Balancing Tarmogoyf
Custom Cards forum
Posted on March 12, 2016, 6:24 p.m. by Kala
Idea:
Notarmogoyf 1G
Delerium +4/+4.
0/1
Would +3/+3 be more balanced?
RoarMaster says... #5
KillDatBUG, DrFunk27 why you gotta put this guy down like that? He is just messing around with card design and balancing, maybe try and offer some constructive criticism.
And in some ways he is right. I mean after all, Tarmagoyf was meant to cost 3 mana, not 2. A mixup at WotC however and it made it to print costing 2, one less than the 'balanced' number that they had intended.
Im not saying he is broken, but as he is the most expensive card in the modern format, and hugely played even in legacy, and thus I wouldnt call him perfectly balanced, Thats all.
March 12, 2016 10:35 p.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #6
this would make goyf borderline unplayable.
I mean, getting the 4 CAN be easy, but it's the flexibility and power for the low cost that makes it great.
March 12, 2016 11:06 p.m.
I'm not necessarily defining this for the modern format; this wouldn't be played much in modern. I'm thinking what if wizards were to release this in SOI or EMN. What effect would it have on standard?
March 12, 2016 11:20 p.m.
I hardly see how I was putting him down. This makes it absolutely unplayable outside of maybe standard. Even Sylvan Advocate is better. I'd say Goyf is incredibly balanced. He's not any more broken than Snap, Mystic etc.
March 12, 2016 11:26 p.m.
In my opinion, as a non-modern player, balanced cards aren't worth $150.
March 12, 2016 11:42 p.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #10
@Kala Wasteland is balanced. and Zodiac Dragon is shit honestly.
edit: I guess wasteland isn't 150, but lets face it, your point applies here.
March 12, 2016 11:54 p.m. Edited.
VampireArmy says... #11
It's not that it's unbalanced that makes it $150. It's that it's the pinnacle of what a "fair creature" wants to do.
That being said, this card you've made is to goyf what Pain Seer is to Dark Confidant it'd make some interesting standard decks and probably be the "casual" replacement for goyf for less enfranchised players which is fine.
March 12, 2016 11:55 p.m.
RoarMaster says... #12
DrFunk27 Saying "dont do what you are doing" is kinda putting some one down.
Other than that, cards that make decks splash a color for just for them are not "incredibly balanced". Balanced cards are playable without bending deck design to the point of forcing colors into decks just to play them. They are so good that it is worth diluting your landbase for in order to play. And a ton of decks do just that, splash green for goyf. They are not even "incredibly balanced" if they are played in every deck that runs the color naturally even, they are 'incredibly good'. This goodness is proven via the amount of play they see and the price that we are willing to pay for them. Incredibly good and incredibly balanced are not the same thing, and incredibly good and broken are not the same thing either. Goyf isnt broken, as I said before, but it is incredibly good.
March 12, 2016 11:56 p.m.
Tarmogoyf IS a broken card, it's incredibly efficient for a 2-drop. That said, there was a fake spoiler a while back of a delirium 'goyf with madness.
March 13, 2016 12:13 a.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #14
@RoarMaster good job on that misquote there. He said "don't fix what isn't broken". Y'know, like that saying implying someone is doing something unnecessary to something that is fine as is.
might i add the price is only so high b/c of the low print.
if dual lands were reprinted at normal rare in the next set, they'd plummet but still be played.
and if basics were no longer available they would skyrocket even though duals are better.
March 13, 2016 12:15 a.m.
RoarMaster As mentioned, I did not say that. But anyways, incredibly balanced were not the correct words to use. What I meant is that the card is fine as it is. It's not broken, just efficient, and there's nothing wrong with that. If the OP is trying to create a new "Tarmogoyf" that isn't as efficient, that's fine. However, it will not be playable. Sure, it could be a "budget" replacement, but delirium is not good enough to make it playable. I have nothing against being creative, but there's no way to make a better Goyf, and there's no way to make "unbroken" version, because it's not broken.
March 13, 2016 12:26 a.m.
RoarMaster says... #16
DERPLINGSUPREME It was paraphrasing, not quoting. By saying 'dont fix what isnt broken', he is implying 'stop doing what you are doing because its pointless'. True or not, nobody wants some one to come onto their forum post and tell them that, its a downer. If you do want to enlighten some one why you think it isnt broken, then do it with some reasons why you believe that. Thats all.
As I said myself, price is only part of what it is, its also the amount of play that it sees. And as most of my whole post was about how much play it sees, you completely missed my points and just reiterated something that has been mentioned already three times on this post that Im pretty sure we all knew about, 'supply and demand'.
March 13, 2016 12:37 a.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #17
@RoarMaster okay sure. first, lets go ahead and try for no paraphrasing. miscommunication is the mother of something. i dunno, i'm not a quote machine.
and besides, it sees play b/c its good. lots of cards do.
Lightning Bolt does. its extremely efficient, but it doesn't deserve a redesign.
and Thoughtseize is seen a lot too, but that doesn't mean it warrants a change.
the cards are good as is, and any worse and they just wouldn't be that good.
March 13, 2016 12:56 a.m.
RoarMaster says... #18
"the cards are good as is, and any worse and they just wouldn't be that good."
Yup, hit the nail on the head there.
Goyf warps deckbuilding to support it as I said before, unlike bolt or seize. But anyway, Im pretty sure we are going around in circles here.
nayrash5 says... #2
I like the +4/+4, because it's more inline with Goyf's ability, and it's markedly more difficult to get 4 diff in there early, than the scaling up ability he already has. Granted, it's not impossible, but this way takes more skill. This also makes me want to relook at Delerium, I initially wrote it off, but this changes my perspective.
March 12, 2016 6:28 p.m.