:52 PM

First off, you flipped my statement. I said at 5/6 on a regular basis, I'd be concerned. But at 4/5 on a regular basis, I am not concerned.Thank God you clarified that. I was going to make an argument about the merits of your position. But now it's cool.

@this topic: *yawn

Volt

12-30-2009, 12:54 PM

Needed: More coherent explanations of what the threshold for banworthiness of a 1G vanilla creature should be and why.

Not needed: Reverse-engineering of said arguments to accommodate Tarmogoyf. i.e. "A flat 5/6 creature might be banworthy, but a 4/5 that is only sometimes a 5/6 is not."

Rico Suave

12-30-2009, 01:02 PM

Making up cards to prove a point is stupid. Being a vanilla creature is a drawback, and it's a pretty major one. The simple fact of the matter is we *know* Tarmogoyf is very strong for its cost. Comparing a 17/17 for 1 mana to Tarmogoyf, however, is just retarded.

People used to clamor for the banning of Morphling, because it happened to be the cream of the crop of its time. Tarmogoyf is a modern day Morphling. My suggestion to the people who want Tarmogoyf banned is the same as when people were crying for Morphling to hit the dirt: learn to play.

Legacy isn't only just SCG5k, you know. There are other tournaments. Some of these are posted on deckcheck, right?
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=31042 50
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30613 51
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30451 72
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30373 177
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30319 45
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30213 46

That's only just in the last two months (nope, not twelve; and many more placements in smaller tournaments). Granted its mostly Europe, but it certainly places a lot of top8, despite you claiming otherwise. These people probably don't know yet their deck isn't good anymore.

Sorry, I don't watch European tournaments that much.

In the States, Landstill just doesn't cut it. Like I said earlier, Planeswalker control has put up better results than Landstill.

Even at the height of Academy, Necro-Trix, and other broken decks - people would still play inferior decks and do well with them. They would do well because they are good players, but that doesn't change the fact they played inferior decks.

RogueMTG

12-30-2009, 01:20 PM

In the States, Landstill just doesn't cut it. Like I said earlier, Planeswalker control has put up better results than Landstill.

Would just like to point out that the 177 man tournament was in Vestal, NY, not Europe. >_>.

Landstill has been working well for me :cool:. Certainly haven't had any problems with goyf...

MattH

12-30-2009, 01:25 PM

People used to clamor for the banning of Morphling, because it happened to be the cream of the crop of its time. Tarmogoyf is a modern day Morphling. My suggestion to the people who want Tarmogoyf banned is the same as when people were crying for Morphling to hit the dirt: learn to play.

Sorry, but this line is just full of shit. I was there in 2000/2001 when you'd still see claims of Morphling's ban-ability, and you and I both know that the situation was completely different. Back then, it was only a few terrible vintage players that mis-identified the power card as Morphling and not Mana Drain. Today, it's vastly more players upset with the current state of affairs, including many good players, and who have correctly identified Tarmogoyf as the problem card. Comparing the two situations is ignorant or disingenuous or both.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

12-30-2009, 01:39 PM

A card should be banworthy when a majority or great plurality of decks- I should say more than 1/3- in the metagame, taken in raw numbers, can and do successfully splash for it. A creature that overwhelms other creature options in numerous decks, even where other contenders for creature slots are built for such a strategy and the card in discussion is not, should be banworthy. A card that appears in more than 50% of all decks should be banned.

Tarmogoyf meets most of these criteria, although the last one fluctuates a bit. Certainly, when a popular option is to splash Green solely for Goyf and Grips in the board, we can hardly call it healthy.

Also, Rico, I think Jesuschristit'salion proved my point very well.

Phoenix Ignition

12-30-2009, 01:41 PM

Tarmogoyf is a modern day Morphling. My suggestion to the people who want Tarmogoyf banned is the same as when people were crying for Morphling to hit the dirt: learn to play.

This is one of the problems. If I have a set of goyfs in my deck, I don't need to learn to play, I just need to remember to turn him sideways.

Solaran_X

12-30-2009, 01:45 PM

This is one of the problems. If I have a set of goyfs in my deck, I don't need to learn to play, I just need to remember to turn him sideways.
And what do you do when they get killed? Just sit there with a blank stare and lose?

Tarmogoyf does not, by any stretch of the imagination, win games by itself - as you seem to imply.

A scrub packing Goyfs will lose every time to straight Goblins or Merfolk run by someone who knows how to play.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

12-30-2009, 02:07 PM

Scrubs be all like, "I'mma just sit back and block with my 17/17", and I'm all like, "Not so fast! More like Jesuschristit'saliongetintheZONE!"

4eak

12-30-2009, 02:09 PM

@ Illissius

They'll ban it if/when a critical mass of people are sufficiently pissed off about it....The fallacy is going from "I don't like it" to coming up with all kinds of bullshit technical arguments for why they're objectively required to (alternately, not to) ban it.

The question wasn't "if and when" WoTC will ban it. The question is "should" they ban it. This is a normative game development ethics question. If you include the hidden aspect of the question, it would read something like:

"Assuming we seek game balance, should Tarmogoyf be banned in Legacy?"

This has nothing to do with people's opinions or WoTC's actual decisions. It is completely theoretical. Game balance has mathematical "should" and "should not's". Technical arguments are the only valid arguments for explaining what a game developer "should" do within the context of game balance.

Furthermore, it sounds like you actually think we all have the valid right to seek a ban for practically any reason (after all, banning is WoTC's reaction to "what the masses feel"). What would it matter to you if someone wants objective reasons to like or dislike a card? If popular opinion is all the justification required in your eyes, then you certainly can't rule out (what you claim to be) fallacious reasoning (which I'm sure we all commit from time to time).

Game balance isn't a democracy or a free market; it's just math and justice.

@ Solaran_X

Oops. Flip it then. My point is still made. You'll see that your argument was about future actions given precedent, not about the immediate choice in question at all. Your argument didn't boil down to Tarmogoyf's affects on game balance, it boiled down to your doubt in WotC's ability to make choices after such a ban, regardless of whether or not Tarmogoyf should or shouldn't be banned.

Now, as to your point at a 4/5 on CMC2 is mathematically ban worthy, then what about a 3/3 for CMC1 or a 3/2 Shroud for CMC1? Are they also mathematically banworthy? What about a 5/5 for CMC3?

These are very good questions. How does one even attempt to define what is mathematically banworthy? Admittedly, a perfect answer is beyond our means, but that should not stop us from trying to give the best possible answer we can deliver (after all, every ban or non-ban requires justification). This, of course, is not just a comparison of Tarmogoyf to other creatures, but actually a comparison of Tarmogoyf to all magic cards.

We honestly could go by prevalence of Tarmogoyf, and that alone would put it away. Game balance means, in the universal metagame, you have equal incentive to play most cards. Without being able to do every single calculation, we may need to admit that some degree of prevalence may indicate dominance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(game_theory)). Admittedly, some prevalence of a card could be due to a number of factors which aren't related to dominance (pet decks, etc.); but, if that is the case, then we shouldn't really concern ourselves with tournament results. Any card which would maintain dominance in the universal metagame breaks game balance, and yes, that means lots of cards we love dearly would get the axe for the sake of justice.

Another possibility: Perhaps you could create a hand made equivalence point system (far from perfect, but much, much better than no metric) to grade and measure all cards (of all types) against each other (I believe WotC attempts to implement this in their R&D) based solely on their abilities and stats, and not as a measurement of real metagames. Check the point system's curve, and if any, cut out the extreme outliers on the top. Tarmogoyf and Brainstorm would likely be on the extreme. Even if you were to repeat the process over and over, I'm going to guess that there wouldn't be outliers to the same degree of Tarmgoyf.

peace,
4eak

bulaxas

12-30-2009, 02:48 PM

goyf is awesome, i have 8 goyfs and i would get another 8 if i needed, his just awesome.

but there other strategies that dont run goyf: reanimator, dredge, belcher, ad nauseum. it is truth that most of the decks that dont run goyf are combo decks, still see this from a different angle, without goyf combo players could make their deck slower and load it in order to defend their combo without caring of what you do about it, goyf puts a lot of pressure in them forcing them go off sooner than they want, although there are some decks that dont really care about goyf and go off anyawy...

without goyf, most of controls deck would become so weak that they couldnt run against goblins and other aggro decks, aggro decks would lose the huge beatstick for 1G, but they would probably find another beater to replace it...

when wizards choose to give green more power they printed 2 cards i really love

1 Tarmogoyf
2 Life from the Loam

if you look at blue yuo got:

1 Force of Will
2 Counterbalance, daze, brainstorm, spell snare

Red:

1 Lightning bolt ( Dreadstill uses a red splash for it, cannadian...)
2 Price of progress, fireblast, chain lightning

White:

1 Swords to plowshares (even goblins splash withe just for it)
2 elspeth , humility, path to exile.... i cant remember other ones...xD

Black:

1 Dark Ritual
2 Ad nauseum, nantuko shade, thoughtseize, duress...

i think that legacy is well balanced right now and goyf keeps goblins in check if you are a control player, gives aggro a punch for combo matches...

its awesome... all of you should have 4 of those (i know that it is expensive)

see you all in madrid

Nessaja

12-30-2009, 03:08 PM

Now, as to your point at a 4/5 on CMC2 is mathematically ban worthy, then what about a 3/3 for CMC1 or a 3/2 Shroud for CMC1? Are they also mathematically banworthy? What about a 5/5 for CMC3?

A 1 mana vanilla 3/3 would very much be ban worthy. As every deck would play it much like Goyf is played right now. Only when restrictions are made you'll see more then a 2/2 on the 1 mana spot and even then it'll get restrictions.

A 5/5 for CMC 3 is probably too strong, although if printed in green it wouldn't be off (like the leatherback baloth with GGG). A 5/5 without drawbacks and easily splashable probably would be too powerful for magic as it is now.

I'm not sure why you're answering my question by answering me a question though, I asked you, is a 4/5 1G vanilla too powerful? Not Goyf.

If you do not deem it too powerful what other cards in Magic do you compare its powerlevel to making it a fair card? Or whatever alternative reason you might have.

Meister_Kai

12-30-2009, 03:23 PM

Just to put this out there, nothing irks me more than people saying things like "hey, I mean I even own x4 of a card, and I still want it banned". I don't think it matters at all how many copies of the card you have, and if how many copies people own actually influences the possible ban-worthiness of this card, thats just sad. Again, how many people have paid $50 a piece for a 4 set of the card (or more) should not in any way factor into this debate.

Yes, I also think the reprint policy is bullshit, but thats a whole other discussion.

Illissius

12-30-2009, 03:30 PM

This has nothing to do with people's opinions or WoTC's actual decisions. It is completely theoretical. Game balance has mathematical "should" and "should not's". Technical arguments are the only valid arguments for explaining what a game developer "should" do within the context of game balance.

No, they're not. Maybe the DCI has some technical arguments for why banning Flash is the wrong thing to do, and then they don't, but after months of people bitching about it and leaving the format in droves, they're going to ban it anyways. Maybe they'll come up with a new set of technical arguments to support their decision, but that's irrelevant. It's not the technical arguments driving the decision, it's public sentiment.

You could say that if you came up with the right set of technical criteria you wouldn't have these issues with them going out of sync with what people actually want, but that again means that the technical criteria are irrelevant, because if you're going to make them match up with what people want then you could've just relied on that directly.

Furthermore, it sounds like you actually think we all have the valid right to seek a ban for practically any reason (after all, banning is WoTC's reaction to "what the masses feel"). What would it matter to you if someone wants objective reasons to like or dislike a card? If popular opinion is all the justification required in your eyes, then you certainly can't rule out (what you claim to be) fallacious reasoning (which I'm sure we all commit from time to time).

I'm saying peoples' like or dislike of a card isn't grounded in technical arguments either. People enjoy certain kinds of decks and formats simply because they do, there's not very much rational about it. And yeah, it's perfectly valid for them to say "I don't like this card, I hope they ban it". There's nothing inconsistent about it. Banning the card would be better for them, so they hope it happens. They're not saying "I don't like this card, therefore Wizards should ban it".

The only reason people pretend there are objective technical grounds for Wizards to do whatever it is they want Wizards to do is so they can feel justified in their own subjective opinion. People can do that if they want, but it doesn't really change anything; people are still going to feel the way they feel, and the DCI is still going to make its decisions based on the underlying feelings, and not the silly technical arguments that people try to rationalize from them.

(And yeah, it would be better if both the players and the DCI could just admit that, (a), on the player's part, they want the card banned because they plain don't like it or what it does to the format, (b), on the DCI's part, in the end they're going to do whatever it takes to keep the players happy. (Note: keep them happy, not try to make them even happier). Not that I have much hope or expectation of that ever actually happening, because it's just human nature, and certainly I've been guilty before of rationalizing my feelings into logical arguments rather than the other way around.)

(Though, for the record, the DCI has pretty much gotten there. As far as I can tell, these days they're not spewing crap about format-warping any more, they're just going by whether a format is "fun". Which is ambiguous and subjective, but basically comes down to "do the players enjoy it", which is the same thing.)

Volt

12-30-2009, 03:30 PM

Just to put this out there, nothing irks me more than people saying things like "hey, I mean I even own x4 of a card, and I still want it banned". I don't think it matters at all how many copies of the card you have, and if how many copies people own actually influences the possible ban-worthiness of this card, thats just sad. Again, how many people have paid $50 a piece for a 4 set of the card (or more) should not in any way factor into this debate.

You're right, of course. It shouldn't matter. Now tell the other side to stop saying things like "I think the only people who want Tarmogoyf banned are people who don't own any."

Meister_Kai

12-30-2009, 03:34 PM

You're right, of course. It shouldn't matter. Now tell the other side to stop saying things like "I think the only people who want Tarmogoyf banned are people who don't own any."

You're right, of course. Shit, people already pay at the whazoo to play this format anyway, what difference does it make to pay about $200 to buy a x4 that, if you play practically any deck in legacy that attacks, you will need? I used to make fun of my warhammer friends for having to spend $50 on a single tank they have to have 4 of to compete, but I don't anymore.

For what its worth, the way I justify buying a deck is this: with this proposed deck, can I make, in winnings with said deck, the amount of money I put into it? If I can "break even" this way, I believe the deck is justified. With just about every deck that does good in legacy having Tarmo in it, it should be a good investment.

Digital Devil

12-30-2009, 05:11 PM

What I get from this discussion is that many people think Goyf is banworthy, while people who think it isn't are actually saying "what effort does it take to just play it?" Those are not valid argumentations. Both those "hey, it's everywhere, then it should get the axe" and those "it isn't a problem since there are ways to deal with it" pseudo-argumentations can't be considered a base for our in-depth analysis. Of course there is a best card of every type (i.e. Swords to Plowshares is the best removal, Brainstorm is the best card quality engine and so on), but having a "best creature" is awful. Sometimes there are decks in which Goyf is even better than creatures that do actually have sinergy with the deck itself. I'm not stressing the Werebear argument anymore, I'm just saying sometimes it is just better to play that G-X dual and 4x Goyf, because "hey, how'd you get a chance against 60% of the format?". The format has reached a point in which aggro decks tend to be better because of Tarmogoyf, in which combo has a harder time because of Tarmogoyf, and in which control is no longer control, since it has also achieved the status of "aggro" --- obviously because of Tarmogoyf. The thing people seems to forget is that if you don't own your playset of Goyf you're actually ostracized from a whole slice of competitive decks. While Brainstorm may require you to run fetchlands/shuffle effects, thus making your deckbuilding decision more important, the same way Force of Will has a constraint, those 17 blue cards in your deck: Goyf doesn't actually have any constraint. Dark Confidant forces you to rely on light cc spells, since flipping that Tombstalker is like trying to kill a bug with a flamethrower. The only two cards that I actually recognise as "cards that don't require particular deckbuilding decisions" are Swords to Plowshares and Tarmogoyf. Swords to Plowshares is the best answer available, if you're afraid of creatures. But the fact is that Swords doesn't win you the game on its own, while Tarmogoyf does it, and the only requirement is to have available green mana. Having a staple creature is a bad thing for the format, since you're either outracing Goyf with a horde of creatures or trying to win Goyf wars. Also, 1 Goyf is already troublesome, but no one ever mentioned the "two Goyfs on the same side of the table" thing. People consider Goyf as a lone card. If it were for a *single* Goyf, every deck shouldn't have problem dealing with it. The problem is when the 4/5 has backup protection (countermagic, creature shenanigans), or when the 4/5 isn't the only threat you must deal with. Of course this is the same Magic we were used to play, but when you are forced either to play Goyf or to lose miserably, the choice isn't hard. Of course every player wants to be the winner of every hypothetical match, and then every player wants to play the best cards available. But the same way there should also be different viable choices, even if synergy-based, but they should be as effective as the others, to be considered worthy. In a perfect metagame, you could play anything you want, and everything would be at the same power level. Of course legacy hasn't a dominant archetype, and of course I'm not saying "OMG I can't play my Nourishing Lich deck because of that 4x Goyf in everywhere!!!". I'm just saying there shouldn't be a gap between the best card and the second best of the same type as wide as the gap between Tarmogoyf and... huh... it seems I can't find a comparison.

FoolofaTook

12-30-2009, 05:26 PM

g
when wizards choose to give green more power they printed 2 cards i really love

1 Tarmogoyf
2 Life from the Loam

These two cards made green strictly weaker against the majority of the format because other colors (black, blue and red) were able to splash them to great effect and thus weaken green as a general concept.

That's reality.

Jak

12-30-2009, 05:30 PM

These two cards made green strictly weaker against the majority of the format because other colors (black, blue and red) were able to splash them to great effect and thus weaken green as a general concept.

That's reality.

Every color is weaker on it's own. How often do you see Burn, Mono blue/black Control, White Weenie, or Sui Black? About the same as you would see Mono Green Stompy.

That's reality.

Solaran_X

12-30-2009, 05:32 PM

This is my last post in this thread. I should know better than to post in Goyf threads, because trolls always get me to go off. And I know one or both of them will say they managed to chase me away with their superior arguments. I'm just tired of dealing with trolls who regurgitate the same tired old talking points.

This is Legacy.

We're playing in a format where decks have the potential drop a turn 2 20/20 Flyer or a turn 2 12/12 Trampler. We're playing in a format where decks can combo out on turn 3, or completely lock you out of playing the game by turn 4.

And people are seriously discussing the prospects of a ban against a creature that usually enters play as a 2/3 and, if it lives, will regularly swing as a 4/5?

I'm sorry, but something doesn't smell right about this concept.

Link Ramirez

12-30-2009, 05:32 PM

The only two cards that I actually recognise as "cards that don't require particular deckbuilding decisions" are Swords to Plowshares and Tarmogoyf.

I agree with your post, but I'd like to add to the Swords to Plowshares point.
Swords does require deckbuidling decisions. Zoo plays Path to Exile over Swords.

SMR0079

12-30-2009, 05:58 PM

If Goyf appeared in over 50% of every large top 8 avergaged over a year then it would warrant being evaluated for banning. This would have to be weighed against other pros and cons. Any further discussion should begin from here.

If tournament attendance and format popularity was down then evaluating possible bans would be warranted.

Legacy is at an all time high for popularity and archetype diversity - I don't see any bans occuring in the current enviornment.

Re-evaluate tournament data next year using the criteria above.

Personally, I find Goyf to be a format staple. You can compare it to Force of Will, Swords to plowshares, but I think it actually is most similar to Wasteland. In fact, you could actually make a stronger case to ban Wasteland than Goyf (no I don't think Wasteland should even be considered for banning).

Here the number of decks from the last 4 SCG top8s with wasteland
6/8
4/8
5/8
6/8

You could also argue that Wasteland combined with mana screw contributes to more blow outs than any other card in Legacy - leading to the dreaded "unfun" criteria used for banning.

Discuss

FoolofaTook

12-30-2009, 06:26 PM

Every color is weaker on it's own. How often do you see Burn, Mono blue/black Control, White Weenie, or Sui Black? About the same as you would see Mono Green Stompy.

That's reality.

Yes, but green was given two "gifts" that in fact work better in decks that are not heavily green, making some of those decks much stronger than anything that is heavily green.

Counterbalance at :1::u: ?

No.

That would have allowed green to splash Counterbalance just like blue splashes Tarmogoyf. Why are we even having this conversation? Everybody knows that Goyf is the best blue creature ever printed.

Rico Suave

12-30-2009, 06:40 PM

Sorry, but this line is just full of shit. I was there in 2000/2001 when you'd still see claims of Morphling's ban-ability, and you and I both know that the situation was completely different. Back then, it was only a few terrible vintage players that mis-identified the power card as Morphling and not Mana Drain. Today, it's vastly more players upset with the current state of affairs, including many good players, and who have correctly identified Tarmogoyf as the problem card. Comparing the two situations is ignorant or disingenuous or both.

First of all, it's not correct to identify Tarmogoyf as the problem card. This assumes two things that may not be true - that there is a problem, and that Tarmogoyf is the problem. Unfortunately the recent banned list announcement has shown that there is no problem, at least at this point in time, and I put a lot more faith into the DCI than I do my own opinion.

Secondly, I remember a lot of good players who were upset with Morphling. Yes they identified the wrong things, but who is to say that we aren't doing the same thing in this very thread. Hell, even Wasteland is a far more pervasive card in the format, yet it has received very little attention in this thread despite the fact it shows up in greater numbers in almost every tournament than Goyf itself.

Furthermore, if Mana Drain was truly the problem, then why isn't it gone from Vintage? Perhaps it is because the format is better off with a powerful card than without it, even if the rest of the format has to adapt to it.

Frankly, the Legacy format has a lot of room for growth. Until we as players have reached the boundaries we are not in a position to say "there is nothing to be done about this card so it must leave the format."

Lothian

12-30-2009, 06:49 PM

Discussion is really simple

Goyf represents exactly what WotC is trying to achieve for the last 10 years or so. Put aggro back on the map while weakening control and combo.

Why on earth would they ever ban their best creation ???

Since Juzam and Erhnam Djinn were getting laughed at although having force + endurance > casting cost x 2, it was more than time that aggro got a great stupid vanilla critter.

Ok, they should have done it with 2 greens, so it wouldn't be so versatile in any deck.

However, long will be the days when you will get a stupid vanilla critter on any banned list

We'll see more and more of them like Woolly Thoctar

In the end, if I was head of marketing in WotC, I would give that guy who's done this card a pretty hefty bonus and a big statue.

Here is a stupid critter that gets younger guys feel newer card can still be worth gold, while easy to play, understand or counter.

The cherry on the cake is to see those old loosy legacy players debate about it again and again and again like old farts talking about the same old war.

Surely they must break their b***s in WotC

Happy New 2010 year !!!

Nessaja

12-30-2009, 07:03 PM

And I put a lot more faith into the DCI than I do my own opinion.
It's fine that you do that, and I'd say, go ahead with it.
But using this as an argument to decide for everyone else that things cannot be argued because some higher power is obviously right about this - while you don't even know the arguments nor train of thought from this higher power is just wrong, in my opinion. We - as players from the format - are perfectly capable of having a proper argument about the format and I'm actually rather certain that there are many individuals on this site that know the format better then the people at WotC. Look at Land Tax on that banlist, exactly.

Hell, even Wasteland is a far more pervasive card in the format, yet it has received very little attention in this thread despite the fact it shows up in greater numbers in almost every tournament than Goyf itself.
IIRC, not too long ago Force of Will showed up in greater numbers then Goyf too. But there is a difference, both Force of Will and Wasteland serve an important function for the format; they keep it healthy. Without Wasteland there would be virtually no good reason to not splash a color, making it so that mono and dual colored decks are at a disadvantage by definition. FoW keeps combo in check. Goyf doesn't serve a function like Wasteland and FoW and as such shouldn't be compared to those cards.

Furthermore, if Mana Drain was truly the problem, then why isn't it gone from Vintage? Perhaps it is because the format is better off with a powerful card than without it, even if the rest of the format has to adapt to it.
I remember reading about why it isn't gone on Wizards site, it's not that they haven't idenitfied it as too strong, it's the way vintage is build. They have these "pillars" that define archetypes; Workshop, Bazaar, Mana Drain, Null Rod. I'm sure you could find it back on the wotc site if you really are interested.

Illissius

12-30-2009, 07:11 PM

If you want to argue that way, Tarmogoyf keeps Goblins in check.

Nessaja

12-30-2009, 07:15 PM

While that used to be true (as something that was neccesary) you don't need Tarmogoyf to keep Goblins in check anymore. You don't honestly believe that a banned Tarmogoyf will make Goblins run rampant right? The format has evolved since, times changed. There was even a goyfless tournament here that didn't have Goblins running rampant.

Fuzzy

12-30-2009, 08:33 PM

Gheizen64

12-30-2009, 09:44 PM

Found it on Deckcheck:

MVCs

Are you curious to see which cards are played the most in this format??
View the top 50:
Maindeck:
12430 Force of Will
11994 Brainstorm
10991 Island
10765 Wasteland
10239 Tarmogoyf

Goyf is in 5th position. 5th position, with much less time in Legacy than all the other contenders. And look this too:

Sideboard:
7482 Krosan Grip

Funny, isn't?

Interesting is that, while FoW and Wasteland are considered good for the format, Goyf is sometime considered not, for the simple reason it's a threat and not an asnwer. If we are to look at the numbers, the real warper here are combo cards (FoW) and original dual (no drawback oblige you to play wasteland). Obviously, those aren't the only reason but whatever.

EDIT: what really sick me there, is the fact they're all blue cards, metaphorically speaking.

FoolofaTook

12-30-2009, 10:12 PM

EDIT: what really sick me there, is the fact they're all blue cards, metaphorically speaking.

Yes, they are. Blue has always been the pet color and the one that WotC is willing to let dominate the format. They don't understand the warping effect that that has on the Legacy format as a whole.

It would be different if blue power ebbed and flowed but instead it just kind of slowly strangles the format.

ktkenshinx

12-30-2009, 11:24 PM

Interesting is that, while FoW and Wasteland are considered good for the format, Goyf is sometime considered not, for the simple reason it's a threat and not an asnwer. If we are to look at the numbers, the real warper here are combo cards (FoW) and original dual (no drawback oblige you to play wasteland). Obviously, those aren't the only reason but whatever.
No one likes extremely fast formats, least of all Wizards. If you do not believe me, then I encourage you to review the banlist and see what sort of cards dominate it. Force of Will is the speed limit of Legacy. Either learn to live with it, or try and outrace it and risk the ticket. This promotes format health to prevent the reign of fast, non-interactive combo decks.

Wasteland does not win games. Plain and simple. It helps certain decks, lots of decks run it, but it does not win on its own without the aid of other cards.

Goyf is a different matter, and there is one reason mentioned in the article that strikes me as particularly compelling. Everyone who defends Goyf should ask themselves this question. Can you compare Goyf to another creature? Is there some precedent that Goyf is fairly costed? All evidence points to no. If someone has a counterexample, please, share it.

Finally, I want to turn to the argument about Goyf helping aggro. It does. But it also seems to help everything. Every deck that runs Goyf is benefited by its presence. Combo? Add Goyf as a backup. Control? Add Goyf as a clock. Off color aggro? Add Goyf because he's awesome. His ubiquitous presence hints at something more than just "helping aggro." 1G is affordable by any and all decks. This does not benefit an aggro deck. Nor does it help green decks. It just helps anyone who chooses to play him.

If Goyf cost GG and had the additional line of text "If you control no other green permanents then sacrifice Tarmogoyf" then THAT would be helping Green. Not other colors and decks piggybacking off of the card. Just Green. If Goyf cost 1G and had the additional line of text "Tarmogoyf can't attack unless you control more creatures than defending player", then THAT would be helping Aggro. Or "Tarmogoyf cannot attack unless defending player has been damaged this turn." Or any number of other clauses that push Aggro as a build. Goyf shows up in all decks because he is at home in all decks. That is not helping Green. That is hurting a format.

-ktkenshinx-

Brad Herbig

12-31-2009, 12:51 AM

Combo? Add Goyf as a backup.
What a terrible idea.

I don't really mind Tarmogoyf. I only have two right now and I'm probably getting rid of them soon to play a few different decks that don't need them. I am mostly a combo player, so I don't really see goyf as too overpowered as much as I see him as a really good beater. Honestly, combo would probably benefit from a goyf banning because is would be a slower clock to combo out against. And you wouldn't want Wizards to make combo better, do you?

Xero

12-31-2009, 01:21 AM

ktkenshinx

12-31-2009, 01:41 AM

What a terrible idea.
I totally agree. But you should check out some of the threads around here. While discussing Cephalid Breakfast, people seriously considered adding Goyf as a back up. The same goes for Hexmage's Depths. Good ideas? Not really. But lots of people are having the ideas. Sure, maybe you could argue that these are non-representative idiots, but I believe that if we did a thorough look at these threads, we would see this logic a lot. Way more than just with a few "non-representative idiots"

Honestly, combo would probably benefit from a goyf banning because is would be a slower clock to combo out against. And you wouldn't want Wizards to make combo better, do you?
For one, I do not think combo is doing so well these days regardless of Goyf. It shows up here and there, but most tournament top 8s are dominated by aggro and control. Deckcheck is a testament to this.
Second, FoW is the speed limit of the format. Not Goyf. The statistics clearly demonstrate this, as does all discussion involving the card (FoW, that is) itself.

Is there a date limit here? Because Tarmogoyf hasn't always been in the format.
This is a rather disturbing point. Look at it from two ways.
1. There is a date limit. The numbers only considered recent decks.
Tarmogoyf has only been around for a year, and it is everywhere. It has not "grown into" the format, persay. It is just a ubiquitous staple that is thrown into all decks that can afford to have green in them.
2. There is no date limit. The numbers consider all decks in the whole deckcheck database
This is way, way worse. In the entire history of legacy, a card that has only been around for a year or so has somehow overwhelmed so many other contenders? That proves it is omnipresent, and thus makes it vulnerable to the skullclamp style banning. I do not think this is likely, however, as the top 50 list makes no mention of banned cards like Skullclamp that were once everywhere but are now extinct.

-ktkenshinx-

Rico Suave

12-31-2009, 02:04 AM

It's fine that you do that, and I'd say, go ahead with it.
But using this as an argument to decide for everyone else that things cannot be argued because some higher power is obviously right about this - while you don't even know the arguments nor train of thought from this higher power is just wrong, in my opinion. We - as players from the format - are perfectly capable of having a proper argument about the format and I'm actually rather certain that there are many individuals on this site that know the format better then the people at WotC. Look at Land Tax on that banlist, exactly.

Ironically, Vintage players thought they knew the format when Workshop/Trinisphere decks were running around being stupid. Vintage players on the whole asked for Workshop to get the axe, and instead Trinisphere got restricted. They managed to keep the Workshop decks alive, and they are quite balanced right now, so the format is a lot better than it would have been if the player-base got their way and just eliminated entire archetypes.

Also I never said people couldn't argue about Tarmogoyf's banning. Lord knows everyone has their opinion.

I was pointing out why it's faulty to assume there is a problem and then go on to say that Tarmogoyf is the reason for this problem.

IIRC, not too long ago Force of Will showed up in greater numbers then Goyf too. But there is a difference, both Force of Will and Wasteland serve an important function for the format; they keep it healthy. Without Wasteland there would be virtually no good reason to not splash a color, making it so that mono and dual colored decks are at a disadvantage by definition. FoW keeps combo in check. Goyf doesn't serve a function like Wasteland and FoW and as such shouldn't be compared to those cards.

I think a comparison between those cards is closer than you think. It's pretty easy to say Goyf keeps a number of decks down, or rather without it a number of current decks would fall off the map (CB-Goyf anyone?).

Similarly, a number of decks would both fall off the map and others would become good if Wasteland were taken out.

"Health" of the format is very relative and very opinionated, as we can see from this thread. Wasteland is sooo close to Strip Mine, and we all know Strip Mine isn't healthy for the format. How can you safely say Wasteland is healthy for the format? Hell, even with Wasteland in the format, how many good mono-color decks are there? Not that many. =(

I remember reading about why it isn't gone on Wizards site, it's not that they haven't idenitfied it as too strong, it's the way vintage is build. They have these "pillars" that define archetypes; Workshop, Bazaar, Mana Drain, Null Rod. I'm sure you could find it back on the wotc site if you really are interested.

It's not Null Rod, it's Dark Ritual.

The point was that even though Drain is powerful, much like how Tarmogoyf is powerful, it doesn't need to get taken out of the format.

Legacy is so under developed, it's tough to say one way or another what its pillars are. That's one reason why Tarmogoyf may be more of a scapegoat than anything else. We really just don't know as much about this format as we'd like to think we do.

Volt

12-31-2009, 02:44 AM

Legacy is so under developed, it's tough to say one way or another what its pillars are. That's one reason why Tarmogoyf may be more of a scapegoat than anything else. We really just don't know as much about this format as we'd like to think we do.

Gosh, you make it sound so mysterious and unknowable. Here's how I look at it: Tarmogoyf is a 4/5 creature for 1G. It ain't that complicated.

johanessen

12-31-2009, 04:21 AM

I remember reading about why it isn't gone on Wizards site, it's not that they haven't idenitfied it as too strong, it's the way vintage is build. They have these "pillars" that define archetypes; Workshop, Bazaar, Mana Drain, Null Rod. I'm sure you could find it back on the wotc site if you really are interested.

That's it; in Legacy we have Tarmoburn, Tarmofow, Tarmotribal, Combo and Stax. Three of five archetypes runs tarmo, being the first two and Combo the usual ones.

eq.firemind

12-31-2009, 04:31 AM

That's it; in Legacy we have Tarmoburn, Tarmofow, Tarmotribal, Combo and Stax. Three of five archetypes runs tarmo, being the first two and Combo the usual ones.
Yeah, and we have Green Chalice Aggro in Established. It runs Chalice/Trini/Wasteland, NO=>Genitus combination and 4 Tarmogoyf. :smile:

jjjoness'

12-31-2009, 05:47 AM

Is there a date limit here? Because Tarmogoyf hasn't always been in the format.

It's an all-time breakdown of deckcheck.net. Afaik the oldest decks listed there are from the very beginning of 2004. (at least some Goblin decks are) That means that half of the time Goyf didn't even exist, which however isn't a relevant piece of information since it doesn't say anything about the number of decks submitted during the Goyf and the No-Goyf period.

However it is obvious that Goyf is indeed the most popular wincondition in Legacy.

SMR0079

12-31-2009, 06:16 AM

Wasteland does not win games. Plain and simple. It helps certain decks, lots of decks run it, but it does not win on its own without the aid of other cards.

Goyf is a different matter, and there is one reason mentioned in the article that strikes me as particularly compelling. Everyone who defends Goyf should ask themselves this question. Can you compare Goyf to another creature? Is there some precedent that Goyf is fairly costed? All evidence points to no. If someone has a counterexample, please, share it.

Goyf shows up in all decks because he is at home in all decks. That is not helping Green. That is hurting a format.

-ktkenshinx-

This is a great example of confusing the win condition or final play leading to a win with what actually determined the win. Just going by the numbers, Wasteland leads to just as many wins if not more than Goyf, But what does that matter? Goyf is the most efficiently costed creature in the game therefore he is omni-present. BLue is the best color, Force and Brainstorm are the best blue cards, therefore they are omnipresent. But none of this really matters.

The burden of proof lies on the side of justifying banning. If we are to use history as an example, the bar set for banning a card is very high and almost always correlated with the health of the format as demonstrated by tournament attendance, ability to interact with opponent, and the related "fun" factor.

This notion that "goyf is hurting the format" has no basis in reality. Legacy has exploded in the last year despite the green monster. The way many of you in this thread talk about Goyf you would think Legacy is struggling to stay alive or something, when the reality is quite the opposite. Despite the high cost of entry as soon as wizards and SCG started to host regular events both tournament participation and the value of the staples has sky rocketed.

Until you establish a coherent data driven criteria for considering banning these arguments are nothing more than rhetoric to justify opinion.

Question?

Was Goyf present in more than 50% of top8s averaged over the year for large tournaments exceeding 100 participants?

Let's see the data

Does Goyf inhibit in game interactivity?

No.

Is there a significant percentage of decks competitive decks that do not run Goyf?

Yes

What has been the player attendance over the past year and what is the projected outlook for next year?

Looking good and getting better.

Is Legacy as it currently stands a fun format?

I think so, and assume most of yo do too if you are on this site. Most players consider Legacy to be one of the "funnest" "healthiest" constructed formats right now, more so than Standard, Block, and Vintage.

Word

MattH

12-31-2009, 11:15 AM

First of all, it's not correct to identify Tarmogoyf as the problem card. This assumes two things that may not be true - that there is a problem, and that Tarmogoyf is the problem. Unfortunately the recent banned list announcement has shown that there is no problem, at least at this point in time, and I put a lot more faith into the DCI than I do my own opinion.
Your mistake is that you are equating "problem" with "so bad the DCI acts". DCI action is like surgery, reserved for only the problems so severe that they can't be addressed in other ways. Just because you don't go under the knife for an illness doesn't mean you aren't sick as hell.

Secondly, I remember a lot of good players who were upset with Morphling. Yes they identified the wrong things, but who is to say that we aren't doing the same thing in this very thread.
Answering that question is WHY. WE. ARE. HAVING. A. REASONED. DEBATE. Or are trying to have, which would be a lot easier without having people pop their head in, as you did, yelling "hey guyz ur all dumb scrubs derf derf derf".

Furthermore, if Mana Drain was truly the problem, then why isn't it gone from Vintage? Perhaps it is because the format is better off with a powerful card than without it, even if the rest of the format has to adapt to it.
See above. Problems severe enough to require DCI action are a subset of problems, not the definition of 'problem'.

Legacy is so under developed, it's tough to say one way or another what its pillars are.
I'm calling bullshit on that (twice in one day (http://strategy.channelfireball.com/featured-articles/breaking-through-legacys-lost-cards/#comments)). Feel free to prove me wrong and innovate your way to a GP win or a string of Starcity wins (in fact as we're on the same team I'll even help!) but the format looks pretty well figured out.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

12-31-2009, 11:28 AM

Related to that, a huge part of the reason Legacy is well understood is that Tarmogoyf settled the creature question. There had never before been an accepted best creature in the format, much less one that cut across nearly every creature-based deck. And Legacy is a creature format. Without Tarmogoyf there'd be a whole Heck of a lot more uncertainty in all matters creature related, including in Tribal and removal suites.

Whether that's a pro or con... eh.

FoolofaTook

12-31-2009, 11:30 AM

Legacy is so under developed, it's tough to say one way or another what its pillars are.

I'm calling bullshit on that (twice in one day (http://strategy.channelfireball.com/featured-articles/breaking-through-legacys-lost-cards/#comments)). Feel free to prove me wrong and innovate your way to a GP win or a string of Starcity wins (in fact as we're on the same team I'll even help!) but the format looks pretty well figured out.

I agree with you on the general premise that the current meta is fairly stable in terms of development. We do seem to have the current structure well figured out.

I very much disagree on the concept that innovation is not occurring all the time around us, and with the implied thought that we're seeing the strongest decks in play at the moment. I think there are very strong undiscovered decks out there that are suppressed by the Legacy meme at the moment, which is that blue dominates and so everything needs to be designed with that thought in mind, either building blue-based or building to beat them.

Blue has such a lock on the general thought process at the moment that everybody is either trying to bullrush the board or to play blue so that they can flow with the power whatever the game length turns into.

If you look at decks like Quinn and Death and Taxes, both of which are starting points for a diversion from that blue-centric meta, it becomes clear that there are huge swathes of the meta that are lying dormant and waiting to be painted in. The Trisomie 21 deck fits the description as well and there are other variants of Aggro-Loam that could also be great jumping off points for a new Legacy meta.

In many ways we are captives of the blue mindset at the moment.

ktkenshinx

12-31-2009, 12:51 PM

The burden of proof lies on the side of justifying banning. If we are to use history as an example, the bar set for banning a card is very high and almost always correlated with the health of the format as demonstrated by tournament attendance, ability to interact with opponent, and the related "fun" factor.

This notion that "goyf is hurting the format" has no basis in reality. Legacy has exploded in the last year despite the green monster. The way many of you in this thread talk about Goyf you would think Legacy is struggling to stay alive or something, when the reality is quite the opposite. Despite the high cost of entry as soon as wizards and SCG started to host regular events both tournament participation and the value of the staples has sky rocketed.
Extended was huge back when Skullclamp, Disciple of the Vault, and Aether Vial were unbanned. Tournament attendance was higher than in Legacy events, there was a ton of deck diversity, and the format was doing great. Cards don't get banned because they are killing a format. They get banned because they are hurting a format. You cannot measure damage to a format by tournament attendance; just look at Extended three years ago. You can measure it by omnipresence of a card

Until you establish a coherent data driven criteria for considering banning these arguments are nothing more than rhetoric to justify opinion.
I turn your attention to two Extended Seasons in 2003 and 2005 respectively. These events are for the Extended format, and these events were historical for the format in their resulting in numerous bannings. Let us start with New Orleans:

Pro Tour New Orleans: 318 attendees
Players showed up by the score for this event. Extended was at the height of its popularity, people were showing up to tournaments, and as you would have us believe, all was well by these criteria. But this was not true.

In the wake of New Orleans, there was a slew of bannings aimed at slowing down the format. These three articles discuss them at length, for those interested:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/rb96
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/rb97
http://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/rb100
Six cards were banned after New Orleans. Why? The reasons are going to be VERY different from why Tarmogoyf should be banned. Tinker, Hermit Druid, Goblin Recruiter, etc. were speeding up the format too much. Consistent turn 2 wins were non-interactive and unenjoyable for players. So the DCI banned the chief culprits. What lesson can we draw from New Orleans? Format health cannot be measured by tournament attendance. SMR writes that...

This notion that "goyf is hurting the format" has no basis in reality. Legacy has exploded in the last year despite the green monster. The way many of you in this thread talk about Goyf you would think Legacy is struggling to stay alive or something, when the reality is quite the opposite.
Apply this logic to Extended in 2003. Extended was flourishing, with tournament attendance fully double, or even more, what Legacy events are having now. Extended exploded despite the vicious turn 2 kill decks using Tinker and friends. Yet it was clearly unhealthy. The reasons that Goyf deserves to be banned are NOT the reasons that these 6 cards were banned. But this example shows that format health is not about attendance. It is about the games being played. Thus, this question:

What has been the player attendance over the past year and what is the projected outlook for next year?

Looking good and getting better.
...is meaningless, as has been shown in examining New Orleans.

Fast forward to the 2005 Extended Season. Notice that I am skipping Skullclamp's banning because that has been discussed at length. I turn to Aether Vial and Disciple of the Vault. One was the brutal enabler of affinity. The other was as ubiquitous as Clamp. Both are banned after Pro Tour Columbus. Let us look at various Top 8 events to see how these 2 cards appeared before they are banned in September 2005:

GP Boston 2005
Number of top 8 decks with Vial: 3 (Life, Cephalid Breakfast, Life)
Number of top 8 decks with Disciple: 0
Winning deck: Aluren (Ran neither)

GP Eindoven 2005
Number of top 8 decks with Vial: 3 (Affinity, Goblins, Cephalid Breakfast)
Number of top 8 decks with Disciple: 1 (Affinity)
Winning deck: Psychatog (Ran neither)

GP Seattle 2005
Number of top 8 decks with Vial: 3 (Affinity, Goblins, Cephalid Breakfast)
Number of top 8 decks with Disciple: 0
Winning deck: GB Rock (Ran neither)

GP Singapore 2005
Number of top 8 decks with Vial: 1 (Goblins)
Number of top 8 decks with Disciple: 0
Winning deck: Psychatog (Ran neither)

PT Columbus 2005
Number of top 8 decks with Vial: 1 (Affinity)
Number of top 8 decks with Disciple: 1 (Affinity)
Winning deck: Affinity (Ran both)

So in all five of these events, Disciple and Vial are only showing up sparingly. Only ONE of the five events had a Vial/Disciple deck win! Based off of this data alone, it would seem that NEITHER Vial or Disciple merited a ban. But clearly, that was not true. Articles called out for Vial and Disciple's blood. Players raged against Affinity and Goblins. This culminated with the September 2005 bannings of both cards, and the following justification taken from this article: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af82

Last season's Extended metagame was pretty amazing. There were lots and lots of decks—all of them very powerful and very fast. Of course, with the format rotating in October, we lose a lot of that diversity.
We have seen this from the top 8 analysis of the previously mentioned events. Wizards wanted to preserve format diversity by getting rid of Vial.

Aether Vial is a pretty ridiculous card. It costs but one mana, and it makes all of your creatures essentially uncounterable free instants. It messes up permission, combat, you name it. Basically it's like a super Dark Ritual that gives you 17 free mana over the course of a game. Somehow it has survived getting the axe in other formats, but knowing how much of a head start it gives Goblins and Affinity in this format—and how much it cripples control—we can't justify leaving it around.
Vial got banned because of its power level. Not because of non-interactivity. Not because it was "not fun". It was just powerful.

With that all in mind, let us turn to your questions:

Question?
Was Goyf present in more than 50% of top8s averaged over the year for large tournaments exceeding 100 participants?
Who knows. But Disciple and Vial were present in more than 50% of top 8s, and they got the axe.

Does Goyf inhibit in game interactivity?
No.
Vial did not inhibit game interactivity. If anything it added an element of interactivity to the game. It was just too powerful. Just like Goyf is too powerful.

Is there a significant percentage of decks competitive decks that do not run Goyf?
Yes
There were a significant percentage of competitive decks that did not run Vial and Disciple. Yet both were banned anyway.

Is Legacy as it currently stands a fun format?
I think so, and assume most of yo do too if you are on this site. Most players consider Legacy to be one of the "funnest" "healthiest" constructed formats right now, more so than Standard, Block, and Vintage.
Extended was also a fun format. But Vial and Disciple were both banned to keep it MORE fun instead of just at the level of fun that it was at.

Thus we see that history refutes your arguments.

One might counter that Vial and Disciple were banned preemptively to preserve the health of a FUTURE format, the format after the Extended rotation. Banning these cards preserved format diversity preemptively, and thus were justified. This is different from a Goyf banning, because it would not be preemptive; the Legacy format is not rotating unlike Extended. Thus, the Vial and Disciple logic cannot apply to Goyf.
Those who state this argument, however, have ignored some key points. Of all the decks in the top 8 of these events, only a few of them were actually going to get killed in the rotation. Aluren was dead. Breakfast was dead (although Shuko existed, it would never be quite the same again without Nomads). Sneak Attack decks were gone (for whatever that's worth). But apart from that, the format was NOT getting destroyed! Psychatog decks would still be around in spades. BG Rock was going nowhere. Mind Desire would still be in full force, as would Madness, Reanimator, RDW, Scepter, Confinement, etc. And when we look ahead to the following 2006-2007 Extended Season, these decks, which were present in the 2005 season, were still around.
What does this mean? It means that the decks that fought against Vial and Disciple in the 2005 season were still around in the 2006-2007 season. Vial/Disciple bannings may not even have mattered for these archetypes, as they survived before the bannings, and they survived after. Therefore the initial counterargument does not consider the Extended metagame before and after the bannings; it did not radically change, even with the Vial/Disciple bannings.

Therefore, we have seen how an historical analysis of the old Extended format informs us on the Tarmogoyf question. Format attendance was high. Format deck diversity was impressive. Format top 8s were highly different from event to event. And yet, 6 cards got banned in 2003, and 2 more in 2005. These criteria alone do not disqualify bannings. Just because a format is healthy and vibrant does not mean that cards will not get banned from it. Legacy is healthy, popular, diverse, etc. But as we see, it can still have bannings.

Thus, we can now turn to the Skullclamp rationale for Goyf's banning. And as that has been adequately discussed, I need say no more for now.

-ktkenshinx-

Rico Suave

12-31-2009, 01:30 PM

Your mistake is that you are equating "problem" with "so bad the DCI acts". DCI action is like surgery, reserved for only the problems so severe that they can't be addressed in other ways. Just because you don't go under the knife for an illness doesn't mean you aren't sick as hell.

The point was that the colorful language, where you claimed that many good players have correctly identified Tarmogoyf as the problem, is just not accurate.

Even if there is a problem, and even if Tarmogoyf is that problem, we both agree that there are other ways to address Tarmogoyf outside of banning it. With a slew of upcoming SCG 5k tournaments the format will become more cohesive and a national metagame will begin to show up. People will begin to run cards and decks that take advantage of the opponent running Tarmogoyf.

For proof of this look no further than St. Louis. Even with no combo or prison represented, Tarmogoyf still didn't show up in more than 50% of the top 8.

For further proof of this, look back at Chicago. I'll bet Legacy players thought they knew the format well at that point too, and a couple pros come in and give us a new deck that quickly rose to dominance.

Now if people start to realize that 43 land is a great metagame deck against a field of Tarmogoyfs, then perhaps they will play it more, and perhaps we'll all eventually realize there are a number of decks that are like this and Tarmogoyf isn't really the problem we thought it was.

I'm calling bullshit on that (twice in one day (http://strategy.channelfireball.com/featured-articles/breaking-through-legacys-lost-cards/#comments)). Feel free to prove me wrong and innovate your way to a GP win or a string of Starcity wins (in fact as we're on the same team I'll even help!) but the format looks pretty well figured out.

How does that article go against what I said? I said the format is underdeveloped and he wrote this:

"...Legacy as a whole is only partially explored due to its lack of time in the spotlight. As the year progresses, I expect new and exciting archetypes to emerge but that doesn’t mean you should be waiting for those lists to show up before picking up a unique deck yourself."

That supports exactly what I said.

ktkenshinx

12-31-2009, 02:00 PM

For proof of this look no further than St. Louis. Even with no combo or prison represented, Tarmogoyf still didn't show up in more than 50% of the top 8.

I must emphasize that this benchmark of "no more than 50% of the top 8" is not a real one. Historically, bannings have not cared about this rather abstruse concept. For reference, please see the post I made above about the Extended metagame in 2005.

-ktkenshinx-

FieryBalrog

12-31-2009, 02:35 PM

In fact, regularly hitting around 50% of top 8's is a BAD sign. I have the impression that Mr. Suave somehow thinks this is something to celebrate. Even the most busted cards rarely show up this much.

SMR0079

12-31-2009, 03:05 PM

I must emphasize that this benchmark of "no more than 50% of the top 8" is not a real one. Historically, bannings have not cared about this rather abstruse concept. For reference, please see the post I made above about the Extended metagame in 2005.

-ktkenshinx-
Not necassarily 50% but top 8 appearances is certainly one of the criteria used for considering a ban. This acts as a rational non-opinionated starting point for ban discussions and should be researched. A surface level look at large tournaments has Goyf at50-67%

This article by Randy may help to ground the discussion a bit better:

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/rb96

"The first part is easy – we ban cards from constructed formats when we believe they are so powerful that they make the format unhealthy. We look at a number of different things when judging whether or not a format is "unhealthy," but the two big things we try to ensure are that a format is fun and that it is sufficiently skill-testing. For example, if a card is so powerful that it goes into every deck and whoever plays it first always wins, the only skill that is being tested is the ability to draw and play that card. In addition, that format probably wouldn't be fun either. Similarly, when everyone is playing a deck that can kill by turn 3, there isn't much opportunity to outplay your opponent and play-skill won't matter as much as we think it should."

"Ultimately, our goal is to make Magic as fun as possible for as many people as possible. The more cards we ban, the happier the hardcore tournament players tend to be, but each card we ban makes some players unhappy. Basically, we strive to find the middle ground. When in doubt, we try to err on the side of not banning things."

Or how about "Cards are for playing not banning"
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af95

Goyf may be in more than 50% of winning decks but he's not disturbing the "fun" factor as evidensed by the growth and popularity of Legacy, nor does he break the interactivity and speed barriers either.

The burden of proof for banning is not suffecently met.

SMR0079

12-31-2009, 03:40 PM

Extended was huge back when Skullclamp, Disciple of the Vault, and Aether Vial were unbanned. Tournament attendance was higher than in Legacy events, there was a ton of deck diversity, and the format was doing great. Cards don't get banned because they are killing a format. They get banned because they are hurting a format. You cannot measure damage to a format by tournament attendance; just look at Extended three years ago. You can measure it by omnipresence of a card

I turn your attention to two Extended Seasons in 2003 and 2005 respectively. These events are for the Extended format, and these events were historical for the format in their resulting in numerous bannings. Let us start with New Orleans:

Pro Tour New Orleans: 318 attendees
Players showed up by the score for this event. Extended was at the height of its popularity, people were showing up to tournaments, and as you would have us believe, all was well by these criteria. But this was not true.

In the wake of New Orleans, there was a slew of bannings aimed at slowing down the format. These three articles discuss them at length, for those interested:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/rb96
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/rb97
http://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/rb100
Six cards were banned after New Orleans. Why? The reasons are going to be VERY different from why Tarmogoyf should be banned. Tinker, Hermit Druid, Goblin Recruiter, etc. were speeding up the format too much. Consistent turn 2 wins were non-interactive and unenjoyable for players. So the DCI banned the chief culprits. What lesson can we draw from New Orleans? Format health cannot be measured by tournament attendance. SMR writes that...

Apply this logic to Extended in 2003. Extended was flourishing, with tournament attendance fully double, or even more, what Legacy events are having now. Extended exploded despite the vicious turn 2 kill decks using Tinker and friends. Yet it was clearly unhealthy. The reasons that Goyf deserves to be banned are NOT the reasons that these 6 cards were banned. But this example shows that format health is not about attendance. It is about the games being played. Thus, this question:

...is meaningless, as has been shown in examining New Orleans.

Fast forward to the 2005 Extended Season. Notice that I am skipping Skullclamp's banning because that has been discussed at length. I turn to Aether Vial and Disciple of the Vault. One was the brutal enabler of affinity. The other was as ubiquitous as Clamp. Both are banned after Pro Tour Columbus. Let us look at various Top 8 events to see how these 2 cards appeared before they are banned in September 2005:

GP Boston 2005
Number of top 8 decks with Vial: 3 (Life, Cephalid Breakfast, Life)
Number of top 8 decks with Disciple: 0
Winning deck: Aluren (Ran neither)

GP Eindoven 2005
Number of top 8 decks with Vial: 3 (Affinity, Goblins, Cephalid Breakfast)
Number of top 8 decks with Disciple: 1 (Affinity)
Winning deck: Psychatog (Ran neither)

GP Seattle 2005
Number of top 8 decks with Vial: 3 (Affinity, Goblins, Cephalid Breakfast)
Number of top 8 decks with Disciple: 0
Winning deck: GB Rock (Ran neither)

GP Singapore 2005
Number of top 8 decks with Vial: 1 (Goblins)
Number of top 8 decks with Disciple: 0
Winning deck: Psychatog (Ran neither)

PT Columbus 2005
Number of top 8 decks with Vial: 1 (Affinity)
Number of top 8 decks with Disciple: 1 (Affinity)
Winning deck: Affinity (Ran both)

So in all five of these events, Disciple and Vial are only showing up sparingly. Only ONE of the five events had a Vial/Disciple deck win! Based off of this data alone, it would seem that NEITHER Vial or Disciple merited a ban. But clearly, that was not true. Articles called out for Vial and Disciple's blood. Players raged against Affinity and Goblins. This culminated with the September 2005 bannings of both cards, and the following justification taken from this article: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af82

We have seen this from the top 8 analysis of the previously mentioned events. Wizards wanted to preserve format diversity by getting rid of Vial.

Vial got banned because of its power level. Not because of non-interactivity. Not because it was "not fun". It was just powerful.

With that all in mind, let us turn to your questions:

Who knows. But Disciple and Vial were present in more than 50% of top 8s, and they got the axe.

Vial did not inhibit game interactivity. If anything it added an element of interactivity to the game. It was just too powerful. Just like Goyf is too powerful.

There were a significant percentage of competitive decks that did not run Vial and Disciple. Yet both were banned anyway.

Extended was also a fun format. But Vial and Disciple were both banned to keep it MORE fun instead of just at the level of fun that it was at.

Thus we see that history refutes your arguments.

One might counter that Vial and Disciple were banned preemptively to preserve the health of a FUTURE format, the format after the Extended rotation. Banning these cards preserved format diversity preemptively, and thus were justified. This is different from a Goyf banning, because it would not be preemptive; the Legacy format is not rotating unlike Extended. Thus, the Vial and Disciple logic cannot apply to Goyf.
Those who state this argument, however, have ignored some key points. Of all the decks in the top 8 of these events, only a few of them were actually going to get killed in the rotation. Aluren was dead. Breakfast was dead (although Shuko existed, it would never be quite the same again without Nomads). Sneak Attack decks were gone (for whatever that's worth). But apart from that, the format was NOT getting destroyed! Psychatog decks would still be around in spades. BG Rock was going nowhere. Mind Desire would still be in full force, as would Madness, Reanimator, RDW, Scepter, Confinement, etc. And when we look ahead to the following 2006-2007 Extended Season, these decks, which were present in the 2005 season, were still around.
What does this mean? It means that the decks that fought against Vial and Disciple in the 2005 season were still around in the 2006-2007 season. Vial/Disciple bannings may not even have mattered for these archetypes, as they survived before the bannings, and they survived after. Therefore the initial counterargument does not consider the Extended metagame before and after the bannings; it did not radically change, even with the Vial/Disciple bannings.

Therefore, we have seen how an historical analysis of the old Extended format informs us on the Tarmogoyf question. Format attendance was high. Format deck diversity was impressive. Format top 8s were highly different from event to event. And yet, 6 cards got banned in 2003, and 2 more in 2005. These criteria alone do not disqualify bannings. Just because a format is healthy and vibrant does not mean that cards will not get banned from it. Legacy is healthy, popular, diverse, etc. But as we see, it can still have bannings.

Thus, we can now turn to the Skullclamp rationale for Goyf's banning. And as that has been adequately discussed, I need say no more for now.

-ktkenshinx-

Best post in this thread supporting banning.

I do have a few disputes though.

While extended was well attended in New Orleans it was common opinion that the format was broken, imbalanced without suffecient interactivity.

Regarding the notion of power level bans. This is all realative. In a format this fast and powerful Goyf gives us a creature that can actually be defining card to the format. In the face of the more liniear strategies that push the envelope of speed and interactivity.

Another point to consider is that if WoTC doesn't think Goyf deserves banning in Extended then why Legacy? The absence of rotation does not justify this either. Seriously, if extended can handle Goyf why not Legacy?

ktkenshinx

12-31-2009, 03:49 PM

Not necassarily 50% but top 8 appearances is certainly one of the criteria used for considering a ban. This acts as a rational non-opinionated starting point for ban discussions and should be researched. A surface level look at large tournaments has Goyf at50-67%
As I already discussed, a card does not need to hit 50% tournament appearance to be considered broken and unfair. Both the post New Orleans 2003 Extended bannings, and the post 2005 season Extended bannings are testament to this. The fact that Goyf is in 50-67% of all tournament decks, even on a surface level, means that not only might it be too powerful, but it also is showing up everywhere. Unlike with the 2003/2005 bannings, that means that Goyf can receive a ban not only based on power level, but also on overwhelming prevalence.

"The first part is easy – we ban cards from constructed formats when we believe they are so powerful that they make the format unhealthy. We look at a number of different things when judging whether or not a format is "unhealthy," but the two big things we try to ensure are that a format is fun and that it is sufficiently skill-testing. For example, if a card is so powerful that it goes into every deck and whoever plays it first always wins, the only skill that is being tested is the ability to draw and play that card. In addition, that format probably wouldn't be fun either. Similarly, when everyone is playing a deck that can kill by turn 3, there isn't much opportunity to outplay your opponent and play-skill won't matter as much as we think it should."
Just because this article presents some criteria for a ban, that does not mean these are the only ones. Aether Vial was not banned for these reasons. Divining Top was not banned for these reasons. Nor was Frantic Search, Land Tax, or any number of other cards. Not ALL decks need to run a card for it to be considered too powerful. Similarly, not all cards that are banned need to be a part of some ridiculous turn 2 or 3 win combination.

Goyf may be in more than 50% of winning decks but he's not disturbing the "fun" factor as evidensed by the growth and popularity of Legacy, nor does he break the interactivity and speed barriers either.
The burden of proof for banning is not suffecently met.
I am disturbed that you do not think that the burden of proof is not sufficiently met. You freely and openly admit that Goyf is in more than 50% of decks. Even Vial, Disciple, Top, Entomb, and many other cards that were once banned in various formats were not in more than 50% of the decks of their time. They got banned for other reasons. Clamp got banned because it was in 50% of the decks of its time. At least 50%, I should say. What does this mean? It means that Goyf is not only a problem because of power (like Vial, Entomb, Disciple, etc.) but is also a problem because of prevalence (like Clamp).

Thus, these are the reasons Goyf would be banned.
1. Power.
2. Prevalence.

The "power" side of the argument has already been discussed in the article itself.
The "prevalence" side has also been discussed.
As history has shown, a card need only violate one of the two criteria for ban (power and prevalence) for it to be removed from a format. Goyf violates both. This makes it a perfectly viable banning target.

-ktkenshinx-

Addition: While posting this, SMR raised some valid objections that I wish to address.

While extended was well attended in New Orleans it was common opinion that the format was broken, imbalanced without suffecient interactivity.
That may be so, but it did not prevent people from coming out to play. This means that tournament attendance is not a standard for determining format health. As you say, people knew the format was broken, but they came out to play anything. Similarly in Legacy, people might know that Goyf is omnipresent and annoying, but they will come and play anyway. The standard of a format's health must be determined by factors other than tournament attendance, as the 2003 New Orleans Extended Season saw.
Does this mean that Legacy is unhealthy as a format? Not at all. The format as a whole is definitely better than the ugly Extended season that I remember from 2003. But just because a format as a whole is healthy, does not mean that it is without smaller internal problems. Extended post-Clamp bannings in 2004/2005 was healthy, but bannings still ensued from this overall healthy season. Format health is about factors such as creativity, innovation, deck diversity, and so on. If Goyf is stifling any of these qualities, even if the format as a whole appears fine, then Goyf is a problem card. Its prevalence and use in all sorts of decks hints at this truth.

Another point to consider is that if WoTC doesn't think Goyf deserves banning in Extended then why Legacy? The absence of rotation does not justify this either. Seriously, if extended can handle Goyf why not Legacy?
For those not in the know, Goyf is EVERYWHERE in Extended. Check out the recent 2009 Extended season for proof of this. But there is a huge difference between Legacy and Extended and that is card pool. Wizards wants Legacy to be a popular format because its card pool is so massive. They want players to look through old binders to find cool cards that they never thought of before. They want all the oldies like Rogue Elephant, Harvest Wurm, Ernham Djinn, and friends to be used again. That's the point of the format. Extended is like Standard Plus. It has more cards than Standard, but there are still restrictions on what can be used.
Goyf stifles Legacy creativity. It automatically excludes other cards because it is, in 95% of cases, strictly better than competing 2 CC creatures. Even 1 or 3 CC creatures. It eliminates so many other contenders. This is contrary to the supposedly diverse and open nature of the format. To preserve the integrity of Legacy and the feel of this "Eternal" format, Wizards needs to remove cards that crush creativity and innovation. Goyf is such a card.

-ktkenshinx-

Nidd

12-31-2009, 04:05 PM

The problem I see is that in Legacy, having so called "staples" is accepted. Force of Will, Wasteland, Brainstorm, Swords to Plowshares/PtE (white-colored spotremoval with cmc 1).
Tarmogoyf is a staple, too and I see where the problem now arises, because Goyf can end a game while none of the other staples ends a game by itself. They help winning games, that's what they are there for, but they don't end games directly like Goyf does.

The question is, whether this really warrants a ban and I tend to say no. After the GPs, we will know more.

DrHealex

12-31-2009, 04:36 PM

Goyf is a staple. He only ends games because he is a creature whereas many other staples are not.

Many, MANY, goyfs die in a tournament, and rightfully so, he is just a variable vanilla creature after all.
Wouldn't you rather just see vanillas die as opposed to more flavorful creatures?

The next from the vault has tarmogoyfs. Perhaps wotc will actually produce ALOT of them in order to flood the market with them and at least settle the largest problem with goyfs: Availability.

Volt

12-31-2009, 04:45 PM

Goyf is a staple. He only ends games because he is a creature whereas many other staples are not.

I think you just accidentally tipped the ball in the other team's basket.

SMR0079

12-31-2009, 04:47 PM

Thus, these are the reasons Goyf would be banned.
1. Power.
2. Prevalence.

The "power" side of the argument has already been discussed in the article itself.
The "prevalence" side has also been discussed.
As history has shown, a card need only violate one of the two criteria for ban (power and prevalence) for it to be removed from a format. Goyf violates both. This makes it a perfectly viable banning target.

The power issue is no where near settled or we would n't have these kinds of discussions. Of course Goyf is powerful, the most powerful beat stick ever printed, but the question is he too powerful for the Legacy format. Some say yes others say no.

Prevalence is more objective but upon deeper inspection its not so simple.
There are other cards that have a higher prevalence than Goyf but they are not considered for banning. Force is the glue, but what about Brainstorm? WAsteland - which contributes to more skillless blowouts than any other card in the format, or what about just plain old island?

The prevalence of Goyf is really Blue.Goyf.dec. Maybe Brainstorm should be banned to help balance the color wheel?

I hear the concerns about Goyf stifling creativity but it just doesn't bother me. I accept that certain cards are going to be the best in thier categorey. Goyf is the best creature, combined with blue cards you have the best strategy in legacy. That's ok with me.

Should goyf be on the watch list? Most definitly. Is it obvious Goyf should be banned? Hardly

Rico Suave

12-31-2009, 04:51 PM

Nidd

12-31-2009, 04:53 PM

Sevryn

12-31-2009, 05:04 PM

Dudes, I don't know what you're talking about.

We are all playing a format which has widely accepted staples. Should these cards be banned, too, because they show up in nearly every deck?
I guess none of you wants to have FoW banned, do you?

I don't think that prevalence is a good argument to bring up when talking about an Eternal Format.

Well, the difference is that the current 'staples' keep other strategies in check. Force of Will helps deal with turn one plays. Wasteland makes playing a high non-basic count dangerous. StoP provides cheap removal.

It really depends how you want to view Tarmogoyf. I think it is pretty clear that goyf isn't keeping anything in check, but is rather forcing the rest of the format to keep IT in check. If it was only showing up in agro, one could make the argument that goyf is providing a tool to agro to speed up its clock to combat... I don't know, combo maybe. But that is not the case, goyf shows up in every deck archetype that can splash green and has the space. He isn't in ANT for space reasons, but even some merfolk decks are willing to lose their monoblue advantage to run the goofy lhurgoyf.

The main problem is that Tarmogoyf's niche is any deck that wants to win by attacking. That's... not so much of a niche. By reason of his size, he is limiting the format because of all of the creatures that cannot be run because (a) it's better to run goyf or (b) they can't deal with goyf.

Zilla

12-31-2009, 06:44 PM

If you took a group of Legacy players and had them participate in two separate polls asking the following questions:

1. As a Magic player, are you more interested in playing in tournaments or in building and innovating decks?

2. Do you think Tarmogoyf warrants banning in Legacy?

I have a strong suspicion that the number of people who say they are more interested in deck building would be nearly identical to the number of people who think goyf should be banned.

The reason it's so difficult for people to see eye-to-eye on this subject is because they're arguing from totally different perspectives:

From a player's standpoint alone, the format is thriving. It's healthy. No one deck is dominant. Goyf is prevalent but ultimately answerable. From a deck builder's standpoint, the format is kind of boring. Pretty much every aggro, aggro-control, and blue-based control list starts with 4x Tarmogoyf. The rest of your card choices are spent determining how you're going to win the Goyf war. Hundreds of card choices become obsolete because a single card is head and shoulders above all of them. It's extremely stifling to creativity.

As a player, I think Goyf is fine. As a deckbuilder, I think the format would be much more interesting if it got the axe.

Rico Suave

12-31-2009, 07:55 PM

It really depends how you want to view Tarmogoyf. I think it is pretty clear that goyf isn't keeping anything in check, but is rather forcing the rest of the format to keep IT in check.

How about this point-
Tarmogoyf makes Counterbalance strategies possible. Thus, combo is held in check.

While it's possible to argue that Counterbalance decks will see life if Tarmogoyf was banned, looking at tournament results shows that the decktype already has enough problems performing even with Tarmogoyfs.

As a player, I think Goyf is fine. As a deckbuilder, I think the format would be much more interesting if it got the axe.

There are two sides of the coin:

1) Decks that need Tarmogoyf will die. A lot of these decks will just go back to their roots, and things like Zoo will be OK, but some will just not be able to survive at all.

2) Other decks will rise up without Tarmogoyf in the format and become playable again.

I just want to know, what exactly would become playable without Tarmogoyf in the format? I'm not talking specific cards but what archetypes would suddenly jump from off the radar to viable?

Diversity is good in individual card choices, and that is an extremely powerful reason to ban Tarmo, but if the end result is that there are less decks in the environment then I'm not sure what the point is.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

12-31-2009, 08:58 PM

Zilla's point is actually quite insightful. This goes back to the question of why the metagame is more answered than it has been in Legacy's history. While Brainstorm and Force of Will are dangerously prevalent cards, they don't "solve" the metagame in the same way. In fact, they enable numerous strategies. Although I wouldn't treat either card as one that should obviously remain unbanned indefinitely, this is the reason no one really presses for their banning right now.

While Goyf enables numerous decks, he really only enables one strategy, which is turning sideways with Goyf (or sometimes sitting behind Goyf until you can turn it sideways). The only deck I recall that used Tarmogoyf in an interesting and creative way was Cephalid Breakfast, and that deck's pretty dead in the metagame.

ktkenshinx

12-31-2009, 09:29 PM

1) Decks that need Tarmogoyf will die. A lot of these decks will just go back to their roots, and things like Zoo will be OK, but some will just not be able to survive at all.

2) Other decks will rise up without Tarmogoyf in the format and become playable again.

I just want to know, what exactly would become playable without Tarmogoyf in the format? I'm not talking specific cards but what archetypes would suddenly jump from off the radar to viable?

Diversity is good in individual card choices, and that is an extremely powerful reason to ban Tarmo, but if the end result is that there are less decks in the environment then I'm not sure what the point is.
I normally do not like abstruse, hypothetical speculation, especially regarding formats. It is particularly problematic because of Tarmogoyf's relative age. It has been around since Spring of 2007, and most deck data comes after that period. Legacy players did not religiously record tournament data before then, so our evidence from the pre-Tarmogoyf years is seriously lacking.

So what might we see, purely hypothetically? All the non-green Aggro decks would come back. White Weenie, Goblins, Suicide Black, etc. These decks would see a resurgence as aggro shifted from Green and Green-splashing to any deck that can field cost efficient creatures. Aggro control decks? More BG Rock, Countersliver, Survival, and so on. These strategies would become more viable in the wake of a Goyf banning.

I am highly uncomfortable with these predictions as I cannot back them up with ample evidence; not much exists in any reliable quantity from pre-Tarmogoyf years. If I find some, then I will return to this question with a bit more proof.

-ktkenshinx-

TheInfamousBearAssassin

01-01-2010, 12:21 AM

To get more precise;

If a card warps the metagame, it can be said that that card singlehandedly decides what decks will be played, and with what cards, in the maindeck, throughout the metagame.

That's the case with Tarmogoyf. No deck is unviable because of Brainstorm. Only a few decks are unviable because of Force of Will or Wasteland. But many decks are unviable because of Tarmogoyf- every creature based strategy outside of green and Tribal, for instance. And many cards within decks are unviable because of Goyf- generally, every beater that isn't either 1cc, utility, or potentially bigger than Goyf. Watchwolf is an example of a card that was widely played in Zoo and regarded as a top quality creature before Goyf, but it's inability to deal with the 1G 3/4+ renders it obsolete.

Illissius

01-01-2010, 04:33 AM

I have a strong suspicion that the number of people who say they are more interested in deck building would be nearly identical to the number of people who think goyf should be banned.
Count me as an exception.

Only a few decks are unviable because of Force of Will or Wasteland.
Either that, or because Force and Wasteland have been around forever, the thought that these other decks might be viable without them doesn't even enter our heads. Or at least, I'm sure there's plenty of comboish strategies and whatnot which would be a lot more viable without Force in the format. (And yeah, that's probably a good thing). As for Wasteland -- maybe Tron? Though that fits easily within "a few" as you said; and arguing over "a few" versus "plenty" in the case of Force when neither of really have any idea is fairly pointless, so whatever. It's still far from self-evident that Tarmogoyf obsoletes more decks than Force of Will does.

But many decks are unviable because of Tarmogoyf- every creature based strategy outside of green and Tribal, for instance.
Interesting; before Tarmogoyf, I distinctly remember despairing that creature based strategies outside of Tribal sucked, period. The fact that they've printed other good creatures besides Tarmogoyf since then nuances the picture, of course. (Actually, I think part of R&D's insight might've been realizing that they had already power creeped Tribal creatures quite a bit, and if they wanted to maintain balance they had no choice but to power creep normal creatures up to the same level. That's just conjecture, though.)

Watchwolf is an example of a card that was widely played in Zoo and regarded as a top quality creature before Goyf, but it's inability to deal with the 1G 3/4+ renders it obsolete.
Either that, or costing twice as much as Wild Nacatl for the same creature does.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

01-01-2010, 05:44 AM

Your memory seems poor. The only good Tribal strategy prior to Goyf was Goblins. But the rest of the format was almost entirely creature based. There was Dragon Stompy, Angel Stompy, Fairy Stompy; Red Death, ATS, Survival Advantage, Zoo; Threshold, Deadguy, Fish, Aggro Loam, and others I can't recall right now. Certainly Goyf isn't the only creature printed since then that would influence the above decktypes; but he's the only one printed since then which has either found a home in all of the above decks or rendered them obsolete.

And we can gauge the degree to which Force and Wasteland obsolete decks by what makes it over from Extended. The decks that don't make it over, such as Tron, it's questionable if they would exist without Wasteland. Tron depends on a slower format in order to succeed. Combo and aggro would push it out even without Wasteland and Force.

Truthfully, except for Hulk Flash, it has always been the case that creature strategies were not only viable but dominant in Legacy. Maybe you're thinking of Vintage.

Illissius

01-01-2010, 08:53 AM

Your memory seems poor. The only good Tribal strategy prior to Goyf was Goblins. But the rest of the format was almost entirely creature based.

I guess I can't really disagree with this so much, though Solidarity and Landstill would like to have a word with "almost entirely". By Tribal I did basically mean Goblins. But it's not that other creature decks didn't exist, it's that relative to Goblins, they all sucked. They were all sort of at the edge of viability. The number of decks which were like "well, bad against Goblins, but good against the rest of the format!" was just stupid. (For the record, it was a similar situation in the heyday of Counterbalance.)

Anyway. Quite a few things have happened since then. It's not always easy to tell what was killed off by Tarmogoyf, what by Ad Nauseam, what by Counterbalance, and what by Wild Nacatl -- in many cases, it's probably a combination. But let me try tackling your list:

Dragon Stompy - Made T8 at Chicago, so may not be completely dead, and maybe could do well if at any point everyone stops running basics again. Tarmogoyf definitely hurts though.

Angel Stompy - This was probably always crap, but either way an Isamaru deck is not going to fly in the age of Nacatl.

Faerie Stompy - I'd say this is just in remission, pushed out by Nacatl and Pridemage if anything. Sower of Temptation was plenty good enough against Goyf decks.

Red Death - Killed by Goyf. (Mutated radically into Eva Green to incorporate it.)

ATS - This was killed off way earlier by Goblins.

Survival Advantage - Killed by Goyf, but questionable whether it could survive against Nacatl, Pridemage, Nauseam, Counterbalance, etc. Birthed new Tarmogoyf-including Survival decks which were then pushed out by CB/Nauseam/Nacatl (at least for now).

Zoo - Incorporated Tarmogoyf naturally, probably doesn't care much either way.

Threshold - Incorporated Tarmogoyf naturally and became a fuckton more viable.

Deadguy - Not really sure what happened to this. Always had trouble with Goblins too. Probably just too slow in general these days, killed by a combination of all four cards.

Fish - Killed by Tarmogoyf, no real argument here.

Aggro Loam - Incorporated Tarmogoyf naturally, is probably just in remission right now. Has more trouble with Counterbalance and Ad Nauseam.

So in the column of legitimately killed by Tarmogoyf, I think we can put Red Death, Fish, maybe Dragon Stompy, probably not Survival Advantage (see below). Feel free to bring more examples; this is fun. (Not really trying to prove anyone right or wrong at this point, this is just interesting to examine for its own sake.)

On the other side, decks which were made possible by Tarmogoyf:

Tempo Threshold

Team America

ITF, Brassdeck, whatever you call the deck Nassif and LSV played, Supreme Blue, other CB decks -- Maybe you can't count all of these as separate decks, but you just as clearly can't count all of them as the same deck either.

Survival - not saying this is a new deck, but at this point taking Tarmogoyf away would make it less viable, not more.

in the Not Really Sure category:

The Rock - This was always crap, and I'm not sure if it's still crap, but either way it's less crap now with Goyf than it was without it. (And no, I'm not just saying "wow this deck is more powerful with Tarmogoyf in it!" (no shit), I'm saying it loses more if you take Tarmogoyf away than the rest of the format does.)

Bant.dec -- This is rather amorphous, with variants under CBtop, Survival, (which were already mentioned) and/or Natural Order or neither, and maybe it could survive just fine with the other creatures it's recently gained. Dunno.

Goyf Sligh - Was not-Goyf-having Sligh ever really viable? I mean obviously Sligh splashing green solely for Tarmogoyf is an abomination, but if Sligh wasn't viable and Goyf Sligh is (or was, for a time) viable, then technically we've gained a deck.

Eva Green - In a similar vein, this doesn't seem fair to count because Suicide Black splash Goyf is stupid, but we counted Red Death and without Goyf this would just go back to being Red Death, so -1 +1.

Tron depends on a slower format in order to succeed. Combo and aggro would push it out even without Wasteland and Force.

I could imagine Tron existing in the same space that Landstill currently occupies. (Note, I'm imagining a format without Wasteland, with Force). Though some say Landstill is dead, but that's sort of orthogonal.

Wargoos

01-01-2010, 09:35 AM

Tarmogoyf holds this format together.
Banning it should (and will) never happen due to the resulting crash in balance.
He is not broken.
He is just a creature that won't win the game ever alone in a format packed full of removal, combo, lock or overrun strategies.
Those who argue pro banning the goyf will be the first to explode in nerdrage over tendrils or LED destroying the meta.
Focusing on the goyf just swifts your gaze off of the important matters in legacy.
Don't just agree on the negative points of having the goyf.
Be open for the positive ones.
Legacy needs the goyf like religions need their prophets.
Amen.

€dit: For main arguments see all of Solaran X's posts in this thread.

€dit2:
While Goyf enables numerous decks, he really only enables one strategy, which is turning sideways with Goyf (or sometimes sitting behind Goyf until you can turn it sideways). The only deck I recall that used Tarmogoyf in an interesting and creative way was Cephalid Breakfast, and that deck's pretty dead in the metagame.
So your point is that going beatdown with creatures sucks as a strategy overall?
You know, you have to turn 'em sideways to be able to gnaw on a players life total.
And while you make it sound like the most stupid thing ever, the turning creatures sideways mechanic is were the most interaction between two magic player can happen.

Even if there wouldn't be the goyf, there wold be other better-than-other-creatures to turn sideways.

Your memory seems poor. The only good Tribal strategy prior to Goyf was Goblins. But the rest of the format was almost entirely creature based. There was Dragon Stompy, Angel Stompy, Fairy Stompy; Red Death, ATS, Survival Advantage, Zoo; Threshold, Deadguy, Fish, Aggro Loam, and others I can't recall right now.
And Landstill rose above them all. If you knew what you do, you would win 90% of your games playin landstill against all of those.
Don't make it sound as if creatures reigned without exception.
Of your decks listed the winning cards were either Chalice (all stompies u listed) and loam, a mix of hand/land-disruption and burn, abusing a cc2 enchantment but losing when not drawing it most of the games, overall reign of Brainstorm and Force.
Creatures mostly were used as finisher not as the main force to win the game.
So we had just goblins and zoo/goyf sligh as real creature decks. And b4 goyf just goblins were a force overall, zoo/goyf sligh was very meta dependant and at most just tier 2.
Just shows us that creatures alone - not even the goyf can win alone as some people here make it sound.

kinda

01-01-2010, 09:43 AM

I think the biggest problem with tarmogoyf vs. the other staples is that you always want to see one. Now not only is it not situational, but it's the only two drop creature that's awesome on turn two and turn twenty two. It at least somewhat defies the curving out idea.

Illissius

01-01-2010, 10:11 AM

Nantuko Shade!

Anyway, I mostly agree with you on that. My biggest problem with Goyf at the time was that you could barely find a creature for even four mana which was capable of taking it on. They're slowly rectifying that, though.

Infinitium

01-01-2010, 10:45 AM

Problem is that most of the beaters able to outgrow Goyf generally start at the 3cc mark and thus doesn't really compete with goyf (nor are able to stop faster strategies in its tracks). I do however like the trend of printing powerful but narrow beaters (the perfect examples being Wild Nacatl and Putrid Leech, which both are arguably more efficient than 'Goyf but are quite useless outside of aggro decks in their respective color).

MattH

01-01-2010, 03:01 PM

I have a strong suspicion that the number of people who say they are more interested in deck building would be nearly identical to the number of people who think goyf should be banned.

This is EXACTLY the point I came by here today to make, and you've beaten me to it. Nice.

How does that article go against what I said? I said the format is underdeveloped and he wrote this:

"...Legacy as a whole is only partially explored due to its lack of time in the spotlight. As the year progresses, I expect new and exciting archetypes to emerge but that doesn’t mean you should be waiting for those lists to show up before picking up a unique deck yourself."

That supports exactly what I said.
It was an example of someone else who buys into the myth that format is wide-open for new decks, and I provided a rebuttal in the comments. When pressed to actually come up with something new, what do we see? Several ideas that have already been tried and found lacking. For gods' sake, Fluctuator!

ktkenshinx

01-01-2010, 05:04 PM

It was an example of someone else who buys into the myth that format is wide-open for new decks, and I provided a rebuttal in the comments. When pressed to actually come up with something new, what do we see? Several ideas that have already been tried and found lacking. For gods' sake, Fluctuator!
One of the problems with this argument ("What would banning Goyf do? Would it really open up the format? Or would it have no effect/an adverse effect?") is that it is extremely speculative. Neither side can really prove their point. That said, it is very important to think about this question, so I will risk an argument. The closest I can come to offering words in favor of banning Goyf, on the grounds that the format would be healthier, is by looking many years back to 2005. Before doing this, I acknowledge the 2 perils of the approach:
1. Cards exist now that did not exist then. Not just Goyf.
2. Players were only just understanding the format, and had not figured out all the best decks, combos, strategies, and so on.
I am willing, however, to take those risks in an effort to ground one side of the argument in some facts.

As I said in an earlier post, there is not a lot of data from pre-2007 events. Considering that Goyf came out in early 2007, that represents a problem. The 2005 Legacy Championships, however, was Goyf free. I will also look at Grand Prix Lille, and Grand Prix Philadelphia. Let us see what decks were there when Goyf was not around (again, fully acknowledging the two dangers that I mentioned).

First, let's look at GP Lille, because that event has the most data on it. Here are the breakdowns of the 128 decks that we do have information about, as well as the top 8 of the day. I have only included decks that appeared more than once in the data.

Decks of the Day
Thresh: 33
Goblins: 31
Burn: 7
Affinity: 7
RW Slide: 4
Boros Deck Win: 4
Deadguy Ale: 3
UW Control: 3
Flame Vault: 2
Bomberman: 2
Aluren: 2
GB Rock: 2
Mono Black: 2
Zoo: 2
Gro: 2
High Tide: 2
Belcher: 2
Survival: 2
Loam Confinement: 2

Top 8
1. UGW Threshold
2. UGW Threshold
3. Gro Rogue (Thresh with Quirion Dryad)
4. Survival (RecSur)
5. RW Slide
6. Goblins
7. Bomberman
8. UW Control

Damn. That is a lot of Thresh and Goblins. Back in the day, these two decks seem to have had a serious stranglehold on the metagame. Where is Merfolk? Aggro Loam? Lands? Who even remembers Deadguy Ale or Slide decks?

So what might have happened? Again, this is all speculation, but this is what seems to have happened.

Threshold was mega popular back in the day before Goyf. When Goyf got added to its arsenal replacing Werebear in the 2 CC slot, it did not double in popularity. It didn't even stay the same. Fewer people play Threshold in a comparable 128 decklist pool today than did then. And it is definitely more powerful now. What does this mean? It means Goyf did not really make Threshold dominant. The format diversified after Goyf. What the heck? Haven't we been arguing the opposite?

Not quite. A cursory examination of other tournament reports contemporary to 2005 reveal that the following decks received considerable showings, taken as a whole. These are listed in no particular order.
1. Deadguy Ale
2. Slide/Rift
3. Affinity
4. GAT (Gro-a-Tog)
5. BDW
6. Mono Black Aggro/Control
7. Goblins
8. UW Control

These decks have sort of died in the Legacy metagame. This seems odd, because back in 2005, both Deadguy Ale and RW Slide/Rift were showing up everywhere, top 8ing in at least 3 big events. Mono Black decks were well represented, Quirion Dryad was a household name, and aggro decks did NOT run Green! BDW is the old ancestor of the modern Zoo deck, and most builds that I can find run exclusively Red and White. Then there is Goblins. It's basically gone from the metagame. One might argue against this, but look at those numbers. 31 Goblin decks! In one tournament! There are no comparable numbers these days with any deck.

Goyf had 2 effects on these decks. On the aggro ones (all but RW Slide and UW Control), it made them obsolete. BDW and Zoo fused together to become the Zoo of our present day. Decks that did not run Green were no longer relevant. Quirion Dryad took 5 spells to become as powerful as Goyf; that was a huge investment no longer worth paying for.

And the control decks? The format sped up and control perished. The control decks of this era could keep up with Goblin hordes, little Threshold pests, but not the angry Goyf. Once he gets into the picture, the decks magically vanish.

I admit that there are a ton of implications from the data above and the change that Legacy underwent between 2005 and the present day. Hell, even 2005 and mid-late 2007. But one thing is clear. Decks that currently run Goyf were around before he came. Decks that have added Goyf and become powerful were ALSO around back in the day. A lot of new decks have arisen as highly viable strategies since 2005 (Merfolk, Lands, Dredge, Reanimator, ANT, Aggro Loam, Countertop, etc), but how many of those new ones benefited from Goyf? Maybe Aggro Loam in some builds. But few others. The decks that benefited from Goyf were already doing alright back in the day. Goyf just made them better, and pushed out all of their contemporaries.

I would be happy to discuss any of these points in greater depth if I have been unclear, or if I come off as mistaken.

But to me, the bottom line is clear. Goyf bolstered preexisting archetypes. He did not create new ones. He did, however, render a number of old ones obsolete, from Goblins to GAT, from Slide to Suicide, and from BW Ale to BDW. Removing Goyf might restore this aggro diversity back to the days of pre-2007.

Will Goblins be out of control? No. There are many checks to the red tribe now, not just Goyf. But it will come back without the 2 CC 3/4+, just as will its old friends from these olden days.

-ktkenshinx-

SMR0079

01-01-2010, 07:23 PM

I don't think it's useful to reference past decks or tournament data for a number of reasons.

The format is much more developed now. Trying to resurrect old decks is futile. It's much more useful to think of archetypes and general strategies than a specific deck.

For example when people contrast Dead guy Ale, B/R Death, Suicide, Eva Green ect. They are all just black based Junk, some lean more toward aggro and tempo others toward mid range. Or when people start to divide up the different Countertop decks, Supreme blue, Ultimate Bant, ect. At the end of the day they are all just Counterbalance decks.

Legacy today has competitive decks from all existing archetypes/strategies and if that involves non tribal creatures they splash green for Goyf. The combination of duals and fetchs make it possible to always splash a best creature.

I think part of the controversey arises from the fact that there has never existed a truly "best" creature in magic. The color wheel always prevented this from becoming a reality.

I think the argument for banning Goyf is severely weakened when you start complaining about the current lack of decks. Even if GOyf is in half the decks out there, and the majority of the best decks, every archetype has a competitive chance at winning. I like this fact.

What would be more interesting is to discuss how the current strategies and decks would change without Goyf. I admit it would be interesting.

Zilla's post about deck builders being more likely to call for Goys ban makes a lot of sense. As a player who likes to have options in every archetype I don't mind Goyf as much. He actually makes it so every archetype and every major creature based strategy can be competitive. I now realize I value this more than wide open design space.

I am very hesitant to ban anything when a format is as broad and "fun" as I find Legacy, but I can empathize with those that enjoy deck building the most.

Rico Suave

01-03-2010, 12:28 AM

But to me, the bottom line is clear. Goyf bolstered preexisting archetypes. He did not create new ones. He did, however, render a number of old ones obsolete, from Goblins to GAT, from Slide to Suicide, and from BW Ale to BDW. Removing Goyf might restore this aggro diversity back to the days of pre-2007.

So how is old Suicide different from modern suicide decks splashing Goyf? It changes 4 creatures. I'd hate to say it, but this is not a new archetype.

The reason there isn't as much aggro diversity is because aggro players are (finally) coming around to the idea that certain aggro decks are just better than others.

For example, there is little reason to play Goblins when one could play Zoo. The deck is more resilient, more efficient, its creatures are more powerful, and it is generally better against the field with flexibility across 3 colors and utility like Pridemage. It also happens to dominate Goblins head-to-head.

Removing Goyf won't change the fact that Nacatl, Kird Ape, and other similarly powered creatures will keep Goblins out of the metagame.

FoolofaTook

01-03-2010, 12:34 AM

Removing Goyf won't change the fact that Nacatl, Kird Ape, and other similarly powered creatures will keep Goblins out of the metagame.

Without Tarmogoyf Zoo would be at best an even matchup with Goblins. People keep forgetting that Zoo has two finisher creatures in Tarmogoyf and Wooly Thoctar and it'd be very unpredictable as to whether or not Zoo could land Thoctar in time against Wasteland and Rishadan Port.

At the worst a Goyf-less Zoo would talk Goblins into playing 4x Lightning Bolt alongside the Gempalm Incinerators. Goyf is what pushes Zoo over the top against Goblins.

MattH

01-03-2010, 01:17 PM

Without Tarmogoyf Zoo would be at best an even matchup with Goblins. People keep forgetting that Zoo has two finisher creatures in Tarmogoyf and Wooly Thoctar and it'd be very unpredictable as to whether or not Zoo could land Thoctar in time against Wasteland and Rishadan Port.

At the worst a Goyf-less Zoo would talk Goblins into playing 4x Lightning Bolt alongside the Gempalm Incinerators. Goyf is what pushes Zoo over the top against Goblins.

Four toughness is also a lot, lot less than five, from a Goblins perspective. For example, it's two Siege-Gang shots.

For example, there is little reason to play Goblins when one could play Zoo.
Just false. There are matchups where Goblins has the advantage over Zoo, and matchups where the reverse is true. If it's the case that the latter outnumber the former too much to choose goblins, then without Goyf, there would be an element of parity, and a skill-testing decision to be made.

Pyschatog is one card I would very much expect to come back in a goyfless world. The only things really keeping Tog out of the format are (1) being bad against Goyf, because it's a huge amount of resources to take one down, and (2) Goyf being much better at Tog's own job (early wall + compact, efficient, fast kill).

TheDarkshineKnight

01-03-2010, 03:40 PM

Considering that I refuse to play Legacy ever again until Tarmogoyf is banned, I certainly wouldn't mind a Goyf ban. Goyf sucked all of the fun out of the format for me.

caiomarcos

01-03-2010, 10:34 PM

Considering that I refuse to play Legacy ever again until Tarmogoyf is banned, I certainly wouldn't mind a Goyf ban. Goyf sucked all of the fun out of the format for me.

This.

Legacy is either play LED or play Goyf or GTFO. The difference between LED and Goyf is that LED is in 2 or 3 decks, Goyf is in the 243 others.

georgjorge

01-04-2010, 05:10 AM

The third option is to play Dream Halls or Enchantress for the win :wink:.

Volrath

01-04-2010, 05:23 AM

Considering that I refuse to play Legacy ever again until Tarmogoyf is banned, I certainly wouldn't mind a Goyf ban. Goyf sucked all of the fun out of the format for me.

Stop crying people, we wanted green to be good again and presto!

Also, it's only fitting that greens iconic/splashable/power card is a creature. Think of its as the green STP,FOW etc.

Nidd

01-04-2010, 06:00 AM

The third option is to play Dream Halls or Enchantress for the win :wink:.
LED-Less Dredge wants to have a word with you.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

01-04-2010, 06:04 AM

Stop crying people, we wanted green to be good again and presto!

Also, it's only fitting that greens iconic/splashable/power card is a creature. Think of its as the green STP,FOW etc.

The best answer to Swords to Plowshares isn't Swords to Plowshares. The best answer to Force is only rarely Force.

In contrast, decks that struggle with Goyf generally make up for it by playing Goyf.

Ectoplasm

01-04-2010, 07:23 AM

As you guys might have noticed, pretty much all of the creatures played in Legacy right now are extended-legal. I'm talking tombstalker, goyf, qasali pridemage, rhox war monk, noble hierarch and a whole fuckton more.
I wouldn't say Goyf ruined the diversity, I would say Goyf is the frontrunner of a whole new generation of creatures.

bulaxas

01-04-2010, 07:50 AM

why dont we close this thread....

Legacy without goyf WFT???

i think many of you want to raped by goblins unless of course your playing combo, you must understand goyf is the perfect tool for control and aggro decks.

many of you are just continuing to discuss that, because you cant afford to buy them, although i understand that point, i cant understand the justifications that some you are giving, some of you claim goyf is bad in the meta because the only answer to goyf is goyf, thats crap, swords, smother, vindicate...

Goyf will never be banned

if they ban it, you will be crying to unban him, and by the way 2 legacy gp this year i think wizards will now take a very good look at legacy, we are closer to unban more cards than ban.

cumpz
Proper capitalization is required on this site. Please use it in the future. - Zilla

Volrath

01-04-2010, 08:53 AM

The best answer to Swords to Plowshares isn't Swords to Plowshares. The best answer to Force is only rarely Force.

In contrast, decks that struggle with Goyf generally make up for it by playing Goyf.

The best answer to goyf is STP/Smother/Pulse/Vindicate/spell snare/snuff out/PTE and whatever random removal that passes by.

Goyf yust stalls Goyf.

The only answer for STP is countermagic or shroud, should we ban that too?

Skeggi

01-04-2010, 09:07 AM

Volrath

01-04-2010, 09:24 AM

With the printing of other good creatures like Knight of the Reliquary, Woolly Thoctar, Rhox War Monk, Qasali Pridemage, Lorescale Quotl, Warren Insigator and other cards like Elspeth, Knight-Errant and so on and so forth, Tarmogoyf becomes less and less 'format-warping'. It's just a matter of time until we'll consider it 'a good card' instead of a broken one.

You forgot Tombstalker and even Finks in Rock like decks.

And there are some other new cards and a bunch of pre-goyf cards, i really can't see why people still think there aren't enough good creatures to diversify.

Heck, Even NoGoyf, plays gasp. No Goyf! same for enchantress, tribal, combo and pure control like landstill.

Doks

01-04-2010, 09:30 AM

The best answer to goyf is STP/Smother/Pulse/Vindicate/spell snare/snuff out/PTE and whatever random removal that passes by.

Goyf yust stalls Goyf.

The only answer for STP is countermagic or shroud, should we ban that too?

No, because these don't win games for such a cheap cost. They are reactive solution cards but no undercosted early game live safers and mid-lategame win conditions.

Volrath

01-04-2010, 09:42 AM

Green is the creature color, so it's best card should be a creature.

I find it only fitting.

ktkenshinx

01-04-2010, 09:46 AM

Los Angeles is done and the top 16 results are in. Hopefully SCG will also provide the full Excel tournament information as they did for St. Louis to allow for a bit more in depth examination. Until then, however, here is how Goyf did in the top 16.

Decks the Featured Goyf
2. Naya Zoo
4. Progenitus Countertop
5. Countertop
7. Threshold
9. Aggro Loam
10. Bant
13. Eva Green
14. Bant

Just something to consider for either side of the argument.

-ktkenshinx-

Nightmare

01-04-2010, 09:48 AM

Pyschatog is one card I would very much expect to come back in a goyfless world. The only things really keeping Tog out of the format are (1) being bad against Goyf, because it's a huge amount of resources to take one down, and (2) Goyf being much better at Tog's own job (early wall + compact, efficient, fast kill).

Tog sucked before Goyf. Why would it suddenly get amazing if Goyf were banned tomorrow?

My personal opinion on this matter is ambivalence. I am predominantly (at this point) a theorizer more than a player or builder, which makes me the worst possible source of opinion - so take that into consideration when reading.

Goyf presents a unique set of circumstances in this format, and it can't really be compared to any other card in order to justify its presence or lack thereof in the format. It's not a staple, in the manner that Force of Will or Swords to Plowshares are - they both serve a unique role (or at least, a near-unique role). Without Force, there is nothing in the format to keep the combo decks from turning into turn-1 all-in decks, since there's no incentive for them to protect themselves. For decks like TES, they can easily shift from running Chant, Xantid, Duress, etc. into running more ritual effects and tutors to go balls-out as fast as possible. Spoils of the Vault would likely see an upsurge in play. Without Swords to Plowshares, control decks would find it much more difficult to answer a threat with no real drawback - the life is much less relevant than the land would be from Path. I realize that this isn't a perfect parallel, but even if you consider Path to be StP 5-8, they're still the most efficient removal spells (especially for recursive creatures like Bloodghast or Ichorid, or Regenerators like Korlash or even Masticore) in the format.

Tarmogoyf is not the same type of card. It isn't irreplaceable. It has competitors in the format for the slots it takes up in decks. If you aren't convinced of that, I suggest playing Bant, and seeing how amazing Rhox War Monk is. Or playing Zoo, and seeing how much Quasali Pridemage rules. Or playing Tombstalker in whatever black deck you want. There are creatures on the fringe that would be happy to fill in for Goyf.

But on the other hand, Goyf serves a unique positive role in Legacy, as well. IBA hit the nail right on the head a few pages ago - he solves one facet of the format difinitively, allowing the deckbuilder to focus more on the other facets. "What threat do I play?" is a question Legacy players don't have to ask anymore, and in my opinion, that's a great part about this format. Before Tarmogoyf, there was no clearly defined 'correct' answer to this, and you saw a giant swath of variety in the metagame. As a player, this was incredibly frustrating, as you simply could not be prepared for the entire field. You could play a deck which smashed half the metagame, and play 8 rounds of magic seeing zero decks from that half. In this meta, at least you can assume that Tarmogoyf will be in some of the decks you see across from you in a tournament. This preparation simplification makes the format smaller, but much more manageable.

There is still room for creativity in this format, even with Tarmogoyf's prevalance. Your creativity must come in the form of solutions to this puzzle though, not in how you can change the puzzle itself. That's not to say that this debate isn't worth having, but it's important to keep in mind that in the eyes of WotC, this format is thriving with Goyf in it - and they're unlikely to want to throw as big a wrench in the format as banning Goyf would be when Legacy is beginning to be such a success.

Nightmare

01-04-2010, 09:51 AM

here is how Goyf did in the top 16.
Biased information isn't becoming in this discussion. How can you show a list of 8/16, and not show the other HALF of the results?

Decks that DIDN'T Feature Goyf
1. Enchantress
3. Fish
6. Dredge
8. Belcher
11. Goblins
12. Dredge
15. Merfolk
16. Belcher

Skeggi

01-04-2010, 09:57 AM

In this meta, at least you can assume that Tarmogoyf will be in some of the decks you see across from you in a tournament. This preparation simplification makes the format smaller, but much more manageable.
While on one hand this is a good thing making our meta less random, it also steers towards 'why not just play standard if you want to know what your opponent is playing'.

There is still room for creativity in this format, even with Tarmogoyf's prevalance. Your creativity must come in the form of solutions to this puzzle though, not in how you can change the puzzle itself. That's not to say that this debate isn't worth having, but it's important to keep in mind that in the eyes of WotC, this format is thriving with Goyf in it - and they're unlikely to want to throw as big a wrench in the format as banning Goyf would be when Legacy is beginning to be such a success.
With this quote in mind, people should realize Goyf may be a necessary evil for a succesful Legacy scene.

Basically I'm just quoting for truth theorizing Adam. I think you have some solid points here.

Biased information isn't becoming in this discussion. How can you show a list of 8/16, and not show the other HALF of the results?

Decks that DIDN'T Feature Goyf
1. Enchantress
3. Fish
6. Dredge
8. Belcher
11. Goblins
12. Dredge
15. Merfolk
16. Belcher
What's your point? Half of the decks don't play Tarmogoyf? Or you don't think Enchantress is 'worthy' enough to reach number 1 at such a large tournament? Because obviously, it is. It just shows how diverse the format is even with Tarmogoyf, enforcing the argument that Tarmogoyf is a necessary evil to create a less random meta.

Nightmare

01-04-2010, 10:03 AM

While on one hand this is a good thing making our meta less random, it also steers towards 'why not just play standard if you want to know what your opponent is playing'.If you don't want to know what your opponent is playing, why metagame at all? With no information on what they could be playing, how can you pretend to believe that what you're playing is correct?

What's your point? Half of the decks don't play Tarmogoyf? Or you don't think Enchantress is 'worthy' enough to reach number 1 at such a large tournament? Because obviously, it is. It just shows how diverse the format is even with Tarmogoyf, enforcing the argument that Tarmogoyf is a necessary evil to create a less random meta.There are actually two points - 1) While Tarmogoyf decks saw half of the top 16, they didn't win. 2) It's awkward to post only the part of a top 16 that supports your argument, be it half or 15/16ths. I posted the list for completion's sake.

crow_mw

01-04-2010, 10:25 AM

It is a side comment but I believe that many Zoo players, if they were given a choice, would much rather remove Goyf from their lists, than Nacatl...

Fuzzy

01-04-2010, 10:28 AM

Decks that DIDN'T Feature Goyf
6. Dredge
8. Belcher
11. Goblins
12. Dredge
15. Merfolk
16. Belcher

Tribal or Combo. We find a pattern?

1. Enchantress

Except for this one, but I don't know exactly what it is.

3. Fish

And this, but it would be probably better with Goyf (I mean, Weathered Wayfarer? Serra Avenger?)

Skeggi

01-04-2010, 10:32 AM

Except for this one, but I don't know exactly what it is.
It's combo-esk :wink:

ktkenshinx

01-04-2010, 12:17 PM

Biased information isn't becoming in this discussion. How can you show a list of 8/16, and not show the other HALF of the results?
Decks that DIDN'T Feature Goyf
1. Enchantress
3. Fish
6. Dredge
8. Belcher
11. Goblins
12. Dredge
15. Merfolk
16. Belcher
The absence of a card is not as interesting as the presence of a card. Goyf was in 50% of the top 8 decks. That is not an encouraging observation. No other creature had a similar showing. The only other cards that rivaled or beat Goyf's appearance were Force of Will, Swords, Brainstorm, and the usual suspects. But as has been discussed, there are material differences between these cards and Goyf. You admit these differences yourself, ones that truly do set Goyf aside as a unique Legacy staple (as opposed to the staple-status of FoW, Swords, etc.)

A better way to look at the top 16 of this event might be "Which decks won with creatures" and "'which decks did not". Then we can see which of those used Goyf. In this regard...

Decks where Goyf's addition would be counterproductive
4/16 = 25%
6. Dredge
8. Belcher
12. Dredge
16. Belcher

Belcher and Dredge will never run Goyf. In both decks, the slots used on Goyfs would be much better spent on other cards that are more conducive towards their winning strategy. Belcher needs rituals, tutors, acceleration, and so on; not an alternate win with Goyf. Dredge does not cast creatures to win (at least not above 1CC), and it has superior Dread Return targets in the yard. Remember how Skullclamp was banned for being in virtually all decks in its day? These would be the decks that did not run Skullclamp. Thus, they would never factor into a decision to ban Skullclamp. The same goes for Goyf. These are the decks that do not run Goyf. Thus, they will never factor into a decision to ban Goyf; just because they do not run it does not mean that Goyf is not overly-prevalent.

Decks that could run Goyf but did not
4/16 = 25% (Percent of Total Top 16 Decks)
4/12 = 33% (Percent of Top 16 Decks that COULD run Goyf)
1. Enchantress
3. U/W Control
11. Goblins
15. Merfolk

All of these decks could either add Goyf on color (as in the case of Enchantress), off-color (as in the case of Goblins and Merfolk), or as an alternate win/threat (U/W Control). Why/how might they do this? Enchantress and U/W Control (as a backup win condition or as additional pressure), Goblins (splashed for an additional threat and/or to counter enemy Goyfs), and Merfolk (splashed for the same reason). If the argument to ban Goyf is "Too many decks run it", these 4 decks would be counter-examples to the general trend. These decks could indeed run Goyf, and it would be strategically viable to do so. But they don't. So these builds are reasons that you would NOT ban Goyf; decks that rely on winning with attacking creatures, or control decks that might use Goyf as a supplementary strategy, but ones that choose NOT to use Goyf.

Decks that could run Goyf and do
8/16 = 50% (Percent of Total Top 16 Decks)
8/12 = 66% (Percent of Top 16 Decks that COULD run Goyf)
2. Naya Zoo
4. Progenitus Countertop
5. Countertop
7. Threshold
9. Aggro Loam
10. Bant
13. Eva Green
14. Bant

Of the decks in the top 12 that could reasonably run Goyf (excluding Dredge and Belcher which are Goyf-less archetypes), 8 include the green beast. 66% of decks that can run Goyf DO run Goyf. These range from dedicated aggro (Naya Zoo) to more Aggro Control builds (Countertop). These decks are quite varied in their card composition and deck strategy (Eva Green vs Zoo vs Aggro Loam vs Countertop), yet all of them share the same unique staple of Goyf. Yes, they share other staples like FoW and Swords. But recall that these are different sorts of staples. Goyf is a special sort of placeholder in Legacy, and it is shared across 50% (or 66%, depending on how you figure the percentages) of the top decks at Los Angeles.

This seems to demonstrate Goyf's rampant prevalence in the format; of decks that could run Goyf without being counterproductive to their strategy, 66% chose to run the creature. That is quite a large and somewhat overwhelming number.

-ktkenshinx-

Digital Devil

01-04-2010, 12:58 PM

The best answer to goyf is STP/Smother/Pulse/Vindicate/spell snare/snuff out/PTE and whatever random removal that passes by.
Then Tolarian Academy should be out of the banned list because of Stone Rain/Sinkhole/Blood Moon/Wasteland and whatever LD spell that passes by.

Goyf yust stalls Goyf.
Then we can unban Tolarian Academy because the legend rule kills both copies.

The only answer for STP is countermagic or shroud, should we ban that too?
Goyf isn't our problem. The real problem is that the gap between "the best all-purpose creature" and the "creature(s) accepted as the second (third, and so on) best choice(s)" is too wide.

Nightmare

01-04-2010, 01:45 PM

Alright. Let's approach this from a different direction.

Wizards, let's assume, is paying attention to the results from large events (theirs or not) when deciding what does and does not need to be banned. Let's also assume that their criteria for banning (whatever it may be) is the same for all formats. And let's assume that they will allow dominance to be a contributing factor to these criteria.

I think all three are fair assumptions.

Now, based on the most recent results from StarCity's 5k, 8 of the top 16 decks contain Tarmogoyf. While "dominance" is debatable, let's call that "prevalence."

Let's take a look at the top 16 from the Standard portion of the event:

1. URW Control
2. Jund
3. Eldrazi Green
4. Jund
5. URW Control
6. Jund
7. Mono Red Aggro
8. Grixis Control
9. Jund
10. Jund
11. Jund
12. Jund/U
13. Jund
14. Jund
15. Mono Red Aggro
16. B/r Vampires

That's 9/16, for those keeping track at home. That's over half the top 16 of one deck, not just one card which happens to be in a few different decks. If the DCI isn't taking action on a deck that's continually dominating the format that is undeniably WotC's bread and butter, then why would they take action over a relatively (when compared to Standard) diverse metagame that gets only a few big events a year - only one of which is a direct line to Wizards' pockets?

Phoenix Ignition

01-04-2010, 01:46 PM

why dont we close this thread....
Because if shying away from important topics due to a minority of people's unfounded fears were a policy on this forum we would be American politics, and not The Source.

i think many of you want to raped by goblins unless of course your playing combo, you must understand goyf is the perfect tool for control and aggro decks.
Against bows, swords, and javelins, a machine gun is the perfect weapon. That doesn't mean it's conducive to a "fun" fighting environment.

many of you are just continuing to discuss that, because you cant afford to buy them, although i understand that point, i cant understand the justifications that some you are giving, some of you claim goyf is bad in the meta because the only answer to goyf is goyf, thats crap, swords, smother, vindicate...
*brings out e-peen* I have 8!!!
That doesn't matter and isn't on topic, the point is Goyf doesn’t need a deck built around him. In fact, to play him all you need to do is run fetchlands (so… be one of the 95% of legacy decks out there) and toss in a couple green duals in your color. Bam, you have a 2 costing win condition. Now to answer a goyf people are finding it’s easier just to play one yourself and have them stare at each other instead of trying to find an answer. That’s the problem, if you don’t run goyf you need to run many answers to him because you only really have 4 turns before it beats you to death (realistically if he hits you 3 times you are going to have a tough time not taking damage for the rest of the game). Any other creature is not an answer because it isn't big enough and can't even hold him off. In magic, answers are always worse than threats, as they don’t really win games. If you have a few unlucky draws and don’t hit a removal you die to goyf, whereas if you have extra removal it doesn’t help you any because you don’t have a clock. So, sadly, most decks are now seeing that the best way to deal with goyf is to just play their own… and then if the opponent doesn’t draw correctly (or draws any other creature) you just turn it sideways a few times and win. To consciously decide that you won’t play goyf, you need to think “okay, now when they play a turn 2 goyf, how do I beat them?”

Goyf will never be banned

if they ban it, you will be crying to unban him

You could be right about this, regardless of how knee-jerky your reaction to the topic was.

But in Zilla's breakdown I'm one of the people who loved deckbuilding until goyf came around. Now every deck I build is either tribal, creaturless, or green-duals-plus-goyf.deck.

EDIT:

~Jund~

That's 9/16, for those keeping track at home. That's over half the top 16 of one deck, not just one card which happens to be in a few different decks. If the DCI isn't taking action on a deck that's continually dominating the format that is undeniably WotC's bread and butter, then why would they take action over a relatively (when compared to Standard) diverse metagame that gets only a few big events a year - only one of which is a direct line to Wizards' pockets?

But Standard is so easily manipulatable. Is this really your assumption, that bannings take place over all formats the same way? They could easily just print a single card to change standard and make Jund suck. Now mirroring this to Legacy, it is extremely difficult to just print 1 card and make Goyf suck. They tried with Relic of Progenitus but that did not do it. If they print an equally good creature or some creature that hurts goyf a lot then it is going to be overused in both Standard and Extended (and probably even a killer in Limited). The main way to solve the problem without creating more in Legacy is a banning.

In standard they can just print some Pro-Jund color decent sized creature with an ability or something.

ktkenshinx

01-04-2010, 02:47 PM

That's 9/16, for those keeping track at home. That's over half the top 16 of one deck, not just one card which happens to be in a few different decks. If the DCI isn't taking action on a deck that's continually dominating the format that is undeniably WotC's bread and butter, then why would they take action over a relatively (when compared to Standard) diverse metagame that gets only a few big events a year - only one of which is a direct line to Wizards' pockets?
I agree that the Goyf representation in Standard (and Extended for that matter) is even worse than in Legacy. There is less deck diversity, almost no competing creatures, and, in my opinion, it is an overall less fun format.

Opinions aside, there is a fundamental difference between Standard and Legacy that makes Goyf more acceptable in the former and less acceptable in the latter. Legacy is the epitome of format diversity. Even in this current Goyf-ful metagame, there are dozens of distinct archetypes. Similarly, there are hundreds of viable aggro creatures that can compete for slots. Goyf renders many strictly obsolete, and that harms format diversity in a format that is supposed to be founded in diversity.

This point is different from Phoneix_Ignition's own point that it is easier to manipulate Standard and Extended with card PRINTINGS rather than card BANNINGS. When graveyard based decks were stealing tournament after tournament, printing Leyline and reprinting Crypt essentially closed that route off as a viable strategy, at least on a large scale. Dredge and graveyard based decks were edged out of the metagame. In Legacy, where we have all these threats and many more, they still manage to do well.

The format is about diversity. Goyf hurts that diversity. Moreover, Legacy is a fairly 'resilient' format; you can play basically whatever you want to play and there is no one answer that will totally ruin your deck (not one that you are unable to deal with, that is). If Goyf is really hurting Standard and Extended, then they will print something to deal with him there. But there are ample Goyf answers in Legacy that do not really matter. Bannings are the corrective tools for Legacy, not printings.

-ktkenshinx-

Zilla

01-04-2010, 03:06 PM

That's 9/16, for those keeping track at home. That's over half the top 16 of one deck, not just one card which happens to be in a few different decks.
Apples are apples, oranges are oranges. The comparison doesn't effectively prove your argument. Standard's card pool is so small that it is an ultimately "solvable" format. There are a few absolutely "best" decks available given the limited resources with which people have to work.

Legacy is obviously different. The entire point of the format is to be able to play with as diverse a card pool as possible. As a result, there are far more potentially viable decks, which in turn means far fewer absolutely "best" decks. The format is, by its very nature, inherently "unsolvable". That's really what sets the Eternal formats apart from the others, and what attracts players to the format. Tarmogoyf is the antithesis of this, because as you pointed out, it has basically "solved" the creature equation.

As a deckbuilder, I'm not a fan of pre-solved puzzles. I like having to make intelligent decisions about what creatures to include in my deck based upon what I think I'll be facing at a tournament. It's the most interesting part of the game to me. If I wanted a solvable metagame I'd play Standard.

That said, I agree that the format is diverse right now, plenty of non-Goyf decks are viable (although they're almost all combo or tribal without exception), and that from a player's standpoint the format is in a really good place. I understand why people are against removing it from the format; I just wish it didn't make deck construction so boring.

Nightmare

01-04-2010, 03:12 PM

The format is about diversity. Goyf hurts that diversity. Moreover, Legacy is a fairly 'resilient' format; you can play basically whatever you want to play and there is no one answer that will totally ruin your deck (not one that you are unable to deal with, that is). If Goyf is really hurting Standard and Extended, then they will print something to deal with him there. But there are ample Goyf answers in Legacy that do not really matter. Bannings are the corrective tools for Legacy, not printings.

-ktkenshinx-

First of all, Tarmogoyf is not legal in Standard. My point isn't that "it's worse here," it's that there is an even more omnipresent threat in Standard, and if they don't care about the warped Pro Tour format, they won't be doing anything about a relatively healthy Legacy.

And as for "Printing Solutions" you guys are flat wrong. The Future Future league (the guys responsible for ferreting out problems with cards before they're printed) is working three sets ahead of print - and has been for a long time. They don't slip cards in as "Problem Solvers." If they did, there's no way they would have printed Halo Hunter as a demon, or allowed Faeries to run rampant for over a year, or had to ban Artifact Lands/Skullclamp/Vial/Disciple of the Vault in Standard or Extended. Please, be aware of the policies in place before you appeal to them as support for your case.

While its true that eventually, cards will rotate out of Standard if there's problems with the format, it's been clearly demonstrated in the past that when a real problem exists, the DCI takes action rather than potentially risk money on player disinterest. I assert again - if they let Faeries exist with no action, and are currently allowing Jund to do the same, then why would they care to take action on what they (the people who matter) percieve to be a healthy, diverse format?

paK0

01-04-2010, 03:15 PM

The format is about diversity. Goyf hurts that diversity.

-ktkenshinx-

That statement is just plain wrong, look at this:
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=leg&start_date=2010-01-03&end_date=2010-01-03

This looks like a lot of archetyps are viable. I played 9 Rounds at the Germagic and had to face only 1 deck twice. I actually like this. Sure, Goyf is a present threat that most deck can utilize but thats a price I'm willing to pay for an awesome range of decks that are viable these days.

Furthermore Goyf <> Goyf. Aggro uses Goyf as an undercosted beater, Control as a stall and finisher and Tribal as an pillar that isn't too dependant on synergies. They say Goyf was a mistake, but it could very well be one of the best things that happened to Legacy. If Goyf is what sets the bar of the two-drops and every Deck can use it that means that more Decks can fight on equal footage.

bulaxas

01-04-2010, 03:17 PM

@Phoenix Ignition

I recognize that way i spoke to you all it wasnt the correct one my apologies for that. but you must understand we're discussing something pointless.

I played legacy pre-goyf and now and i clearly see this, the environment is way better now... Remember the old times when goblins raped everybody? Remember how zoo was weak (although qasali is probably zoo best card)? Remember super gro? how many times have you been screwed cause quirion dryad wasnt a goyf?

I believe that goyf is a necessary tool to all formats, its a staple, and honestly i think that we all need it even if we dont want see it.

In terms of deckbuilding i belive that makes everything goes around him for some decks, but i think that in legacy the best deck is still ad nauseum, and it doesnt run goyfs, you must see that if goyf wasnt around they would build the deck to be slower and potencialy impossible to break through it, remember that goyf means speed for most decks, there are no speed that can be compared to combo, see this as an aggro player do you actualy think that nacatl is fast enough? goyfs puts preassure on combo as force keeps combo out 1st turn but i think you know that ad nauseum can pass through force on first turn...

If you play control you will always play solutions to aggro decks which means that they are solutions to goyf, your problem when buiding is that the format is well defined by 10 tier one decks and a zilion tier 2 decks and those that are tier one some of them run goyf and others dont and you cant possibly build a deck that has answers to all those decks (whether they run goyf or not), and even if you manage to acompish someting like that everybody would play that deck...

I think you all must see goyf the same way combo players accept that force is in the format, after all theres nothing broken like a free spell...

Originally Posted by paKO
Goyf <> Goyf. Aggro uses Goyf as an undercosted beater, Control as a stall and finisher and Tribal as an pillar that isn't too dependant on synergies. They say Goyf was a mistake, but it could very well be one of the best things that happened to Legacy. If Goyf is what sets the bar of the two-drops and every Deck can use it that means that more Decks can fight on equal footage.

totally agree on this with you dude

Zilla

01-04-2010, 03:21 PM

If Goyf is what sets the bar of the two-drops and every Deck can use it that means that more Decks can fight on equal footage.
If you take this sentiment to its logical extreme, the best thing for the format would be if there was only one best deck, everyone played the identical decklist, and everyone is on perfectly equal footing. Then every game comes down to players' skill alone. If that's what you're looking for in a game you should take up Chess.

Nightmare

01-04-2010, 03:26 PM

Apples are apples, oranges are oranges. The comparison doesn't effectively prove your argument. Standard's card pool is so small that it is an ultimately "solvable" format. There are a few absolutely "best" decks available given the limited resources with which people have to work.

Legacy is obviously different. The entire point of the format is to be able to play with as diverse a card pool as possible. As a result, there are far more potentially viable decks, which in turn means far fewer absolutely "best" decks. The format is, by its very nature, inherently "unsolvable". That's really what sets the Eternal formats apart from the others, and what attracts players to the format. Tarmogoyf is the antithesis of this, because as you pointed out, it has basically "solved" the creature equation.

As a deckbuilder, I'm not a fan of pre-solved puzzles. I like having to make intelligent decisions about what creatures to include in my deck based upon what I think I'll be facing at a tournament. It's the most interesting part of the game to me. If I wanted a solvable metagame I'd play Standard.

That said, I agree that the format is diverse right now, plenty of non-Goyf decks are viable (although they're almost all combo or tribal without exception), and that from a player's standpoint the format is in a really good place. I understand why people are against removing it from the format; I just wish it didn't make deck construction so boring.

I disagree that apples and oranges are being compared. The only reason you see it that way is because of your relationship with this format.

In the same vein, saying that Legacy has an "infinite" card pool is a misnomer. Just as in Vintage, the power level of the cards legal in the format artificially narrows the cards playable in the format. No one is running Creamate, because Extirpate exists. No one is running Exile, because StP exists. No one is running Naturalize, because Krosan Grip exists. Even cards that were once considered staples can be relegated to the commons box because there are cards that are simply better at what they do. This isn't an attempt to support Tarmogoyf using this logic, by the way - just to point out that the real card pool is much, much smaller than you seem to suggest. I would say with confidence, if you consider percentages, that the relative card pool of legal cards vs. competitively played cards in Standard is much greater than that of Legacy - even with Jund taking up 9/16 slots. This would be less true, but still true, were Tarmogoyf banned tonight.

All of this is beside the point, however. The fact is, and I'll say it again, that the DCI doesn't care how boring the deckbuilding in this format is. They care how diverse the field is in competitive play. As the last two years of B&R have proven, they're currently happy with the format's diversity.

Edit - just for reference, there are less than 1000 cards legal in standard at this time, including lands. (there are 41 legal lands)