[Article] Unlocking Legacy--Tarmogoyf Deckbuilding [Archive]

TheAardvark

08-31-2007, 12:39 AM

"Without a doubt, Tarmogoyf is the best creature in Legacy. Unsatisfied with current Threshold decks, Kevin presents several ideas on how to best use the Goyf. He also looks at ways to build around and play around Counterbalance."

SELF-EDIT: Savage tech is actually including the link. Here (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14686.html).

So, Tarmogoyf is pretty good, see. And you can include tutor effects in your deck to fetch him. Glad to see that the underrated Tarmogoyf finally gets his due.

Savage tech.

On a less sarcastic note, I don't see building a deck with tutors for the sole purpose of bringing up a 'Goyf to be that amazing. Sure, they can perform other functions, finding utility creatures and whatnot, but why not just play Survival and toss in 'Goyf if that's how you roll?

I understand that Tarmogoyf is an outstanding creature, but devoting an entire article to developing decks centered on it seems a bit much to me. If you play green, or a splash would make sense, you should probably play it. That's pretty much all that needs to be said.

But what do I know?

kirdape3

08-31-2007, 01:20 AM

Tarmogoyf is actually pretty integral to building decks that use the attack phase. It's absolutely not unreasonable to build decks specifically to abuse it - or for that matter to show how it can be thrown into decks that aren't as intuitive as 'omg i get to crash in lulz'. It's actually a real paradigm shift to have something that large and that cheap (and that painless to cast) in this format. You don't splash for Threshold men, but you certainly splash for Tarmogoyfs.

His 4c Counterbalance deck isn't that far off from ours, incidentally.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-31-2007, 01:42 AM

Jotun Grunt and Tarmogoyf are not the bosom pals you might think.

Depending on the creatures in play, Grunt is going to push you out ahead since it is a 4/4. Generally what Grunt does is get in for some damage and either trade with a creature or die. After Grunt dies, the board state is exactly the same as it was before, except your opponent doesn't have Threshold and they are 8-12 points of life lower than they were before. He's like Lightning Bolt, except orders of magnitude better. Even if you just do not play Grunt when you are ahead on board, the upsides to Grunt are far better than the potential downsides.

Or you play against something that's not Threshold, like, for instance, any of the 19 decks in the top 32 at Gencon that didn't even run Tarmogoyf, and your Jotun Grunt gets in for eight or twelve, you remove the last fading counter, it dies... and your Tarmogoyfs now suck. This is especially terrible if you're playing Goblins or Red Death or something and actually, you know, want multiple creatures in play at the same time.

Artowis

08-31-2007, 01:52 AM

On a less sarcastic note, I don't see building a deck with tutors for the sole purpose of bringing up a 'Goyf to be that amazing.

Any particular reason you feel this way? I mean you say it, but don't really back it up with anything. If a significant portion of people are going to be playing Tarmogoyf it may be good idea to be able to find more quickly and easily. *shrug*

I understand that Tarmogoyf is an outstanding creature, but devoting an entire article to developing decks centered on it seems a bit much to me.

See: Tog, Wild Mongrel, Arcbound Ravager, etc.

As for criticisms - I think towards the end of the article you lost too much focus and was like 'well this is good and this is cool and blah blah' without enough context. Good in what? Why would I want to absorb the slowness of MS in a Goyf deck which runs such an efficient type of defender/finisher? Like if running limited effects, why not just go for broke? I'd of liked a better explanation on going big vs. playing what can be best described as scalpel cards.

Also, concur with Jack, Jotun Grunt and Goyf? wtf? The deck looked pretty coherent, but that just sticks out.

Bovinious

08-31-2007, 02:48 AM

Tutoring up 'Goyfs and playing them seems worse than tutoring up Nomads and Illusionist and playing them, unless of course youre already running those cards and need to tutor up Goyf for some reason in Breakfast :). But yeah, this article kind of confused me, the 2 decklists presented seemed really random and offbeat, and then when I scrolled down to the body of the article I saw a bunch of barely playable to unplayable cards in blue hyperlinks, which was good for a chuckle. I think the writing was okay, but I didnt like it because I'm sick of people creaming their pants over Tarmogoyf and this article was all about building around the dork.

Anusien

08-31-2007, 03:05 AM

Artowis: I can see that complaint. Near the end I kind of fanboyish getting ideas from people and exploring them further. The Call-Goyf deck seems intriguing to me and I'll probably investigate that after I learn to play this GAT thing.

I look at Call as basically saying, "Would you play Tarmogoyf for 3 mana? Obviously. What about 4? Probably. Alright, let's run 8!" Not included were thoughts to go nuts with Tarmogoyf, Intuition and Genesis because there are easier ways to go uncounterable, and your Goyfs will either die to StP or ground stall most of the time.

I've run Goyf and Grunt together a lot now, and I've never had issues. I mean, if you have Grunt and you eat all the graveyards, he's still going to be the biggest thing on the table. He's much better than any of the smaller creatures that don't thrash Goblins, for instance.

Anyway, you're going to see a lot of people do well because they do innovative and good things with Tarmogoyf. I believe using it properly is the key to winning in the format right now.

Tacosnape

08-31-2007, 03:12 AM

In short summary:

"Tarmogoyf is teh good card. If you get more goyfs in a goyf fight you win teh game!"

In all seriousness, though, This article seems like it was written by someone with multiple personalities. Thrill of the Hunt is actually a pretty genius idea for a Tarmogoyf mirror and I've always thought it was an incredibly underrated card anyway. And yet the same person who tosses that possibly techy idea out there follows it with:

In all my creature-based decks, I like to start with 4 Tarmogoyf and 3-4 Jotun Grunt

This is dumb.

Saying anything beyond that is probably wasteful, but I will anyway.

First of all, Jotun Grunt sucks for the same reason that threats with Vanishing or Fading suck. He will rarely if ever go the distance by himself. To do this, he needs for there to be 30 cards in graveyards just for him, and to spend his first five turns with upkeep paid connecting with the opponent without any interference. In addition, his graveyard-eating ability never works when it counts (Against Graveyard combo/Squee/whatever else), and he gets weaker if you run any other graveyard hate to back him up.

Now, if Jotun Grunt has any redeeming value in Legacy right now, it's shrinking a Tarmogoyf.

So why, in god's name, would you play a card whose biggest positive quality is completely wrecking a card alongside the card it completely wrecks?

I mean, seriously? This makes about as much sense as playing Reverence in Goblins or City of Solitude in Solidarity.

Also, for what it's worth, why not just run Survival of the Fittest and Genesis, like I do? Not only does Survival give you a way to play up to four Goyfs for three mana a shot, Genesis lets you play additional Goyfs in the midgame for :3::g::g: all day long.

Zilla

08-31-2007, 03:26 AM

I look at Call as basically saying, "Would you play Tarmogoyf for 3 mana? Obviously. What about 4? Probably. Alright, let's run 8!"
I don't think I'd pay 4 for Goyf. I'd pay 4 for Fledgling Dragon. I might even pay 4 for Iwamori, which is likely to be about as large as Goyf and tramples. I'd pay 3 for Goyf. Better still, I'd pay 1 for Goyf. I think virtually more than 4 Goyfs is on the right track, but Call is the wrong way to do it. If your opponent can counter the Goyf you've just fetched, you're not only down a Goyf in the deck itself, you've lost a whole lot of tempo.

I think Unearth is probably a better way to go about the concept of playing Goyfs 4-8. You lose a Goyf, you get one back for 1 mana, AND you have just as many Goyfs left in the deck, which can be clutch in drawn out games against control. Further, being that essentially every playable creature in the format is 2cc or less right now, you're going to be able to get other creatures back even if there are no Goyfs in your yard. And if you have no creatures in the yard at all, it cycles. Put it in a deck with Therapy and now it's not only Tarmogoyfs 5-8, it's Therapies 5-8, in that it returns one of your sacced creatures directly after flashback.

Anyway, this is a bit tangential to the central point. For the article itself, I don't see what the hue and cry is about. Tarmogoyf is the biggest thing to happen to Legacy in over a year (excluding Flash), and it makes sense to put it under a microscope. I agree that the article felt a bit schizophrenic though. It felt like 15 well written mini-articles mashed together. I would like to have felt as though there was a more unifying narrative tying it all together.

With regards to the Grunt/Goyf thing, they do have terrible synergy on paper. That doesn't necessarily mean they're unplayable in the same deck together, but I think there needs to be a really really good reason to do so. Grunt is a 4/4 for 2 mana. You can get that from a Werebear, and it won't be hurting your Goyfs. The only reason Grunt should be played is if he's really really helping some particular matchup. And because Thresh is almost entirely non-reliant on the graveyard now, and because it's likely too slow an answer to other graveyard abusing decks like Ichorid, I'm not sure he's really worth it, in my opinion.

Nihil Credo

08-31-2007, 07:03 AM

There is no worse feeling than seeing a turn 2 Exalted Angel (http://sales.starcitygames.com/cardsearch.php?singlesearch=Exalted+Angel) and staring at triple Threads of Disloyalty.
Heh, it was hilarious when you revealed your hand. Screw aggro-control-combo: metagaming beats good cards beats randomness beats metagaming. That's the real food chain.

Regarding the article: Godzilla's analysis is, as always, spot-on, and I fully agree with him. I'd also like to praise Anusien for actually playtesting before writing his article.

I'd like to throw out a Standard/Block tech for Goyf-on-Goyf fights that seems actually playable in Legacy, and more versatile than Thrill of the Hunt: Stonecloaker. The trick is to clash the Goyfs into each other, then play the Cloaker, first bouncing your Goyf back to your hand, then RFGing a card in the graveyard that is the only one of its type, thus getting your opponent's Lhurgoyf into lethal damage.

It's probably too clunky and narrow for a blue-glue shell that can just cantrip into counterspell and removal, but for an aggro or midrange deck it seems quite a viable option. Stonecloaker seems quite hot in a Survival deck with many CIP creatures.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-31-2007, 07:36 AM

Is 15 creatures really enough to support 7 crreature support cards(3 equipment, 4 Vial)?

And if you're so committed to going big that you'll ignore the Grunt-Goyf antisynergy, why not just go the distance and run Flesh Reaver as well. 11-12 2 mana, for power guys can't be wrong. I also don't understand why you're not running Daze in that second list. Huge guys + free counterwall = sad faces.

Silverdragon

08-31-2007, 08:19 AM

Plus, as a zero casting cost spell, it is more problematic for Counterbalance than Swords to Plowshares or Smother.

Just wanted to point out that this is wrong. Basically every Threshold Deck has at least 17 cards with cc 0, namely the lands. When you reveal a land with Counterbalance the non-existant manacost is treated as zero.

Aside from that and this whole Grunt + Goyf stuff that has already been mentioned I'd say this was one of the best articles you've written so far. I really liked the first part of the article up to the decklists and the part about Counterbalance was interesting too.

Zach Tartell

08-31-2007, 08:39 AM

Good enough to be late for stats. I'm not sure that grunt an d goyf play well but that's been said. Good exploration of possible decks.

TheAardvark

08-31-2007, 10:36 AM

Any particular reason you feel this way? I mean you say it, but don't really back it up with anything. If a significant portion of people are going to be playing Tarmogoyf it may be good idea to be able to find more quickly and easily. *shrug*

Yes, finding it against other decks that play 'Goyf would be pretty strong, but I would rather search up something like Illusionist or Nomad and combo out than search up a 5/6 that will just get blocked by theirs.

See: Tog, Wild Mongrel, Arcbound Ravager, etc.

Two things:

1. With the exception of Mongrel, those creatures can be lethal on the first attack you declare, whereas 'Goyf isn't. I've died to a lethal 'Tog on turn 4 when being at 19 life (in Extended like 4 years ago), and Tarmogoyf just isn't going to do that.

2. Affinity existed before Ravager; the deck wasn't built around it, it was just adapted. You could argue even then that the deck was built around Disciple, but whatever.

Just my thoughts.

bigbear102

08-31-2007, 10:49 AM

First of all, you say that Meddling Mage is the hardest card for combo to fight right now, and I highly disagree. Breakfast is probably the only one I might concede that has a problem with it, but then again they play the 4 Goyf strategy, so they can always just beat through Mage and play the Aggro-control route. TES (NOT TEPS as you said) just plays aroung Mage, unless you know their hand, it is very hard for 1 mage to do enough damage to stop them, the same goes for Belcher, the decks are too redundant and run multiple wins.

You talk about pump spells a lot also, which seem pretty bad right for the most part. Equipment is good because you don't get 2for1'ed, with pump you do. Yes, you can cast your Stonewood Invocation to counter my STP, or deal more damage, but then I will shake your hand and thank you for tapping out. It is good in Standard, leave it there. Rancor is probably the best pump spell, just because it will make your Goyf bigger even if it's countered, and if not it will come back to make something else bigger. I still think the slot would be better as burn though.

Using Eladamri's Call/Worldly Tutor in non-combo decks seems like a REALLY BAD IDEA. Unless you have a Hunting Ground and Threshold, you are gonna need a lot of mana open to have it be an answer, and you are going to have to use them well before you need the creature. Getting Goyf is great, but when your opponent counters/kills goyf you just got 2for1'ed.

You also state that a 0 casting cost spell is more problematic for CounterTop than STP or Smother. I agree with top out STP is easy to deal with, but considering most decks play land, i have a feeling that 0 is just as easy to stop as 2.

I think the big problem you are having in this article is that you aren't thinking about the most fundamental part of Magic, Card Advantage. It is reasonable to assume that whoever gets the most card advantage will normally win the game. Your article presents several ideas which give your opponent an opportunity to gain card advantage. To name a few: Rancor, Giant Growth, Tutors. Tutors are good when they win the game now, like in Flash or Breakfast, but your tutors don't, then get Goyf or FoW. Worldly and Scroll can't even get your answer/threat when you need it.

Also, I don't understand how the Unlocking Legacy writers keep posting decks that they say are unrefined. If you are going to present a deck to the Legacy community it should be one that is ready to be played. If you are going in a completely new direction, then experimental is fine, normally this is in the combo direction. When you are writing about aggro/control, Zoo, or Junk, it seems like unrefined decks just add to the chaffe that the format does not need, especially since it is gaining in popularity.

Anusien

08-31-2007, 01:41 PM

Just wanted to point out that this is wrong. Basically every Threshold Deck has at least 17 cards with cc 0, namely the lands. When you reveal a land with Counterbalance the non-existant manacost is treated as zero.

Derf. I think I meant to say harder for Daze, not Counterbalance since obviously any land + Engineered Explosives. Then again, most Threshold decks will have more 2s than lands left, so...

I think the big problem you are having in this article is that you aren't thinking about the most fundamental part of Magic, Card Advantage. It is reasonable to assume that whoever gets the most card advantage will normally win the game. Your article presents several ideas which give your opponent an opportunity to gain card advantage. To name a few: Rancor, Giant Growth, Tutors. Tutors are good when they win the game now, like in Flash or Breakfast, but your tutors don't, then get Goyf or FoW. Worldly and Scroll can't even get your answer/threat when you need it.
Card advantage is not necessarily the be-all end-all of Magic; if it was, BBS would be the best deck in the format. However, Giant Growth seems like a fantastic way to get card advantage since the plan is to run your Goyf (or Grunt) into their Goyf and make yours bigger. I think calling tutors card disadvantage is really short-sighted anyway, especially since I mostly focus on in-hand tutors like Call and Pact. Specifically, if I call for Tarmgoyf and play it, then my opponent counters, it's not a 2 for 1. I spent one card in hand (Call, which replaces itself with Goyf) and they spent 1 card in hand (StP). That's even. Godzilla claims it's a loss of tempo and it can be, but not always. It only is a loss of tempo if it prevents you from doing something else. If you have more lands in play or Aether Vial, it's not. I think one or the other is a safe assumption in that style deck since you also probably want to ramp to Exalted Angel or Mystic Enforcer.

Godzilla: Unearth seems really good, and it's in the right color. I had not considered it, which is folly since you can fail to echo on Bone Shredder and then bring it back at will. The problem I found is that Tarmogoyfs are not often going to the graveyard. Tarmogoyfs generally either stay in hand, get RFGed with StP/Stolen with Threads, or they stay stalemated on the board. Generally Goyfs only go to the graveyard when countered, and I would rather other anti-countering measures. I think Unearth is a solid card, especially in a deck that has other ways to take advantage of it.

AnwarA101

08-31-2007, 01:46 PM

I hate the cantrip base that Threshold runs. I think Nihil explained it best when he called it a necessary evil. Obviously Brainstorm is ridiculous because it has the ability to take bad cards from your hand and replace them. I really have issues with the rest of the cantrip base Threshold traditionally runs. Those spells are decent at helping to filter away bad cards, but they are generally pretty poor.

You fundamentally don't understand the role of cantrips in Threshold. They aren't there to just build Threshold or put cards in the yard for Tarmogoyf. They let you find the most relevant spells in any given matchup and support a much lower land count. The added benefit of pumping up your creatures is secondary to building a strong hand through cantrips.

The success of Threshold is undeniable, but you still deny that its cantrips aren't strong. Your only argument is some appeal to the fact that they are "poor", but repeated results show this not to be the case. Given all the evidence that supports the success of Threshold decks you will have to do better than just throw around words like "poor" and expect us to agree with you.

The last part of this article felt like the ramblings of a madman. It was incoherent and nearly incomprehensible in parts as it jumped from topic to topic with almost no transition.

Anusien

08-31-2007, 03:17 PM

The success of Threshold is undeniable, but you still deny that its cantrips aren't strong. Your only argument is some appeal to the fact that they are "poor", but repeated results show this not to be the case. Given all the evidence that supports the success of Threshold decks you will have to do better than just throw around words like "poor" and expect us to agree with you.
Sensei's Divining Top is like Serum Visions... every single turn. Plus, none of them (save maybe the lossy Predict) actually even increase your hand size. Considering multiple people here have pointed to Standstill's ability to draw lots of cards as one of the reasons why Landstill beats Threshold, I think it's pretty obvious that drawing the right card every turn >> drawing the right card once.

Finn

08-31-2007, 03:22 PM

Sensei's Divining Top is like Serum Visions... every single turn. Sometimes I don't understand you, man. Did you think at all before saying this? That's only true if you have a shuffle effect.

Anwar is right. Anyone who actually understands the deck thoroughly knows that you beat it through card advantage - if you can last that long. That is the rub, really. It is fast as balls, and now even faster. You have to assemble your control against it while it deflects everything with its ability to search out the counters and removal reliably.

EDIT: I liked the idea of the article, though. And I think it is brave of you to put your stamp on the "Threshold is king" statement. I wish you would have had the chance to do more research with Tarmogoyf, though. I happen to think that Stonecloaker is an amazing card, with a variety of uses. I particularly like the one that kills an opposing Stonecloaker. You could have mentioned that.

Bryant Cook

08-31-2007, 03:27 PM

When I build a deck, I examine the top tier of decks and tune the strategy to fight one or more of these. In this case, I considered the top tier U/G/W Threshold and TEPS/Belcher.

I disagree with you on several points here, why play a deck that only beats 1/2 of the upper tier when you can play decks that beat most of it? Seems suboptimal. Not to mention the fact that we don't have The EXTENDED perfect storm (TEPS) in this format. However, we do have The EPIC Storm (TES).

TheCramp

08-31-2007, 03:34 PM

I think it's pretty obvious that drawing the right card every turn >> drawing the right card once.

This is true, except that it is not even remotely what we are talking about. This is the kind of thing that makes these forum fights useless. Tell me how one deck "draws the right card every turn", and how the other "only does it once." Tell me with math. I'm a cunning fuck, I'll get it.

I also think it's pretty obvious that something can look sound on paper, and then in a live field the "unreliable chance based deck with a weak mana base" wrecks the "better deck." Results are real strong evidence.

AnwarA101

08-31-2007, 03:36 PM

Sensei's Divining Top is like Serum Visions... every single turn. Plus, none of them (save maybe the lossy Predict) actually even increase your hand size. Considering multiple people here have pointed to Standstill's ability to draw lots of cards as one of the reasons why Landstill beats Threshold, I think it's pretty obvious that drawing the right card every turn >> drawing the right card once.

Many recent builds of Thresh have adopted Top in either the maindeck or sideboard. It is a way of searching for cards if that is what you meant with your weird analogy. Debating Top in Threshold is probably a very good topic, but just saying Serum Visions is bad doesn't really address any point as many people have run Serum Visions to great success.

Mad Zur

08-31-2007, 04:11 PM

I think it's pretty obvious that drawing the right card every turn >> drawing the right card once.
That's exactly why running so many library manipulation spells is good.

zulander

08-31-2007, 04:12 PM

In most decks serum visions is a bit better than portent because of it's immediate draw. However, portent is the amazingness in thresh due to it's ability to the counter you need in your hand then topdeck the land for the turn. This is why a turn one portent is better than a turn one brainstorm in most cases. However, a turn 2 brainstorm and then fetching is like the hot jizz.

I think it's pretty obvious that drawing the right card every turn >> drawing the right card once.
You know that threshold is the deck that tries to draw the right card every turn while landstill likes to just draw cards every turn right? A simple way to explain this would be to take some of the draw/cantrips the decks run and analyzing them.

Thresh : Portent/Brainstorm/Serum Visions/Sensei's Divining Top
Landstill: Standstill/Fact or Fiction/Brainstorm

Which engine draws more cards as opposed to drawing the right card? And yeah, drawing the right card every turn is better, why do you think thresh has implemented the top/balance engine as well?

TheAardvark

08-31-2007, 06:25 PM

EDIT: I liked the idea of the article, though. And I think it is brave of you to put your stamp on the "Threshold is king" statement. I wish you would have had the chance to do more research with Tarmogoyf, though. I happen to think that Stonecloaker is an amazing card, with a variety of uses. I particularly like the one that kills an opposing Stonecloaker. You could have mentioned that.

Not to thread-jack, but I think Stonecloaker is preety damn hot. When I was doing the 4CZ a while back, he was often the MVP. Hell, my buddy even rebuilt Deadguy with it to pretty good success for a while. I think it really has a place, it's just a matter of finding it.

Back on topic, yes, Top is amazing; I'm the last person to disagree with that. However, in Thresh, its primary purpose is to feed Counterbalance. Serum Visions allows you to filter and puts all new cards on top, if you so choose. Top doesn't dig, which is why Serum Visions is usually better in Thresh.

Just my thoughts.

Bovinious

08-31-2007, 10:27 PM

In most decks serum visions is a bit better than portent

BLASPHEMY!!!, Zuhair did you move to New York or Portland and not tell me???

Zilla

08-31-2007, 11:00 PM

BLASPHEMY!!!, Zuhair did you move to New York or Portland and not tell me???
It's possible he feels this way because Portent is terrible. Just saying.

09-01-2007, 02:12 AM

It's possible he feels this way because Portent is terrible. Just saying.

/agreed. FU VA.

Amon Amarth

09-01-2007, 03:26 PM

There was nothing new in this article. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that Tarmogoyf is good.

Happy Gilmore

09-01-2007, 10:38 PM

Also, I don't understand how the Unlocking Legacy writers keep posting decks that they say are unrefined. If you are going to present a deck to the Legacy community it should be one that is ready to be played. If you are going in a completely new direction, then experimental is fine, normally this is in the combo direction. When you are writing about aggro/control, Zoo, or Junk, it seems like unrefined decks just add to the chaffe that the format does not need, especially since it is gaining in popularity.
I have no real qualm with you Anusien but this. Stop posting unrefined list, and stop wasting our time. Deck lists tend to look horrible on paper, and I understand that sometimes this happens even with good decks. But you have no testing to show that the initial presumption is incorrect.

Do you actually play legacy anywhere in the US? Why do I never see you at legacy tournaments? Do you have any insights gathered from experience rather than speculation? Honestly I would not care what you said, except you are visible to a large audience and anyone who reads your articles is going to think the legacy community as a whole lacks understanding of their own format. Even Bardo, who from what I gather does not get many opportunities to play in large tournaments, actually plays a good amount of legacy.

I do not disagree specifically with your convictions but they are useless to me as person who plays competitive magic. New legacy players are not new players, they posses a higher level of experience. Have you ever heard of a new player yearning to jump right into Legacy? Understand your audience and know that some things can go unspoken. We know Tarmogoyf is good, k thanks.

FoolofaTook

09-01-2007, 10:46 PM

Deck lists tend to look horrible on paper, and I understand that sometimes this happens even with good decks.

Most decks that turn out to be dominant started off as "WTF is that load of crap?"

That's because with rare exceptions newly dominant decks run counter to the currently accepted ideas of what is sound and true.

DragoFireheart

09-01-2007, 11:41 PM

Most decks that turn out to be dominant started off as "WTF is that load of crap?"

That's because with rare exceptions newly dominant decks run counter to the currently accepted ideas of what is sound and true.

Except obivous things, like Tarmogoyf and Force of Will. A blue deck that can run FoW but doesn't is jank. A green deck that can run Tarmogoyf but doesn't is jank.

FoolofaTook

09-02-2007, 12:35 AM

Except obivous things, like Tarmogoyf and Force of Will. A blue deck that can run FoW but doesn't is jank.

Blue has other strengths than counters, although those strengths are not being favorably exploited right now. I could easily see a deck with enough blue in it to run Brainstorm and Mystic Tutor but no desire to run FoW, oh, wait a minute, that would be IggyPop. And I understand that a deck needs to have more blue than 8 spells to run FoW, but it's also true that a deck could run a lot of blue without necessarily being counter-oriented. We're all choosing not to make a "dick-with-you" type deck that incorporates the many blue enchantments that do just that along with blue draw, however that doesn't mean a strong deck couldn't be made along those lines if people could figure out how to selectively tutor for the solutions it presented.

A green deck that can run Tarmogoyf but doesn't is jank.

This one is a little bit harder to argue at the moment, however again I could see decks willing to run enough green for Life From The Loam, Exploration and Nantuko Monastery without including Tarmogoyf. I'll admit that it's hard to keep Goyf out of decks that run green and have any creatures at all in them.

DragoFireheart

09-02-2007, 07:22 AM

Blue has other strengths than counters, although those strengths are not being favorably exploited right now. I could easily see a deck with enough blue in it to run Brainstorm and Mystic Tutor but no desire to run FoW, oh, wait a minute, that would be IggyPop. And I understand that a deck needs to have more blue than 8 spells to run FoW, but it's also true that a deck could run a lot of blue without necessarily being counter-oriented. We're all choosing not to make a "dick-with-you" type deck that incorporates the many blue enchantments that do just that along with blue draw, however that doesn't mean a strong deck couldn't be made along those lines if people could figure out how to selectively tutor for the solutions it presented.

Ask yourself this question: by running FoW what are you losing? By not running FoW, what are you losing? If you can run it there is simply no reason not to. There is a reason certain cards are called "staples". Granted for those obscure decks like CRET Belcher that can have green mana doesn't need Tarmogoyf. This however is obvious.

This one is a little bit harder to argue at the moment, however again I could see decks willing to run enough green for Life From The Loam, Exploration and Nantuko Monastery without including Tarmogoyf. I'll admit that it's hard to keep Goyf out of decks that run green and have any creatures at all in them.

This is also an obscure deck and it would be obvious to not use the Goyf. For decks in general though there is no reason to not use him.