Yes its restricted in vintage but its also fine in legacy. Cards like brainstorm ponder and preordain are restricted in vintage not be because they're so mindblowingly powerful but because the rest of your deck is built from restricted cards as well. Reducing variance in vintage leads to consistent turn 1 kills as opposed to consistant turn 4 kills. Its the carxs they are surrounded by that makes them dangerous.
Look at the tools Rock decks have at their disposal. Its like the moderator said earlier, you see them just as much in modern as you do legacy. Blue cards? Some legacy decks run snapcaster or v clique but rarely together as they are considered to occupy the same spot on the curve. I say rarely not never, mind you. And thats about it. Delver is everywhere in legacy and tier 2 in modern. Remand, mana leak and cryptic command are embarrassing in legacy. Spell snare shows up occasionally. Spell pierce is more important to legacy than it is to modern. Everywhere in legacy and modern you see Bob goyf lilly and thoughtseize but Counterspell? That card thats almost unplayable now in legacy? Too good for modern! "Well modern isn't legacy and I dont want modern to just be legacy-lite" some people say. Well I ask why is it then that only BG can have legacy caliber cards and no one else can?
I'll agree that ponder shouldnt be in modern but preordain is FINE. It will give a boost to all the tempo and hard control decks sitting at tier 2 and will give twin and uwr a slight nudge. They wont overnight become the best decks because the Rock is already so miles beyond anything else they are playing. Will it shut out decks like hate bears or 8 rack? Maybe for a little while but wizards are pumping out new bears with each set (hey preordain might even make Spirit of the Lab good) and 8 racks.... listen preordain is fine.
And Im not continuing the goyf argument. No point. Id even say preordain has a better shot coming off than goyf has of getting on.
Legacy has much better tools to fight against combo decks. When you have cards like Force of Will and Wasteland to disrupt your opponent it is somewhat more acceptable for cards like Brainstorm, Ponder, and Preordain to be legal. That said, Brainstorm still dominates the format and warps everything else around its existence. Modern doesn't have the tools it needs to fight against combo decks that are super powerful and consistent, so it makes sense to keep Preordain and Ponder on the banned list. I would be okay with unbanning preordain if a playable free counter spell were printed in a Modern legal set; Disrupting Shoal just isn't going to cut it. I also think you underestimating just how good Twin is in the current format. I don't think that GBx variants are much better than Twin variants, and Preordain would be a huge upgrade for the deck. It's not just a matter of twin though, the existence of Preordain would enable combo decks forever.
1. The best cards in any format of any type warp the format around themselves. Ban goyf and another card takes his place.
2. Goyf isn't what invalidates aggro. Aggro can run goyf itself and it can run removal to clear goyfs. It is the dominance of midrange and combo that invalidates many aggro plans.
3. The only combo deck that started running goyf as another angle of attack is rug twin. It is an inferior deck to ur tempo twin. It sacrifices consistancy and the ability to steal games with blood moon for an easily delt with plan B.
4. I agree goyf is prohibitively expensive. However BGx without goyf is still roughly $1000+ to build. If wizards began to employ a policy of banning cards once they reach a particular price point then the repercussions on the secondary market would be greater than anything we've seen since the printing of chronicles. It won't happen. The secondary market keeps this game alive.
People reacting to a card is not the same as a card warping a format. The question is how much of a response that card requires and how large its impact is. Detention Sphere impacts Standard and people have reacted to its presence. It has NEVER warped the format the way Mutavault did.
Goyf isone of the reasons has such a hard time. If you deny that you are simply wrong. It's a huge creature that can be played for 2 mana. I also find it odd to list the "dominance" of midrange as a reason for aggro's failure as if Tarmogoyf isn't part of what makes midrange so good against so many decks.
I don't think it's inferior to regular twin. it depends on the metagame. Saying "it's easily dealt with" overlooks the fact that it uses goyf to help set up its combo in many cases. It's part of Plan A just the way Bolt is.
Most expensive cards are not as important as goyf. Not even fetches.
If you are going to argue that goyf is more important than fetchlands in modern you simply can't be taken seriously. I will wait for your confirmation that that is in fact your stance on those cards before I continue attempting to argue here.
I was talking about price there. I meant that most expensive cards other than Goyf aren't as much of a barrier to entry, and I phrased my comment awkwardly. I've been posting from my phone.
Yeah the ban list is not the tool to fix the format at this point. At risk of getting a warning, the format needs NEW CARDS or reprints/functional reprints from the pre-modern era. And, call me a shameless Island-Lover if you will but the new tools, most of them at least need to be BLUE. Its the only color that never gets paired with BGx in the formats most successgul decks. Sure theres the risk that the rock becomes bug. If powerful new tools get printed in red or white they have to be made in some way to work less optimally with BG than blue. For everyone happy that the format isn't blue dominated you have to understand that it still isn't actually BALANCED. Its golgari land over here.
Edit: Someone defend Preordain's position on the banned list. I know its one of Forsythe's big no-no's but I truly don't see why. I don't see the format devolving into solely blue decks or twin domination with a preordain unban.
What don't you understand? Preordain makes combo decks *much* more consistent and strongly increases the power of blue decks. The more powerful a format is the strong cards like Preordain are, which is why they are often restricted in freaking Vintage. The only reason Brainstorm is legal in Legacy is that people like it and are okay with blue dominating everything.
That banning vanilla beater is a really poor decision?
Wizards prints a vanilla 20/20 for 1 mana. Fair card? Yes or no?
No, but not for the reasons you may think. If you drop that on T1 on the play then you've cut the opponent to only 1cmc spells to deal with it, which limits it to Path, Vapor Snag, Rapid Hybridization (not really played in Modern), etc. I can't think of any black cards that can kill it unless it's green or white (Deathmark). Now, if you had said CMC 2 or higher, I'd actually have to think about it for a second.
That said, you should know you're being highly ridiculous with that question. The largest 'goyf can get is 8/9 (Tribal, Enchantment, Planeswalker, Artifact, Creature, Instant, Socery, Land). It's typically a 4/5 (so no Tribal, Planeswalker, Enchantment, Artifact). Post-board or if the opponent kills my Liliana then 'Goyf is a 5/6. Yes, it's powerful. Yes, it's pushed. But it's definitely not unfair. Especially when you rarely want to play it T2 anyway. You typically want to grind them out of removal and build up the graveyard first. So is playing a 4/5 on T5 fair? Add to that the ridiculously easy GY hate (much of which is already in boards because of Snapcaster) and he becomes a very fair card.
I actually think that Goyf is unfair, but given that you think a 20/20 for 2 is worthy of consideration there isn't much for us to say to each other. You're too far off in la la land.
For someone who puts a lot of stock into analytic skills you've missed the fact that I never said that. "Think about it for a second" does not mean I find it worthy of consideration.
And you're dead wrong about people not playing Goyf on turn 2. Hand disruption spell into goyf is one of the most common openings in Modern.
In BG/x there are multiple keep-able hands that do not include T1 discard. If you miss that on T1, and it's a statistically high likelihood, then you're usually not dropping 'goyf on T2. Additionally, if you have both Dark Confidant and 'Goyf in hand on T2, Dark Confidant should typically be played first. If you're seeing T2 'Goyf as often as you're implying you do, then you're observing people with not much else to play on T2, or people trying to jam it and pray, or bad players. And those 3 things aren't exclusive of each other. Since you seem to be observing sub-par play, perhaps it's your data we should be questioning.
I don't think that Confidant over Goyf is as correct as you think it is. If I think my opponent has a removal spell I strongly prefer for them to use it on my Goyf, and there are other reasons to play it out as well. In any case, what about the draws where you don't have Confidant? I never said that people always play it out on turn 2, I said it was a common opening.. It is. I don't know why you are wasting your time making an argument against a position I never defended.
1. The best cards in any format of any type warp the format around themselves. Ban goyf and another card takes his place.
2. Goyf isn't what invalidates aggro. Aggro can run goyf itself and it can run removal to clear goyfs. It is the dominance of midrange and combo that invalidates many aggro plans.
3. The only combo deck that started running goyf as another angle of attack is rug twin. It is an inferior deck to ur tempo twin. It sacrifices consistancy and the ability to steal games with blood moon for an easily delt with plan B.
4. I agree goyf is prohibitively expensive. However BGx without goyf is still roughly $1000+ to build. If wizards began to employ a policy of banning cards once they reach a particular price point then the repercussions on the secondary market would be greater than anything we've seen since the printing of chronicles. It won't happen. The secondary market keeps this game alive.
People reacting to a card is not the same as a card warping a format. The question is how much of a response that card requires and how large its impact is. Detention Sphere impacts Standard and people have reacted to its presence. It has NEVER warped the format the way Mutavault did.
Goyf isone of the reasons has such a hard time. If you deny that you are simply wrong. It's a huge creature that can be played for 2 mana. I also find it odd to list the "dominance" of midrange as a reason for aggro's failure as if Tarmogoyf isn't part of what makes midrange so good against so many decks.
I don't think it's inferior to regular twin. it depends on the metagame. Saying "it's easily dealt with" overlooks the fact that it uses goyf to help set up its combo in many cases. It's part of Plan A just the way Bolt is.
Most expensive cards are not as important as goyf. Not even fetches.
I meant premier events in the non-MTGO sense. GPs, pro tours, etc. I care more about high level competitive play because that is what truly define the top tier of a format. I don't care how well little Timmy did when he played Merfolk in a daily event.
I agree that these are important. Unfortunately, there is actually no way of getting day 1 numbers (let alone decklists) at a GP. PTQs might give out the full stats for an event, but that would probably be at the discretion of the TO. There might even be confidentiality issues where they can't disclose the decks. So although MTGO should be considered, it is definitely not the end-all-be-all source. I too would prefer more paper information.
No offense, but I'm not going to take your word or trust your statistical analysis. There is now way for me to verify your results, check the data you recorded, and so on. I have no reason to trust you as a reliable source.
I have absolutely no incentive to lie and every incentive to help inform the conversation where I can.
That said, there are problems with your logic as well as with your data.
Take this for example
If we include every deck and run the numbers, we see that the overall correlation is quite strong
Why would we treat every deck the same for the purposes of this analysis when there are differences between them that would explain why one deck would show up more often in one set of data than it would in the other? I don't understand why you are treating all decks the same way. This seems like a useless statistic that doesn't tell us anything.
I'm not sure if you understand how correlation works here, or how I am using it in this context. That might be because I didn't explain it well, so let me try again.
I am using that measure of correlation to see how similar the two datasets are. We have a public dataset with N decks in frequencies A, B, C, etc. Then we have the overall dataset with N1 decks in frequencies A1, B1, C1, etc. We use this correlation coefficient to measure the strength of a linear relationship between the two datasets It doesn't necessarily tell us if one deck is over/underrepresented in one dataset relative to the other. It just tells us the strength of association between ABC and A1B1C1. To capture the over/underestimation effect, we use the margin of error. We are, in effect, just using the R coefficient to see how closely the two datasets are related. If we had a very low R, then it would be very risk to extrapolate from one dataset to the other because the datasets have huge differences in their relative frequences. In this case, the high R just justifies further calculations.
I'm not so sure you should infer a one to one ratio though.
I only infer that from MTGO goldfish where it says that there are, on average, 4 copies of Goyf in a deck. It's probably closer to 3.8 or something if we considered all decks, but I have trouble thinking of competitive decks running Goyf that aren't running the full playset.
1. I have no way of knowing what your incentives are, but the bigger problem is that I have no reason to trust your analysis or work. I don't know anything about you.
2. You went beyond comparing the two datasets and tried to imply things based on that relationship. If your point is that the data is similar and you aren't making a different point then that is fine provided your data is reliable. If anything that bolsters my position though; daily events are *not* that competitive and if the MTGO premier events are the same as those events then then...well, you do the math. I just don't think MTGO results tell us much about high level play.
Well, I don't care if you "assure" me. I don't have a high regard for your analytic abilities. Your points are illogical and you make absurdly hyperbolic statements.
And you use big words to make you sound like you know what your talking about
"I don't care about data that includes thousands of players on a daily basis, only the data I can try to manipulate to make my really absurd points."
MODO data is readily verifiable, it's literally all on the Wizards site.
So to verify his results I have to hand record all of the data he is talking about and then compare it to the data being used by MTGO goldfish? That's a bit much. My problem is that he expects us to trust his hand recorded data as if it is gospel or he is some sort of reliable source. I don't think that's unreasonable in the slightest. If he uploads his datasets online it will make his posts a lot more trustworthy. That said, I don't think MTGO results matter for the reasons I gave in my other post. It's not absurd to think data from daily MTGO events is less worthwhile than data from GP and Pro Tour top 8s. Do you understand why one is more useful than the other for discussion of high level competitive play?
So a mixed Pro Tour top 8 and under 10 tournaments a year are the best way to figure out what the meta is, not MODO data+PTQs+all the other modern tournaments. tcdecks.net also has tons of paper tournaments. You're still failing to make any real argument beyond, "well there's no good data except the ones I choose because I saw them!"
*says I make no coherent arguments*
*completely ignores the list of arguments I posted in response*
Heckuva job godec. In any case, yes I think data from real high level events is far more useful than data from low level tournaments. I should not have said top 8 though. Looking at overall PT results is better.
Right. And over the course of that game without discard spells, with fetches, sorceries and presumably a kill spell, goyf comes down on turn 3 as a 3/4 or 4/5. This is miles away from the most broken thing happening in the format.
But let me know how your crusade to ban goyf goes. I imagine I'll know when it happens. Really banning goyf just helps me since it removes the clock from twin's worst matchup. So I'm with you. Let's ban the sucker.
Goyf isn't broken the sense that splinter twin is "broken" but it does warp the format in a very unhealthy way. You aren't responding to any of the real points being made, and neither is anyone else.
Well, I don't care if you "assure" me. I don't have a high regard for your analytic abilities. Your points are illogical and you make absurdly hyperbolic statements.
And you use big words to make you sound like you know what your talking about
"I don't care about data that includes thousands of players on a daily basis, only the data I can try to manipulate to make my really absurd points."
MODO data is readily verifiable, it's literally all on the Wizards site.
So to verify his results I have to hand record all of the data he is talking about and then compare it to the data being used by MTGO goldfish? That's a bit much. My problem is that he expects us to trust his hand recorded data as if it is gospel or he is some sort of reliable source. I don't think that's unreasonable in the slightest. If he uploads his datasets online it will make his posts a lot more trustworthy. That said, I don't think MTGO results matter for the reasons I gave in my other post. It's not absurd to think data from daily MTGO events is less worthwhile than data from GP and Pro Tour top 8s. Do you understand why one is more useful than the other for discussion of high level competitive play?
You have yet to make a coherent argument, and all you're doing now is thinly veiled personal attacks, you've presented no evidence and pushed for absurd things. There isn't any reason to take you seriously.
1. Goyf obsoletes virtually all other green 2 drops (and most 3 and 4 drops) and warps deckbuilding around itself in an unhealthy way.
2. Goyf makes it even harder for aggro to be competitive since it's a huge stop sign.
3. Combo decks have started running it to tax removal in control decks and block against aggro decks. Can't get through my Goyf without using your one path? Too bad Zoo, here's a Deceiver Exarch and a Splinter Twin.
4. The price of Goyf makes it much harder for players to play many Tier 1 decks. One of the primary reason Goyf isn't everywhere outside of top 8s is that it is too expensive for many players to afford.
edit: he attacked me implicitly with his points about confirmation bias and "just play goyf if you can't beat it." I responded in kind
If you're truly competitive why dont you play goyf since apparently that's all it takes to win?
Who said I don't? Jon Finkel is on record as saying he thinks fetchlands should be banned in every format. Does that stop him from using fetches during a Modern Pro Tour?
The sequence of deploying a goyf t2 at 3/4 requires a number of specific card types. He doesnt deploy that early, that big in a normal game. You blatantly state that you will just ignore every one's data points and statistics because you dont trust their math like goyf being in the format is a conspiracy against you. Run the numbers yourself and come back with your results.
If whatever you play cant handle a tarmogoyf then little timmy with his merfolk deck probably runs you right over so I'd pay attention to that data.
What is a normal game? Almost everyone has fetchlands so that is one type of card in the graveyard, and you can expect that decks are either 1. playing early creatures, 2. playing sorceries that filter like serum visions and 3. kill spells. Even if you don't go thoughtseize into goyf it will likely be a 3/4 on the next turn given those conditions or you can kill their thing and then play it on turn 3. That said, those "specific" cards types are so common your comparison are meaningless.
Why should I accept data I can't verify? Hmm? I don't really care about MTGO results for the reasons I've already given, but I don't see a problem with discounting things strange says on the internet. You want to make a claim using data? Okay. It has to be real and verifiable.
For telling people they're in "la la land" you aren't using rational argument yourself. First you can't compare goyf to a hypothetical 1 or 2 cmc 20/20. Thats not printable and goyf is not nearly that good. I'm assuming we can all agree.
My argument was that no one who thinks a 20/20 for 2 is even remotely defensible should be taken seriously. That opinion is so absurd that it raises serious doubts about the person in question's ability to evaluate these issues.
Lets get the core of this argument. Goyf is NOT a vanilla beater. Functionally, yes, goyf only attacks and blocks. Goyf also has card text. Sweet, sweet, exploitable text. He dies to all commonly played removal sans bolt. He is usually within dismember range. Sure, path gives the goyf player a land, path gives every creatures controller a land so that argument doesn't credit goyf's power as much as it does path's weakness but by no means is path a weak card. Goyf can be as big as a 3/4 by turn 2 if you open with fetchland into discard spell hitting a 3rd card type. You realize the sequence of hitting a turn 2 3/4 requires more cards to achieve than it does splinter twin to WIN THE GAME on turn 4?
Splinter Twin needs specific cards from its deck to win the game. Goyf grows because people play cards they would have played anyway, such as fetchlands and various disruption spells. The requirement that "people play lands, instants, and sorceries" is less stringent than "I have Deceiver Exarch and Splinter Twin in my hand AND my opponent can't disrupt me." That being the case I don't really understand your reasoning. You're comparing apples and oranges.
That is fair in this environment. It may seem to you like the goyf player always has this opening. This is called "confirmation bias." I assure you, it doesn't happen that often. Play more games. Goyf trades lightning bolt as an eligible removal spell for RELIC OF PROGENITUS of all things. Goyf simply is not powerful enough to be banned. Your argument is frankly silly.
Well, I don't care if you "assure" me. I don't have a high regard for your analytic abilities. Your points are illogical and you make absurdly hyperbolic statements.
I never thought, as a UR twin player, I'd see the day I'd have to defend goyf's existence.
Truly competitive players are willing to play whatever it takes to win. Defining yourself using a particular deck doesn't necessarily make you a bad player but it does raise questions about your level of emotional detachment.
So this data comes from Daily Events rather than Premier Event Top 8s? That's not really useful from my perspective. Additionally, the fact that this is the *best* data available doesn't mean that it is useful. Caesar's commentaries might be the best source on Julius Caesar's opinions we have. That doesn't mean we can use the Commentaries to figure out what his favorite food was.
No, it also includes premiers. If the MTGO event is published on the mothership, then it appears on the site. Goldfish used to be a lot worse about this (or maybe it was MTG Top 8) when they only included 4-0 finishes instead of 3-1 ones. Now, they try to be more inclusive.
Does that mean it's useful for extrapolation or, as you suggest, that it's just too biased to be valuable? I tested this last summer by manually recording every daily, premier, and finish (2-2 or worse in addition to 4-0/3-1) to get a complete picture of the metagame. I then compared my comprehensive picture to the public one to see how far off the public one was. Here are the top 10 decks in the public dataset with their public mothership % and their actual % from the time period:
DECK / PUBLIC % / ACTUAL %
Jund / 16.25% / 16.5%
Affinity / 9% / 5.5%
UWR Control / 7.75% / 7%
RG Tron / 6.5% / 8%
Delver / 5.25% / 4%
GW Hatebears / 4.5% / 3.5%
Melira Pod / 4% / 7%
Kiki Pod / 3.25% / 3.5%
BG Rock / 3.25% / 3.25%
Burn / 3.25% / 4%
Some decks have identical frequencies. Jund, for example, had basically the same representation in the public dataset as the complete one. UWR Control was also very close. But other decks are pretty off. The public frequencies for RG Tron and Melira Pod are considerably lower than the actual ones. By another token, the UR Delver and Affinity ones are much higher in the public dataset than in the comprehensive one. Finally, some decks in the actual top 10 don't even appear in the public top 10. For example, Twin had about 5% of the metagame in the complete dataset but only about 3% in the public one.
If we include every deck and run the numbers, we see that the overall correlation is quite strong. For you stats folks, the two datasets have an R of .93, which means that the frequencies have more or less a linear relationship. The overall margin of error is just over 2%. That means that any frequency in the public dataset is likely within +/-2% of the "actual" frequency for that deck.
How does this all affect analysis of public MTGO data? It means we can use it as a good source, but we need to be aware of its limitations. Because the dataset only takes winning decks (4-0/3-1 and premier T8/T16), there is a whole bracket of losing decks that doesn't get included. So a deck that is more likely to win (e.g. Affinity) will be overrepresented in that sample). A popular deck that is harder to play and win with (e.g. Melira Pod) might be underrepresented in the public dataset because there are also a ton of people scrubbing out with that deck in the 2-2 or worse category. But there are also decks that appear in more or less the same frequency between the two datasets.
Let's bring this back to Goyf. MTGO Goldfish says he appears in about 13.25% of decks, and everyone rocks a full playset. My guess is that this 13.25% of decks corresponds almost exactly to the combined percentages of BG Rock/Jund/Zoo/Etc. Looking at the numbers, this seems accurate. BG Rock is at 5.81%, Jund is at 3.63%, RUG follows at 1.21%, Aggro Scapeshift and Domain Zoo at .5% each, and about 6 other decks at .25% each. Add them all up and that's basically the 13.25% for Goyf.
Because Goyf is appearing in a 1:1 ratio with his home decks, all we need to do is apply the margin of error to the decks to see Goyf's margin of error. So we would be safe in betting that the TRUE prevalence of Goyf is between 11.25% and 15.25% of the metagame. I'm not sure if that's high or not without running a similar analysis for other cards, but for a card that is literally supposed to be everywhere, it seems quite low.
I meant premier events in the non-MTGO sense. GPs, pro tours, etc. I care more about high level competitive play because that is what truly define the top tier of a format. I don't care how well little Timmy did when he played Merfolk in a daily event.
No offense, but I'm not going to take your word or trust your statistical analysis. There is now way for me to verify your results, check the data you recorded, and so on. I have no reason to trust you as a reliable source. That said, there are problems with your logic as well as with your data.
Take this for example
If we include every deck and run the numbers, we see that the overall correlation is quite strong
Why would we treat every deck the same for the purposes of this analysis when there are differences between them that would explain why one deck would show up more often in one set of data than it would in the other? I don't understand why you are treating all decks the same way. This seems like a useless statistic that doesn't tell us anything.
That "strange MTGO goldfish ranking" is, in fact ranking "which creatures show up in top decks."
Guys, when wizards starts banning cards that arent actually broken just because some people hate them for whatever reason, modern becomes a joke. I mean whats next preord--- oh.
Top decks being defined how?
What is a broken card? Tarmogoyf has a negative impact on the format so I think it should be banned. The fact that it is too expensive for many people to play doesn't mean it isn't busted.
MTGO Goldfish is a decent source for MTGO data aggregation. It's just all the publicly published 4-0/3-1 decks from the mothership. That's the most comprehensive dataset you can get for MTGO without recording results directly from the client. And even there, the difference between the two is really too small to be worth the extra effort. The only thing I don't know about MTGO Goldfish is where its metagame cutoff is. 3 months? 6 months? last N events? I have no idea.
Even if it's off by some small amount, it's generally accurate. Goyf just doesn't see that much play. The only deck where I really dislike Goyf is RUG Twin, which is actually just Twin + Tarmogoyf. The more decks that exist like that, the more Goyf proves to be a broken fit-anywhere card. But you don't see it a lot. Affinity tries to use it in some PTQ lists, but it never takes off. I've seen Scapeshift decks use it on MTGO, but it's really just 1 or 2 lists. Burn doesn't use it. Nykthos Green doesn't use it. GW Hatebears and GW Death and Taxes don't use it. It's not even passing the "if you play the color you play the card" test. Overall, Goyf just doesn't slot into decks the same way something like Brainstorm does in Legacy.
So this data comes from Daily Events rather than Premier Event Top 8s? That's not really useful from my perspective. Additionally, the fact that this is the *best* data available doesn't mean that it is useful. Caesar's commentaries might be the best source on Julius Caesar's opinions we have. That doesn't mean we can use the Commentaries to figure out what his favorite food was.
That banning vanilla beater is a really poor decision?
Wizards prints a vanilla 20/20 for 1 mana. Fair card? Yes or no?
No, but not for the reasons you may think. If you drop that on T1 on the play then you've cut the opponent to only 1cmc spells to deal with it, which limits it to Path, Vapor Snag, Rapid Hybridization (not really played in Modern), etc. I can't think of any black cards that can kill it unless it's green or white (Deathmark). Now, if you had said CMC 2 or higher, I'd actually have to think about it for a second.
That said, you should know you're being highly ridiculous with that question. The largest 'goyf can get is 8/9 (Tribal, Enchantment, Planeswalker, Artifact, Creature, Instant, Socery, Land). It's typically a 4/5 (so no Tribal, Planeswalker, Enchantment, Artifact). Post-board or if the opponent kills my Liliana then 'Goyf is a 5/6. Yes, it's powerful. Yes, it's pushed. But it's definitely not unfair. Especially when you rarely want to play it T2 anyway. You typically want to grind them out of removal and build up the graveyard first. So is playing a 4/5 on T5 fair? Add to that the ridiculously easy GY hate (much of which is already in boards because of Snapcaster) and he becomes a very fair card.
I'm not being ridiculous. There is a binary choice here: either a vanilla beater can be so strong it should be banned or it can't. You concede that it can. Good. How we can stop arguing about how Goyf is "just a beater" and start arguing about how powerful a card it is overall and what sort of impact it has on the format. I actually think that Goyf is unfair, but given that you think a 20/20 for 2 is worthy of consideration there isn't much for us to say to each other. You're too far off in la la land.
And you're dead wrong about people not playing Goyf on turn 2. Hand disruption spell into goyf is one of the most common openings in Modern.
Legacy has much better tools to fight against combo decks. When you have cards like Force of Will and Wasteland to disrupt your opponent it is somewhat more acceptable for cards like Brainstorm, Ponder, and Preordain to be legal. That said, Brainstorm still dominates the format and warps everything else around its existence. Modern doesn't have the tools it needs to fight against combo decks that are super powerful and consistent, so it makes sense to keep Preordain and Ponder on the banned list. I would be okay with unbanning preordain if a playable free counter spell were printed in a Modern legal set; Disrupting Shoal just isn't going to cut it. I also think you underestimating just how good Twin is in the current format. I don't think that GBx variants are much better than Twin variants, and Preordain would be a huge upgrade for the deck. It's not just a matter of twin though, the existence of Preordain would enable combo decks forever.
I was talking about price there. I meant that most expensive cards other than Goyf aren't as much of a barrier to entry, and I phrased my comment awkwardly. I've been posting from my phone.
What don't you understand? Preordain makes combo decks *much* more consistent and strongly increases the power of blue decks. The more powerful a format is the strong cards like Preordain are, which is why they are often restricted in freaking Vintage. The only reason Brainstorm is legal in Legacy is that people like it and are okay with blue dominating everything.
I don't think that Confidant over Goyf is as correct as you think it is. If I think my opponent has a removal spell I strongly prefer for them to use it on my Goyf, and there are other reasons to play it out as well. In any case, what about the draws where you don't have Confidant? I never said that people always play it out on turn 2, I said it was a common opening.. It is. I don't know why you are wasting your time making an argument against a position I never defended.
People reacting to a card is not the same as a card warping a format. The question is how much of a response that card requires and how large its impact is. Detention Sphere impacts Standard and people have reacted to its presence. It has NEVER warped the format the way Mutavault did.
Goyf isone of the reasons has such a hard time. If you deny that you are simply wrong. It's a huge creature that can be played for 2 mana. I also find it odd to list the "dominance" of midrange as a reason for aggro's failure as if Tarmogoyf isn't part of what makes midrange so good against so many decks.
I don't think it's inferior to regular twin. it depends on the metagame. Saying "it's easily dealt with" overlooks the fact that it uses goyf to help set up its combo in many cases. It's part of Plan A just the way Bolt is.
Most expensive cards are not as important as goyf. Not even fetches.
1. I have no way of knowing what your incentives are, but the bigger problem is that I have no reason to trust your analysis or work. I don't know anything about you.
2. You went beyond comparing the two datasets and tried to imply things based on that relationship. If your point is that the data is similar and you aren't making a different point then that is fine provided your data is reliable. If anything that bolsters my position though; daily events are *not* that competitive and if the MTGO premier events are the same as those events then then...well, you do the math. I just don't think MTGO results tell us much about high level play.
*says I make no coherent arguments*
*completely ignores the list of arguments I posted in response*
Heckuva job godec. In any case, yes I think data from real high level events is far more useful than data from low level tournaments. I should not have said top 8 though. Looking at overall PT results is better.
Goyf isn't broken the sense that splinter twin is "broken" but it does warp the format in a very unhealthy way. You aren't responding to any of the real points being made, and neither is anyone else.
So to verify his results I have to hand record all of the data he is talking about and then compare it to the data being used by MTGO goldfish? That's a bit much. My problem is that he expects us to trust his hand recorded data as if it is gospel or he is some sort of reliable source. I don't think that's unreasonable in the slightest. If he uploads his datasets online it will make his posts a lot more trustworthy. That said, I don't think MTGO results matter for the reasons I gave in my other post. It's not absurd to think data from daily MTGO events is less worthwhile than data from GP and Pro Tour top 8s. Do you understand why one is more useful than the other for discussion of high level competitive play?
1. Goyf obsoletes virtually all other green 2 drops (and most 3 and 4 drops) and warps deckbuilding around itself in an unhealthy way.
2. Goyf makes it even harder for aggro to be competitive since it's a huge stop sign.
3. Combo decks have started running it to tax removal in control decks and block against aggro decks. Can't get through my Goyf without using your one path? Too bad Zoo, here's a Deceiver Exarch and a Splinter Twin.
4. The price of Goyf makes it much harder for players to play many Tier 1 decks. One of the primary reason Goyf isn't everywhere outside of top 8s is that it is too expensive for many players to afford.
edit: he attacked me implicitly with his points about confirmation bias and "just play goyf if you can't beat it." I responded in kind
Who said I don't? Jon Finkel is on record as saying he thinks fetchlands should be banned in every format. Does that stop him from using fetches during a Modern Pro Tour?
What is a normal game? Almost everyone has fetchlands so that is one type of card in the graveyard, and you can expect that decks are either 1. playing early creatures, 2. playing sorceries that filter like serum visions and 3. kill spells. Even if you don't go thoughtseize into goyf it will likely be a 3/4 on the next turn given those conditions or you can kill their thing and then play it on turn 3. That said, those "specific" cards types are so common your comparison are meaningless.
Why should I accept data I can't verify? Hmm? I don't really care about MTGO results for the reasons I've already given, but I don't see a problem with discounting things strange says on the internet. You want to make a claim using data? Okay. It has to be real and verifiable.
My argument was that no one who thinks a 20/20 for 2 is even remotely defensible should be taken seriously. That opinion is so absurd that it raises serious doubts about the person in question's ability to evaluate these issues.
Splinter Twin needs specific cards from its deck to win the game. Goyf grows because people play cards they would have played anyway, such as fetchlands and various disruption spells. The requirement that "people play lands, instants, and sorceries" is less stringent than "I have Deceiver Exarch and Splinter Twin in my hand AND my opponent can't disrupt me." That being the case I don't really understand your reasoning. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Well, I don't care if you "assure" me. I don't have a high regard for your analytic abilities. Your points are illogical and you make absurdly hyperbolic statements.
Truly competitive players are willing to play whatever it takes to win. Defining yourself using a particular deck doesn't necessarily make you a bad player but it does raise questions about your level of emotional detachment.
I meant premier events in the non-MTGO sense. GPs, pro tours, etc. I care more about high level competitive play because that is what truly define the top tier of a format. I don't care how well little Timmy did when he played Merfolk in a daily event.
No offense, but I'm not going to take your word or trust your statistical analysis. There is now way for me to verify your results, check the data you recorded, and so on. I have no reason to trust you as a reliable source. That said, there are problems with your logic as well as with your data.
Take this for example
Why would we treat every deck the same for the purposes of this analysis when there are differences between them that would explain why one deck would show up more often in one set of data than it would in the other? I don't understand why you are treating all decks the same way. This seems like a useless statistic that doesn't tell us anything.
So this data comes from Daily Events rather than Premier Event Top 8s? That's not really useful from my perspective. Additionally, the fact that this is the *best* data available doesn't mean that it is useful. Caesar's commentaries might be the best source on Julius Caesar's opinions we have. That doesn't mean we can use the Commentaries to figure out what his favorite food was.
I'm not being ridiculous. There is a binary choice here: either a vanilla beater can be so strong it should be banned or it can't. You concede that it can. Good. How we can stop arguing about how Goyf is "just a beater" and start arguing about how powerful a card it is overall and what sort of impact it has on the format. I actually think that Goyf is unfair, but given that you think a 20/20 for 2 is worthy of consideration there isn't much for us to say to each other. You're too far off in la la land.
And you're dead wrong about people not playing Goyf on turn 2. Hand disruption spell into goyf is one of the most common openings in Modern.