Stoneforge Mystic is not "everything and more in a single card". It searches once for a single card that has to be in a narrow group. That is not broken. It allows you to play an equipment for 2 mana at instant spped and that can't be countered, but with the exception of Batterskull, the other powerful equipment don't do anything until you pay the equip cost. Even with Batterskull, having to pay 2WW and use two cards, dodge creature removal, hand disruption, search hate, artifact removal, and counterspells is powerful, but not broken. And what you said about Stoneforge Mystic being a threat in its own right is not true. Once it enters the battlefield and uses its second ability on the equipment it searched for, it is a 1/2. That is not what most players would consider a threat.
I cant imagine what power level of cards that would be acceptable to you if thats how you feel about SFM.
SFM is a mistake they have admitted to (along with others) that I doubt will see the light of day in Modern. Unless something drastic happens.
Stoneforge Mystic is not "everything and more in a single card". It searches once for a single card that has to be in a narrow group. That is not broken. It allows you to play an equipment for 2 mana at instant spped and that can't be countered, but with the exception of Batterskull, the other powerful equipment don't do anything until you pay the equip cost. Even with Batterskull, having to pay 2WW and use two cards, dodge creature removal, hand disruption, search hate, artifact removal, and counterspells is powerful, but not broken. And what you said about Stoneforge Mystic being a threat in its own right is not true. Once it enters the battlefield and uses its second ability on the equipment it searched for, it is a 1/2. That is not what most players would consider a threat.
You do not have the fundamental understanding of this game, and no one here is going to be able to prove it to you based on the level of ignorance in this post.
There needs to be a level of self-moderation on this entire forum board if posts like this continue.
These discussions are baseless, meaningless, full of self-center vision and useless.
Infracted for Flaming. Again, we are strictly enforcing rules in this thread. There will be no flaming, trolling, baiting, or insulting of users tolerated in this thread. ~Lantern
You do not have the fundamental understanding of this game, and no one here is going to be able to prove it to you based on the level of ignorance in this post.
There needs to be a level of self-moderation on this entire forum board if posts like this continue.
These discussions are baseless, meaningless, full of self-center vision and useless.
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
SFM Will never be unbanned. As said, it's everything and more in a single card. Advantage, Tutoring, Anti-Countermagic and a Threat in it's own right.
Voice will not be banned, it's fine as it is. What needs to be banned is Pod. It;s just too consistent.
Ancestral Visions could do with an unban to help control. It's useless past turn 1.
Wow someone really hates Voice of Resurgence. I mean banning its one guaranteed slot in extended formats would destroy its long term value. Hey, go for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Stoneforge Mystic is not "everything and more in a single card". It searches once for a single card that has to be in a narrow group.
It is a format in which Batterskull and swords are legal. It's just too efficient and too powerful, I don't think it's possible to deny that Stoneforge was a mistake.
That is not broken. It allows you to play an equipment for 2 mana at instant spped and that can't be countered, but with the exception of Batterskull, the other powerful equipment don't do anything until you pay the equip cost. Even with Batterskull, having to pay 2WW and use two cards, dodge creature removal, hand disruption, search hate, artifact removal, and counterspells is powerful, but not broken. And what you said about Stoneforge Mystic being a threat in its own right is not true. Once it enters the battlefield and uses its second ability on the equipment it searched for, it is a 1/2. That is not what most players would consider a threat.
You do not have the fundamental understanding of this game, and no one here is going to be able to prove it to you based on the level of ignorance in this post.
There needs to be a level of self-moderation on this entire forum board if posts like this continue.
These discussions are baseless, meaningless, full of self-center vision and useless.
Can you flesh out exactly what the problem is with this post?
I understand that UW Caw-blade was gross in Standard, and that Deathblade is a deck in Legacy, a more powerful format overall. But those decks both also play 4x JTMS. Without JTMS — not to mention Ponder/Preordain — does a modern SFM deck even play blue? Jitte is banned too.
I'm not denying that it's powerful, but what makes SFM into Batterskull — a two-card, two-turn, four-mana play — broken, but Tarmogoyf balanced?
Goyf is a whopping 1/2 for 2 with 2 card. A Goyf needs you to play at least Fetches, Sorceries and Instants for it to be a reliable 3/4. It's balanced because it also is susceptible to graveyard hate in addition to all the lovely dies to removal nonsense.
Batterskull is also fair. Powerful, true, but fair. What isn't fair is getting a 5 mana artifact out on turn 3 at instant speed, avoids counterspells, can equip to it's tutor and nets you Virtual Card advantage because SFM is a "Deal with me RIGHT NOW or you lose" card.
What deck that runs Goyf doesn't play at least 3 or 4 different card types?
Your argument could be phrased as such: "SFM is a whopping 1/2 for 2. An SFM needs you to play at least a few equipment for it to reliably be able to tutor for them. It's balanced because it's susceptible to EtB-hate in additional to all the lovely dies to removal nonsense."
Let's break down it down:
In any deck that plays Goyf in at least a 3-of capacity, i'd wager around 10 of their lands are fetches (i personally run 10 fetches in my Zoo build which also has Goyf): You can also count on your opponent making a play before your T3 attack, and if you're playing a creature heavy deck you can count on that being either a removal spell, a creature for YOU to remove, a creature for YOU to beat in combat, or nothing, which means you're winning anyways and a grizzly bear gets there against an opponent that should have mulliganed.
So you have a few scenario's:
After your T2 of:
a) You cracked a fetch, and had a sorcery speed T1 play (IoK, TS): 2-3/3-4 Goyf depending on what IoK/TS found
b) You cracked a fetch, and you did nothing T1 against an opponent who also did nothing 1/2 Goyf
c) You did nothing but play a T2 goyf against an opponent who also did nothing. 0/1 Goyf
d) You and an opponent actually had keepable hands: 3/4 Goyf
Be honest with yourself; what's more likely? You having a do nothing hand? If so, i'd reassess either your deck or how you mulligan.
In my experience, Goyf is likely a 2/3 when i drop him and that's in a deck with only 3 card types (instant, creature, land) that often make it to the GY.
And by the time i'm attacking on T3, Goyf is usually a 3/4 or dead.
Also in my experience with Goyf, DRS isn't nearly enough to keep him consistently down. Look at the decks that play DRS, they have: Planeswalker, Sorcery, Instant, Creature, Land in their MD. (And probably their own Goyfs); So, please, stop joshing yourself and trying to make Goyf look like a worse creature than SFM, i'm fairly certain every format disagrees with you unanimously, except EDH.
And how does she generate Virtual Card Advantage? I'm at a complete loss as to how you came to that conclusion.
Can you flesh out exactly what the problem is with this post?
I understand that UW Caw-blade was gross in Standard, and that Deathblade is a deck in Legacy, a more powerful format overall. But those decks both also play 4x JTMS. Without JTMS — not to mention Ponder/Preordain — does a modern SFM deck even play blue? Jitte is banned too.
I'm not denying that it's powerful, but what makes SFM into Batterskull — a two-card, two-turn, four-mana play — broken, but Tarmogoyf balanced?
Here's what people are going to tell you:
'Goyf isn't a must answer card like SFM is
But really SFM isn't a must answer card; the equipment card she's about to put into play is, because honestly, there are very few decks that are hurt by the 'gets around Counterspell' argument her ability provides.
And for certain decks a 5 turn clock is a must-answer. What creature, given likely circumstances, doesn't Goyf demolish in combat? Certainly nothing of equal or less mana-cost, and certainly nothing more or equally as frequently played. That's why Goyf is so good. He is a must answer for anybody that wants to win the combat phase.
And honestly; if SFM were legal and the chicken-littles are right about her having the perfect Must-Answer-Equipment-Package-Extravaganza, then people will just pack as much artifact hate as they already do.
1x Ancient Grudge answers 2x SFM; (This nullifies the CA argument, imo, and the existence of Bob and his legality do, as well. I don't believe the semantics of when or how one gains CA is really relevant with how many suppositions you have to make to get there)
And what's so format warping about a couple'a Qasali Pridemage's chillin' in the MD?
Goyf is a whopping 1/2 for 2 with 2 card. A Goyf needs you to play at least Fetches, Sorceries and Instants for it to be a reliable 3/4. It's balanced because it also is susceptible to graveyard hate in addition to all the lovely dies to removal nonsense.
Batterskull is also fair. Powerful, true, but fair. What isn't fair is getting a 5 mana artifact out on turn 3 at instant speed, avoids counterspells, can equip to it's tutor and nets you Virtual Card advantage because SFM is a "Deal with me RIGHT NOW or you lose" card.
Actually, the controller of Goyf doesn't have to play anything for it to be a 3/4. The opponent can grow it by simply executing his or her game plan. I have built and taken apart a lot of decks because I could not bolt Goyf without turning it into a 3/4 in the process. A two-mana creature should die to a bolt played the same turn more often than Goyf does.
Goyf forces any fair deck into white or black to play PtE or some other sort of unconditional removal early. Given that we already accept this format, why can't we also have SFM which dies to a wider variety of this kind of removal?
I also can't believe people think Batterskull is this crazy unanswerable card. There are 20 cards in three colors in modern that destroy Batterskull at instant speed for 2 mana or less. Black and blue can remove the germ token (forcing the Batterskull player to tap out to bounce it or equip it to SFM, losing tempo).
SFM + Batterskull is oppressive when the deck playing them has access to brutal tempo cards like free counters, JTMS, library manipulation, etc. (Not to mention Jitte). In modern, which lacks a lot of those problem cards, I think SFM + Batterskull should be enabled in order to open up the viability of mono- and two-color decks that are now drowned under the sea of G/B/x goodstuff.
A switch in the banned list between sfm and 'skull would open up more posibilities and add absolutely no brokenness to the format (t2 sfm fetch sword? yeah, scary, might as well just play a Faerie Harbinger). I know this won't happen, but just saying.
The problem with this line of reason is that it would allegedly add no brokenness to the format. While in of itself might be an interesting experiment (personally, I'd love for Wizards to let Cloudpost out of the cage again for that reason, which is why I'm wary of people wanting cards unbanned because I know Cloudpost's power), Wizards is probably going to be paranoid about the Zendikar-Scars Banning for a long time because of how Caw-Blade affected their tournament attendance when it happened.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
It is a format in which Batterskull and swords are legal. It's just too efficient and too powerful, I don't think it's possible to deny that Stoneforge was a mistake.
I already did deny it. It would be powerful in modern, but not format-warping. Batterskull is the powerful card with SFM, and everyone already runs artifact hate in their sideboards. Even if you weren't able to remove it or get one of the many other powerful creatures in Modern to block it, a 4/4 with lifelink, vigilance, and evasion that attacks on turn 4 does not break the turn 3 rule. And if the swords are so powerful in Modern, show me a decklist that abuses them with Steelshaper's Gift. Yes, with Steelshaper's Gift the swords cost one more, but Steelshaper's Gift costs one less than SFM. Once I see a tier 1, 1.5, or even a tier 2 deck that uses Steelshaper's Gift to abuse the swords, then I will agree with you.
It dies to removal has never been a good argument
I didn't say that it was. I meant that it could be answered, and that even if it wasn't, turn 3 swords are normal and turn 3 Batterskull is not as powerful as a turn 2 Liliana of the Veil or a turn 3 Karn Liberated.
Goyf is a whopping 1/2 for 2 with 2 card. A Goyf needs you to play at least Fetches, Sorceries and Instants for it to be a reliable 3/4. It's balanced because it also is susceptible to graveyard hate in addition to all the lovely dies to removal nonsense.
Batterskull is also fair. Powerful, true, but fair. What isn't fair is getting a 5 mana artifact out on turn 3 at instant speed, avoids counterspells, can equip to it's tutor and nets you Virtual Card advantage because SFM is a "Deal with me RIGHT NOW or you lose" card.
Saying Goyf dies to graveyard hate is the equivalent of Stoneforge Mystic is useless because of search hate. Goyf is the most powerful green 2 drop that there is. And as for SFM being unfair because of Batterskull, I'll ask you this. How is turn getting a Batterskull out on turn 3 even though hand disruption, the destruction of SFM, artifact removal, countering SFM, or having a good enough blocker might stop it from doing anything more powerful than a turn 3 Geist of Saint Traft, who doesn't need a second card to work, is harder to remove, and will almost always get 4 points of damage through even if he is blocked and killed. It isn't, and if Traft is fair, so is SFM. And even better, imagine if Wizards was convinced to unban SFM but ban Batterskull? If that could happen, though it probably won't, Modern would be more fun, interesting, and diverse as a format, and there would be nothing broken about Stoneforge Mystic.
That's not a real argument at all. That's like saying "What kind of deck doesn't run all artifacts" and trying to ban Mox Opal.
To Quote:
That's not V-CA; V-CA comes from making your opponents cards worthless against you. i.e. Blanking their removal by playing zero creatures.
EDIT: To expand on this, how about a real example of V-CA:
1)I've either just Peek'ed or have a Telepathy in play; i drop a Meddling Mage and name a card I know my opponent has 4 of in hand.
I've netted myself +4 virtual card advantage (so long as my Mage remains unmolested)
2)I'm playing a completely creatureless combo deck. My opponent draws into 4 Doom Blades and has nothing to do with them; (IE doesn't trigger any 'on death abilities');
Again i'm up +4 virtual card advantage
You may gain Tempo from that; but his example isn't V-CA. You gain a small advantage, i guess, depending on what else your opponent does, or how the rest of the game plays out; but, against that relies heavily on suppositions which transcends the realm of the objective, which is fallacious to assign mathematical values to. (You can't say +1 V-CA in that case, because honestly you REALLY can't know)
If they draw a card they literally can't play with against you then you have essentially netted yourself +1 card without drawing one or directly making your opponent get rid of his.
It's not a real argument to say that, empyrically, the decks that play tarmogoyf on average get him to 3/4 by T3?
You've done nothing but say something as flippant as:
Which is funny because you blatantly ignored your argument against 'Goyf being apparently not as powerful as SFM when used inversely, against you.
You're really not adding any discourse. You simply say things, and then tell other people, essentially, "No, you're wrong."
To expand on your silly leap to a logical fallacy:
It is completely unlike saying "What kind of deck doesn't run all artifacts"; as there is empyrical evidence that suggest 'Goyf is played in decks that frequently and consistently tick him up to a 3/4 by the time you're attacking on T3. You have yet to refute this in any believable form; and this directly refutes your assertion that Goyf is "a whopping 1/2" (I believe that you're the one who said this).
I was retorting to the person who said "Why is Goyf fair when SFM is two cards" by pointing out that Goyf + 1 other card is a 1/2 vanilla while SFM + Batterskull is a 5 Mana Overly Powerful Equipment at instant speed that ignores 99.9% of countermagic, gets ripped straight from the deck, doesn't need additional mana to equip to a creature when it enters the battlefield and forces your opponent to use cards on the Stoneforge the moment it arrives rather than on other targets because if they don't they WILL lose, all on Turn 3 a good 90% of the time.
I think a deck that automatically loses to a T3 Batterskull (this is assuming a meta with SFM that is legal, not carbon copies of current modern decks) is an ill-prepared one.
The same way that decks don't auto-fold to T2 Lili's, T3 Karns, T2 Bob, etc.
Those are all power-plays that don't often happen, but when they do, they don't bump your win% to 90% all of a sudden; and arguably they're stronger than a T3 Batterskull or a T4 Active Sword
Batterskull is also fair. Powerful, true, but fair. What isn't fair is getting a 5 mana artifact out on turn 3 at instant speed, avoids counterspells, can equip to it's tutor and nets you Virtual Card advantage because SFM is a "Deal with me RIGHT NOW or you lose" card.
That said, the comparison isn't quite right because all of those other kill-or-be-killed creatures require at least 2+ other cards to end the game. In some cases, they require many more than that. SFM fetches the corresponding piece that supposedly ends the game, making her less dependent on the rest of the deck. Indeed, this is probably the reason why she is banned and will stay banned; you don't need to build around her to give her a home. That ratio of power level to flexibility is probably unattractive to Wizards.
I didn't say that it was. I meant that it could be answered, and that even if it wasn't, turn 3 swords are normal and turn 3 Batterskull is not as powerful as a turn 2 Liliana of the Veil or a turn 3 Karn Liberated.
IOW it dies to removal. As for 2 turn Liliana, it's good but I don't think it's better than t2 Stoneforge Mystic. As an aside, I believe Dethrite Shaman should be banned. Turn 3 Karn requires a bunch of other cards to get you to Karn and is thus completely fair. Even turn 2 Liliana requires you to have a DRS or Elf and have it live. Stoneforge Mystic comes down on its own, nets a card, and then threatens to instantly win the game.
How is everyone avoiding my point about SFM?
Find me another two drop in modern that is, card advantage on entering the battlefield and a win condition in one?
Bob has to stick around, Goyf is a 1 for 1, you can profitably interact with both. You have to answer SFM with a counterspell or targeted discard or you are down on CA. With the format being midrange.dec CA at such a low cost and win condition is very powerful.
The closest I can think of is Deathrite into turn 2 lil which is requires a specific two card starting hand, you only need SFM in your hand for this play. You can shoehorn SFM into any deck with white (bringing up many allusions to goyf who probably should be banned)
Sure you can answer SFM with a bolt then a thoughtseize but you are wasting CA and tempo.
Would you all play a card which read
CA ENGINE
1U
Draw two cards
?
A switch in the banned list between sfm and 'skull would open up more posibilities and add absolutely no brokenness to the format (t2 sfm fetch sword? yeah, scary, might as well just play a Faerie Harbinger). I know this won't happen, but just saying.
At the same time, sfm in the meta as it is would be at a nice power level (totally my opinion) for what the format should be. Deathrite shaman is already warping the format into needing 1-2 cmc removal, not like sfm wouldn't be answered a turn later, including the already maindeckable Shadow of Doubt, Aven Mindscensor, and all the artifact / activated abilities hate mentioned earlier.
I'll still be more scared of t2 lilianas and t3 karns than t2 sfm in any kind of deck, maybe it's just me.
SFM fetches the corresponding piece that supposedly ends the game, making her less dependent on the rest of the deck.
I disagree. SFM is a build-around card. It's dependent on a deck that can cast and activate her without disruption. That's why she is so good when paired with JTMS — which I am not advocating unbanning. Without the tempo tools of ZEN-SOM standard or Legacy (JTMS, effective countermagic, library manipulation) I don't think the blue SFM decks that are in other formats would even exist in modern.
And as much as we've been talking about her, there's also the absurdity of banning Wild Nacatl, which requires a lot more deliberate setup than Goyf to be 3 power on turn 2.
Goyf is a jam-me-in card that uses your opponent's plan against him. Land, instant, sorcery and it's out of reach of the most commonly played removal spell in the format. I would argue that its presence is the reason Nacatl and BBE have to be banned — Goyf allows Nacatl and BBE decks to add so much pressure that the other cards become obnoxious. (Actually, BTE might be just as much of a reason to keep Nacatl down, but unlike Goyf BTE is punished heavily by sweepers)
I don't know, maybe it's somewhat sour grapes about the price but I just can't understand this format that thinks Tarmogoyf is ok because you can sideboard Relic of Progenitus, but doesn't allow creatures that die consistently to Lightning Bolt, a card in most maindecks.
How is everyone avoiding my point about SFM?
Find me another two drop in modern that is, card advantage on entering the battlefield and a win condition in one?
I agree with you, as I wrote above in an earlier post. All the other kill-or-be-killed 2 drops (or low CMC creatures generally) require at least 2+ other cards to be strong. Electromancer needs to be answered, but then you still need to have the cards in your hand in order to win with him. Blighted Agent will win a game unchecked in 1-2 turns, but you need at least 3+ pump spells to do it. SFM gets you the card that you need to win with and then puts it into play. All for somewhere between 2-5 slots in your deck. That's pretty powerful, and in a whole different league than the other creatures.
It is a bit long. SFM is at 2:40 of the tape. Its a good watch and gives a lot of insight to the thinking of Wotc.
Good video to watch; thanks for sharing. I strongly recommend all of the pro-SFM posters to start watching at 2:40 to get the Forsythe perspective on this card. Forsythe may not speak for Wizards, but his voice definitely carries a lot of weight in the banning process. As the video suggests, if he has it his way (and if his opinion represents those of his coworkers), SFM is unlikely to come off that list. It's an acknowledged mistake, much like Jace.
I disagree. SFM is a build-around card. It's dependent on a deck that can cast and activate her without disruption. That's why she is so good when paired with JTMS — which I am not advocating unbanning. Without the tempo tools of ZEN-SOM standard or Legacy (JTMS, effective countermagic, library manipulation) I don't think the blue SFM decks that are in other formats would even exist in modern.
She's good in decks like that, true, but she's also good in any deck that needs a continual stream of dangerous threats. She's good against aggro (Batterskull). She's good against control (Swords). She's just really darn good in a lot of cases, and she can fit into a surprising range of strategies. She's not quite as flexible as Goyf, who can literally go in any deck packing green that needs an efficient blocker/attacker, but she also ends games much better than does her green counterpart.
And as much as we've been talking about her, there's also the absurdity of banning Wild Nacatl, which requires a lot more deliberate setup than Goyf to be 3 power on turn 2.
Well, Nacatl was banned because you have to play Zoo to play Nacatl, and Wizards wanted to loosen the Zoo stranglehold on the Modern aggro scene. It might still be a silly ban (or not, because I would not want to play against a Gruul Zoo deck with both E1 and Nacatl), but if so, it is not because of comparisons to SFM. It seems to have been banned for much different reasons.
She's good in decks like that, true, but she's also good in any deck that needs a continual stream of dangerous threats. She's good against aggro (Batterskull). She's good against control (Swords). She's just really darn good in a lot of cases, and she can fit into a surprising range of strategies. She's not quite as flexible as Goyf, who can literally go in any deck packing green that needs an efficient blocker/attacker, but she also ends games much better than does her green counterpart.
Well, Nacatl was banned because you have to play Zoo to play Nacatl, and Wizards wanted to loosen the Zoo stranglehold on the Modern aggro scene. It might still be a silly ban (or not, because I would not want to play against a Gruul Zoo deck with both E1 and Nacatl), but if so, it is not because of comparisons to SFM. It seems to have been banned for much different reasons.
Thanks for responding reasonably. I watched the Forsythe interview and in the context of standard I think he's right. Tutor + ignore mana costs is trouble with a smaller card pool. But I really think in a format that lacks some of the blue cards that dominate SFM decks, but includes a lot of answers to creatures and artifacts, we're missing the opportunity to open up white-centered archetypes in the way green-centered ones exist because of Goyf. But I do also understand the issue with pushing equipment in future blocks if this card exists in the format.
Your second point on Nacatl is totally right. It can't be unbanned really because of all the friends its gained from RTR block. I guess it's possible that suicide black or white weenie could be enabled in a big way with future sets to the point that green-based Zoo won't be the only viable aggro deck in the format, and it could be unbanned in that context
I think my greater point is just that Tarmogoyf needs to be banned, if for no other reason than it gets better with every other ban that happens and every set added to the card pool (almost any new strategies can be improved immensely by adding 4x goyf.)
Thanks for responding reasonably. I watched the Forsythe interview and in the context of standard I think he's right. Tutor + ignore mana costs is trouble with a smaller card pool. But I really think in a format that lacks some of the blue cards that dominate SFM decks, but includes a lot of answers to creatures and artifacts, we're missing the opportunity to open up white-centered archetypes in the way green-centered ones exist because of Goyf. But I do also understand the issue with pushing equipment in future blocks if this card exists in the format.
Your second point on Nacatl is totally right. It can't be unbanned really because of all the friends its gained from RTR block. I guess it's possible that suicide black or white weenie could be enabled in a big way with future sets to the point that green-based Zoo won't be the only viable aggro deck in the format, and it could be unbanned in that context
I think my greater point is just that Tarmogoyf needs to be banned, if for no other reason than it gets better with every other ban that happens and every set added to the card pool (almost any new strategies can be improved immensely by adding 4x goyf.)
Tarm will never be banned. It's Modern's poster boy for Modern Masters. Can you imagine the PR nightmare if they ever banned that card.
With the bans that I've seen so far in Modern, I'd be foolish to bet on any card being "safe" but I am that sure if one exists, it's Goyf.
The Magic world would be stunned if that card was ever banned in Modern.
I will bet every Magic card in my collection on that one.
Can someone provide a consistent turn 3 decklist with Chrome mox?
The only one I can think of that may be worrying is splinter twin, which in that case why do they not play some sort of dork? Just from the weak mana? Then what about the splash twin decks that have been showing up?
Or is it from the threat of crazy t1 bobs and the like, which admittedly seems fairly scary? I'm not really sure if I understand the power level issues, going down -1 card is a pretty big deal. Land mox something go is -4 cards from your opener and not a lot of doing anything on the board.
Pod doesn't seem very strong atm, It isn't even putting that many results up on MTGO. I like to look at MTGO results on the website, and i've only seen 3 to 4 4-0s by pod lists in the past week; it wasn't even in the top 8 of the Modern premier played monday, and those are very competitive. It may have won the GP, but the metagame is still fluxuating imo.
Pod doesn't seem very strong atm, It isn't even putting that many results up on MTGO. I like to look at MTGO results on the website, and i've only seen 3 to 4 4-0s by pod lists in the past week; it wasn't even in the top 8 of the Modern premier played monday, and those are very competitive. It may have won the GP, but the metagame is still fluxuating imo.
I agree that it's not a problem right now but it's probably inevitable that it will get banned someday. Someone posted in the older thread that it's a card advantage engine, it ignores mana costs, and the ability basically can't be countered except by Stifle-like effects.
It somehow shocks me people tend to still say the Faeries and Caw blade metas caused a decrease in attendance and that's bad and yet the pros playing say those are the two most skill-intensive decks of all recent time. Now both are essencially banned and the format is creatures + removal.dec.
Its because some players and the company are looking for 2 different things. Some players want a more skill intensive format, where that type of format decreases the numbers that show up to events. The company and the LGS/TO's running these events want higher attendance so they can make more money. If those skill intensive decks raised attendance numbers, you can bet those would be the decks we would see pushed.
On the other hand, some players cant stand playing mirror match after mirror match in a day long tournament. They want a more diverse format where you never play the same deck all day. Some could say a diverse format is more skill intensive then playing the same deck over and over. Especially when some of those decks you have a bad match up with instead of a 50/50 shot that depends on a draw or top deck.
On SFM, you are free to think as you wish, but the video shows what those with the power to unban SFM think of the card. As long as AF keeps his position, I doubt SFM comes off the ban list.
Agreed, Goyf will never be banned, mainly because it's not banworthy. It's a very good Vanilla creature and that's all it is. It needs prep to work well and is actually more vulnerable than other creatures because graveyard hate is essentially free.
I think Visions, Ponder or Preordain could do with an unbanning. Visions is the least powerful and Ponder might be too powerful. Preordain is a nice compromise imo. having all 3 is silly, but at least one of them should come off.
As for what should be banned, I think Pod is starting to play silly buggers atm, so I would imagine that's next on the chopping block (though I could be wrong). Otherwise, I don't really see anything else that is banworthy in the Modern Card Pool. I initially was worried about Mox Opal because of the new Legendary Rule but after more thought, I don't see it as an issue.
Totally agree with most of this. My reasoning for banning Goyf is that given other bannings, it is so dominant and so good, and decks that could fight it are banned out of existence.
In Legacy not every creature-based strategy has to be green. Modern has a couple rogue WW strategies but almost every other creature deck plays green — Jund, Junk, Pod, aggro... (GoST decks play <10 creatures now, and Clique/Snapcaster are really just spells)
Of course it's not palatable to ban it, so I think the best decision is to free SFM and Ponder and/or Preordain so tempo can attempt a comeback. My first modern deck was UWR delver but as soon as I built it, Abrupt Decay was printed and I had to abandon it. That sucked. But it shows that Gxx has plenty of tools to fight so-called "oppressive" strategies in the format: It has an uncounterable Vindicate, uncounterable Disenchant, and the hands-down best offensive and defensive creature in the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I cant imagine what power level of cards that would be acceptable to you if thats how you feel about SFM.
SFM is a mistake they have admitted to (along with others) that I doubt will see the light of day in Modern. Unless something drastic happens.
You do not have the fundamental understanding of this game, and no one here is going to be able to prove it to you based on the level of ignorance in this post.
There needs to be a level of self-moderation on this entire forum board if posts like this continue.
These discussions are baseless, meaningless, full of self-center vision and useless.
Infracted for Flaming. Again, we are strictly enforcing rules in this thread. There will be no flaming, trolling, baiting, or insulting of users tolerated in this thread. ~Lantern
Bravo. Thank you.:nod:
Moderator Action: spam
Please read the Forum Rules ~Lantern
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Wow someone really hates Voice of Resurgence. I mean banning its one guaranteed slot in extended formats would destroy its long term value. Hey, go for it.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
It is a format in which Batterskull and swords are legal. It's just too efficient and too powerful, I don't think it's possible to deny that Stoneforge was a mistake.
It dies to removal has never been a good argument
Can you flesh out exactly what the problem is with this post?
I understand that UW Caw-blade was gross in Standard, and that Deathblade is a deck in Legacy, a more powerful format overall. But those decks both also play 4x JTMS. Without JTMS — not to mention Ponder/Preordain — does a modern SFM deck even play blue? Jitte is banned too.
I'm not denying that it's powerful, but what makes SFM into Batterskull — a two-card, two-turn, four-mana play — broken, but Tarmogoyf balanced?
What deck that runs Goyf doesn't play at least 3 or 4 different card types?
Your argument could be phrased as such: "SFM is a whopping 1/2 for 2. An SFM needs you to play at least a few equipment for it to reliably be able to tutor for them. It's balanced because it's susceptible to EtB-hate in additional to all the lovely dies to removal nonsense."
Let's break down it down:
In any deck that plays Goyf in at least a 3-of capacity, i'd wager around 10 of their lands are fetches (i personally run 10 fetches in my Zoo build which also has Goyf): You can also count on your opponent making a play before your T3 attack, and if you're playing a creature heavy deck you can count on that being either a removal spell, a creature for YOU to remove, a creature for YOU to beat in combat, or nothing, which means you're winning anyways and a grizzly bear gets there against an opponent that should have mulliganed.
So you have a few scenario's:
After your T2 of:
a) You cracked a fetch, and had a sorcery speed T1 play (IoK, TS): 2-3/3-4 Goyf depending on what IoK/TS found
b) You cracked a fetch, and you did nothing T1 against an opponent who also did nothing 1/2 Goyf
c) You did nothing but play a T2 goyf against an opponent who also did nothing. 0/1 Goyf
d) You and an opponent actually had keepable hands: 3/4 Goyf
Be honest with yourself; what's more likely? You having a do nothing hand? If so, i'd reassess either your deck or how you mulligan.
In my experience, Goyf is likely a 2/3 when i drop him and that's in a deck with only 3 card types (instant, creature, land) that often make it to the GY.
And by the time i'm attacking on T3, Goyf is usually a 3/4 or dead.
Also in my experience with Goyf, DRS isn't nearly enough to keep him consistently down. Look at the decks that play DRS, they have: Planeswalker, Sorcery, Instant, Creature, Land in their MD. (And probably their own Goyfs); So, please, stop joshing yourself and trying to make Goyf look like a worse creature than SFM, i'm fairly certain every format disagrees with you unanimously, except EDH.
And how does she generate Virtual Card Advantage? I'm at a complete loss as to how you came to that conclusion.
Here's what people are going to tell you:
'Goyf isn't a must answer card like SFM is
But really SFM isn't a must answer card; the equipment card she's about to put into play is, because honestly, there are very few decks that are hurt by the 'gets around Counterspell' argument her ability provides.
And for certain decks a 5 turn clock is a must-answer. What creature, given likely circumstances, doesn't Goyf demolish in combat? Certainly nothing of equal or less mana-cost, and certainly nothing more or equally as frequently played. That's why Goyf is so good. He is a must answer for anybody that wants to win the combat phase.
And honestly; if SFM were legal and the chicken-littles are right about her having the perfect Must-Answer-Equipment-Package-Extravaganza, then people will just pack as much artifact hate as they already do.
1x Ancient Grudge answers 2x SFM; (This nullifies the CA argument, imo, and the existence of Bob and his legality do, as well. I don't believe the semantics of when or how one gains CA is really relevant with how many suppositions you have to make to get there)
And what's so format warping about a couple'a Qasali Pridemage's chillin' in the MD?
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
Actually, the controller of Goyf doesn't have to play anything for it to be a 3/4. The opponent can grow it by simply executing his or her game plan. I have built and taken apart a lot of decks because I could not bolt Goyf without turning it into a 3/4 in the process. A two-mana creature should die to a bolt played the same turn more often than Goyf does.
Goyf forces any fair deck into white or black to play PtE or some other sort of unconditional removal early. Given that we already accept this format, why can't we also have SFM which dies to a wider variety of this kind of removal?
I also can't believe people think Batterskull is this crazy unanswerable card. There are 20 cards in three colors in modern that destroy Batterskull at instant speed for 2 mana or less. Black and blue can remove the germ token (forcing the Batterskull player to tap out to bounce it or equip it to SFM, losing tempo).
SFM + Batterskull is oppressive when the deck playing them has access to brutal tempo cards like free counters, JTMS, library manipulation, etc. (Not to mention Jitte). In modern, which lacks a lot of those problem cards, I think SFM + Batterskull should be enabled in order to open up the viability of mono- and two-color decks that are now drowned under the sea of G/B/x goodstuff.
The problem with this line of reason is that it would allegedly add no brokenness to the format. While in of itself might be an interesting experiment (personally, I'd love for Wizards to let Cloudpost out of the cage again for that reason, which is why I'm wary of people wanting cards unbanned because I know Cloudpost's power), Wizards is probably going to be paranoid about the Zendikar-Scars Banning for a long time because of how Caw-Blade affected their tournament attendance when it happened.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I didn't say that it was. I meant that it could be answered, and that even if it wasn't, turn 3 swords are normal and turn 3 Batterskull is not as powerful as a turn 2 Liliana of the Veil or a turn 3 Karn Liberated.
Saying Goyf dies to graveyard hate is the equivalent of Stoneforge Mystic is useless because of search hate. Goyf is the most powerful green 2 drop that there is. And as for SFM being unfair because of Batterskull, I'll ask you this. How is turn getting a Batterskull out on turn 3 even though hand disruption, the destruction of SFM, artifact removal, countering SFM, or having a good enough blocker might stop it from doing anything more powerful than a turn 3 Geist of Saint Traft, who doesn't need a second card to work, is harder to remove, and will almost always get 4 points of damage through even if he is blocked and killed. It isn't, and if Traft is fair, so is SFM. And even better, imagine if Wizards was convinced to unban SFM but ban Batterskull? If that could happen, though it probably won't, Modern would be more fun, interesting, and diverse as a format, and there would be nothing broken about Stoneforge Mystic.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
That's not V-CA; V-CA comes from making your opponents cards worthless against you. i.e. Blanking their removal by playing zero creatures.
EDIT: To expand on this, how about a real example of V-CA:
1)I've either just Peek'ed or have a Telepathy in play; i drop a Meddling Mage and name a card I know my opponent has 4 of in hand.
I've netted myself +4 virtual card advantage (so long as my Mage remains unmolested)
2)I'm playing a completely creatureless combo deck. My opponent draws into 4 Doom Blades and has nothing to do with them; (IE doesn't trigger any 'on death abilities');
Again i'm up +4 virtual card advantage
You may gain Tempo from that; but his example isn't V-CA. You gain a small advantage, i guess, depending on what else your opponent does, or how the rest of the game plays out; but, against that relies heavily on suppositions which transcends the realm of the objective, which is fallacious to assign mathematical values to. (You can't say +1 V-CA in that case, because honestly you REALLY can't know)
If they draw a card they literally can't play with against you then you have essentially netted yourself +1 card without drawing one or directly making your opponent get rid of his.
It's not a real argument to say that, empyrically, the decks that play tarmogoyf on average get him to 3/4 by T3?
You've done nothing but say something as flippant as:
Which is funny because you blatantly ignored your argument against 'Goyf being apparently not as powerful as SFM when used inversely, against you.
You're really not adding any discourse. You simply say things, and then tell other people, essentially, "No, you're wrong."
To expand on your silly leap to a logical fallacy:
It is completely unlike saying "What kind of deck doesn't run all artifacts"; as there is empyrical evidence that suggest 'Goyf is played in decks that frequently and consistently tick him up to a 3/4 by the time you're attacking on T3. You have yet to refute this in any believable form; and this directly refutes your assertion that Goyf is "a whopping 1/2" (I believe that you're the one who said this).
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
I think a deck that automatically loses to a T3 Batterskull (this is assuming a meta with SFM that is legal, not carbon copies of current modern decks) is an ill-prepared one.
The same way that decks don't auto-fold to T2 Lili's, T3 Karns, T2 Bob, etc.
Those are all power-plays that don't often happen, but when they do, they don't bump your win% to 90% all of a sudden; and arguably they're stronger than a T3 Batterskull or a T4 Active Sword
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
And yet, there are many other "deal with me RIGHT NOW or you lose" creatures that are totally legal in Modern. Goblin Electromancer is the most flagrant example of this, and he's also a 2 mana, 2 toughness creature. Blighted Agent and, to a lesser extent, Plague Stinger/Inkmoth Nexus are also in this category. So are Slippery Bogle and Silhana Ledgewalker.
That said, the comparison isn't quite right because all of those other kill-or-be-killed creatures require at least 2+ other cards to end the game. In some cases, they require many more than that. SFM fetches the corresponding piece that supposedly ends the game, making her less dependent on the rest of the deck. Indeed, this is probably the reason why she is banned and will stay banned; you don't need to build around her to give her a home. That ratio of power level to flexibility is probably unattractive to Wizards.
IOW it dies to removal. As for 2 turn Liliana, it's good but I don't think it's better than t2 Stoneforge Mystic. As an aside, I believe Dethrite Shaman should be banned. Turn 3 Karn requires a bunch of other cards to get you to Karn and is thus completely fair. Even turn 2 Liliana requires you to have a DRS or Elf and have it live. Stoneforge Mystic comes down on its own, nets a card, and then threatens to instantly win the game.
Find me another two drop in modern that is, card advantage on entering the battlefield and a win condition in one?
Bob has to stick around, Goyf is a 1 for 1, you can profitably interact with both. You have to answer SFM with a counterspell or targeted discard or you are down on CA. With the format being midrange.dec CA at such a low cost and win condition is very powerful.
The closest I can think of is Deathrite into turn 2 lil which is requires a specific two card starting hand, you only need SFM in your hand for this play. You can shoehorn SFM into any deck with white (bringing up many allusions to goyf who probably should be banned)
Sure you can answer SFM with a bolt then a thoughtseize but you are wasting CA and tempo.
Would you all play a card which read
CA ENGINE
1U
Draw two cards
?
That is SFM and more
Its a couple years old, but its how AF sees SFM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-r-wfodlro
It is a bit long. SFM is at 2:40 of the tape. Its a good watch and gives a lot of insight to the thinking of Wotc.
I disagree. SFM is a build-around card. It's dependent on a deck that can cast and activate her without disruption. That's why she is so good when paired with JTMS — which I am not advocating unbanning. Without the tempo tools of ZEN-SOM standard or Legacy (JTMS, effective countermagic, library manipulation) I don't think the blue SFM decks that are in other formats would even exist in modern.
And as much as we've been talking about her, there's also the absurdity of banning Wild Nacatl, which requires a lot more deliberate setup than Goyf to be 3 power on turn 2.
Goyf is a jam-me-in card that uses your opponent's plan against him. Land, instant, sorcery and it's out of reach of the most commonly played removal spell in the format. I would argue that its presence is the reason Nacatl and BBE have to be banned — Goyf allows Nacatl and BBE decks to add so much pressure that the other cards become obnoxious. (Actually, BTE might be just as much of a reason to keep Nacatl down, but unlike Goyf BTE is punished heavily by sweepers)
I don't know, maybe it's somewhat sour grapes about the price but I just can't understand this format that thinks Tarmogoyf is ok because you can sideboard Relic of Progenitus, but doesn't allow creatures that die consistently to Lightning Bolt, a card in most maindecks.
I agree with you, as I wrote above in an earlier post. All the other kill-or-be-killed 2 drops (or low CMC creatures generally) require at least 2+ other cards to be strong. Electromancer needs to be answered, but then you still need to have the cards in your hand in order to win with him. Blighted Agent will win a game unchecked in 1-2 turns, but you need at least 3+ pump spells to do it. SFM gets you the card that you need to win with and then puts it into play. All for somewhere between 2-5 slots in your deck. That's pretty powerful, and in a whole different league than the other creatures.
Good video to watch; thanks for sharing. I strongly recommend all of the pro-SFM posters to start watching at 2:40 to get the Forsythe perspective on this card. Forsythe may not speak for Wizards, but his voice definitely carries a lot of weight in the banning process. As the video suggests, if he has it his way (and if his opinion represents those of his coworkers), SFM is unlikely to come off that list. It's an acknowledged mistake, much like Jace.
EDIT:
She's good in decks like that, true, but she's also good in any deck that needs a continual stream of dangerous threats. She's good against aggro (Batterskull). She's good against control (Swords). She's just really darn good in a lot of cases, and she can fit into a surprising range of strategies. She's not quite as flexible as Goyf, who can literally go in any deck packing green that needs an efficient blocker/attacker, but she also ends games much better than does her green counterpart.
Well, Nacatl was banned because you have to play Zoo to play Nacatl, and Wizards wanted to loosen the Zoo stranglehold on the Modern aggro scene. It might still be a silly ban (or not, because I would not want to play against a Gruul Zoo deck with both E1 and Nacatl), but if so, it is not because of comparisons to SFM. It seems to have been banned for much different reasons.
Thanks for responding reasonably. I watched the Forsythe interview and in the context of standard I think he's right. Tutor + ignore mana costs is trouble with a smaller card pool. But I really think in a format that lacks some of the blue cards that dominate SFM decks, but includes a lot of answers to creatures and artifacts, we're missing the opportunity to open up white-centered archetypes in the way green-centered ones exist because of Goyf. But I do also understand the issue with pushing equipment in future blocks if this card exists in the format.
Your second point on Nacatl is totally right. It can't be unbanned really because of all the friends its gained from RTR block. I guess it's possible that suicide black or white weenie could be enabled in a big way with future sets to the point that green-based Zoo won't be the only viable aggro deck in the format, and it could be unbanned in that context
I think my greater point is just that Tarmogoyf needs to be banned, if for no other reason than it gets better with every other ban that happens and every set added to the card pool (almost any new strategies can be improved immensely by adding 4x goyf.)
Tarm will never be banned. It's Modern's poster boy for Modern Masters. Can you imagine the PR nightmare if they ever banned that card.
With the bans that I've seen so far in Modern, I'd be foolish to bet on any card being "safe" but I am that sure if one exists, it's Goyf.
The Magic world would be stunned if that card was ever banned in Modern.
I will bet every Magic card in my collection on that one.
The only one I can think of that may be worrying is splinter twin, which in that case why do they not play some sort of dork? Just from the weak mana? Then what about the splash twin decks that have been showing up?
Or is it from the threat of crazy t1 bobs and the like, which admittedly seems fairly scary? I'm not really sure if I understand the power level issues, going down -1 card is a pretty big deal. Land mox something go is -4 cards from your opener and not a lot of doing anything on the board.
Would be interested in the decks it breaks.
I agree that it's not a problem right now but it's probably inevitable that it will get banned someday. Someone posted in the older thread that it's a card advantage engine, it ignores mana costs, and the ability basically can't be countered except by Stifle-like effects.
Its because some players and the company are looking for 2 different things. Some players want a more skill intensive format, where that type of format decreases the numbers that show up to events. The company and the LGS/TO's running these events want higher attendance so they can make more money. If those skill intensive decks raised attendance numbers, you can bet those would be the decks we would see pushed.
On the other hand, some players cant stand playing mirror match after mirror match in a day long tournament. They want a more diverse format where you never play the same deck all day. Some could say a diverse format is more skill intensive then playing the same deck over and over. Especially when some of those decks you have a bad match up with instead of a 50/50 shot that depends on a draw or top deck.
On SFM, you are free to think as you wish, but the video shows what those with the power to unban SFM think of the card. As long as AF keeps his position, I doubt SFM comes off the ban list.
Totally agree with most of this. My reasoning for banning Goyf is that given other bannings, it is so dominant and so good, and decks that could fight it are banned out of existence.
In Legacy not every creature-based strategy has to be green. Modern has a couple rogue WW strategies but almost every other creature deck plays green — Jund, Junk, Pod, aggro... (GoST decks play <10 creatures now, and Clique/Snapcaster are really just spells)
Of course it's not palatable to ban it, so I think the best decision is to free SFM and Ponder and/or Preordain so tempo can attempt a comeback. My first modern deck was UWR delver but as soon as I built it, Abrupt Decay was printed and I had to abandon it. That sucked. But it shows that Gxx has plenty of tools to fight so-called "oppressive" strategies in the format: It has an uncounterable Vindicate, uncounterable Disenchant, and the hands-down best offensive and defensive creature in the game.