This site works best with JavaScript enabled. Please enable JavaScript to get the best experience from this site.
This thread was marked as Locked by Torpf.
Quote from Lilijuana »Quote from gkourou »Quote from Lilijuana »Please leave Goyf on the list. It's the only one I will vote for and I will vote for it on principle alone. Thanks again! What's your (serious) argument to ban Tarmogoyf? I see Goyf in the same light I see JtMS. Both are busted designs that give more value than they should for their costs. For instance Jace's first ability should not touch the opponent's deck, and his second ability should be -1 instead of a free Brainstorm. Goyf should be: GG to cast, so that it is more difficult to play in any deck splashing green, or It should not look at the opponent's graveyard for it's P/T, or It should enter the battlefield as a base */* instead of */1+* so that it can be eliminated from the battlefield by killing off both graveyards. Goyf is too much value for cost. It's a bad design. It's a broken design. That said, I don't expect it will ever get banned in the format. It's like Splinter Twin (before it was banned) in that it's been a part of the format since forever that the players don't recognize how broken it is. I won't touch its cost other than to say it's the single biggest barrier to entry to certain Tier 1 decks, even more so than lands.
Quote from gkourou »Quote from Lilijuana »Please leave Goyf on the list. It's the only one I will vote for and I will vote for it on principle alone. Thanks again! What's your (serious) argument to ban Tarmogoyf?
Quote from Lilijuana »Please leave Goyf on the list. It's the only one I will vote for and I will vote for it on principle alone. Thanks again!
Quote from Earthbound21 » I will not be replying to rebuttals that are not at least as fleshed out as my assertion. If you're grown up enough to use the internet, you are grown up enough to understand that posturing, nit picking, and corner cases are not enough to constitute a rebuttal to an argument. You will attack my argument in full or you will not be getting a response from me.
Quote from gkourou »Quote from Lilijuana »Quote from gkourou »Quote from Lilijuana »Please leave Goyf on the list. It's the only one I will vote for and I will vote for it on principle alone. Thanks again! What's your (serious) argument to ban Tarmogoyf? I see Goyf in the same light I see JtMS. Both are busted designs that give more value than they should for their costs. For instance Jace's first ability should not touch the opponent's deck, and his second ability should be -1 instead of a free Brainstorm. Goyf should be: GG to cast, so that it is more difficult to play in any deck splashing green, or It should not look at the opponent's graveyard for it's P/T, or It should enter the battlefield as a base */* instead of */1+* so that it can be eliminated from the battlefield by killing off both graveyards. Goyf is too much value for cost. It's a bad design. It's a broken design. That said, I don't expect it will ever get banned in the format. It's like Splinter Twin (before it was banned) in that it's been a part of the format since forever that the players don't recognize how broken it is. I won't touch its cost other than to say it's the single biggest barrier to entry to certain Tier 1 decks, even more so than lands. This does not strike me as an argument that has legs though. Especially after the Fatal Push printing, which ensures that a 1 cmc answer that can kill it without giving a basic land to the opponent exists. Before push, it was unboltable. It may not be the best of designs, but it's an efficient beater which menas it's exactly what those midrange decks need in order to have a proactive plan in this fast format. Also, the comparison with JTMS and with Splinter Twin is something I understand at all, even on design principles. I think we are still reluctant to leave Tarmogoyf in our list, since there was no talk of it at all(you are the first to mention it now), and since it got so few votes during the previous poll.
Quote from Lilijuana »Quote from gkourou »Quote from Lilijuana »Quote from gkourou »Quote from Lilijuana »Please leave Goyf on the list. It's the only one I will vote for and I will vote for it on principle alone. Thanks again! What's your (serious) argument to ban Tarmogoyf? I see Goyf in the same light I see JtMS. Both are busted designs that give more value than they should for their costs. For instance Jace's first ability should not touch the opponent's deck, and his second ability should be -1 instead of a free Brainstorm. Goyf should be: GG to cast, so that it is more difficult to play in any deck splashing green, or It should not look at the opponent's graveyard for it's P/T, or It should enter the battlefield as a base */* instead of */1+* so that it can be eliminated from the battlefield by killing off both graveyards. Goyf is too much value for cost. It's a bad design. It's a broken design. That said, I don't expect it will ever get banned in the format. It's like Splinter Twin (before it was banned) in that it's been a part of the format since forever that the players don't recognize how broken it is. I won't touch its cost other than to say it's the single biggest barrier to entry to certain Tier 1 decks, even more so than lands. This does not strike me as an argument that has legs though. Especially after the Fatal Push printing, which ensures that a 1 cmc answer that can kill it without giving a basic land to the opponent exists. Before push, it was unboltable. It may not be the best of designs, but it's an efficient beater which menas it's exactly what those midrange decks need in order to have a proactive plan in this fast format. Also, the comparison with JTMS and with Splinter Twin is something I understand at all, even on design principles. I think we are still reluctant to leave Tarmogoyf in our list, since there was no talk of it at all(you are the first to mention it now), and since it got so few votes during the previous poll. Lol. Who is "we" bro? I thought this was a list you were gathering data for? Who is the brain trust behind you? I am actually against banning anything, but if you are asking for cards to be discussed for a banning that's my submission. Do with it what you will. This list is an exercise in futility anyhow b/c WotC won't pay one lick of attention to it.
Quote from Varyag »There are 2 trains of though here I feel. One is banning for balance, as in removing things that are clearly broken and affecting the metagame adversely. I don't think there's any single card that's doing that at the moment. The other is basically pruning. Banning cards that are a bad influence on the format even if they aren't broken. Obviously this is going to be more contentious as bans are usually an extreme measure, but I think a case could be made that some cards are better off out of the format. If Chrome Mox is banned, because its broken fast mana then why are things like Mox Opal and Simian Spirit Guide legal? I'm not saying the necessarily warrant a ban, but there is a degree of inconsistency here. Sure, the latter two are much more narrow, but they're still free mana nonetheless. Then you can ask questions like, why should tribal aggro have immunity to counterspells with Cavern of Souls? Its already the type of deck that walks all over counterspell based control, running free immunity granting no drawback lands is excessive. The fact that decks that are truly using 4 copies of CoS are actually Tier 2 and that the kind of decks that are hit by CoS really hard are arguably even worse so the effect of the card is barely noticed (unless you're in the unfortunate minority using those decks) should not be a reason to disregard the card as "okay". I mean that's basically hypocrisy - everyone gets into an uproar when Dredge is *****ting on Tier 1 fan favorites, but when things like Merfolk or Elves are *****ting on Tier 3 decks "just because they can" its okay. I mean, we're either interested in making as balanced a format as possible for everyone or we're just doing occasional damage control. I don't think this latter reactive approach is always appropriate.