I honestly think it currently is broken... or having 9 out of 11 t1 being aggro decks isnt proof enough...
I never thought the format would get to a point we'd get to a sfm unban but we are getting there..
If you want to argue an SFM unban, do so. Just make sure your posts are arguing for an unban/ban, not just musing about your perception of the state of Modern's health/lack of health.
With that said, I have 4 questions for you:
1) Why is Top banned?
2) Do you believe that Top will not cause the problems that caused it to be banned in the first place?
3) One other card on the ban list is banned for the same reason as Top. What is it?
4) The card in 3) does not currently fit into any tier 1 deck. Do you believe it should be unbanned?
Sensei's Stalling Top is banned because it doesn't really work well in paper Magic.
It's fine on MTGO with the chess clock but in paper it causes too many unintentional draws and delays tournaments too much. Additionally it causes too many accusations of cheating and too many opportunities to conceal intentional cheating as 'just thinking'.
This issue in paper isn't fixable and I do not support MTGO and paper having divergent banlists, so Stalling Top should remain banned.
Edit: It's also entirely possible that Stalling Top would be oppressively good in the format now, with Terminus legal. Terminus and Top have never been legal together in formats smaller than Legacy.
If we are talking about an unban of sfm then the current meta is definitely relevant.... i could mention unbanning twin but i feel like thats been argued to death already..
Because of the meta i dont think removing cards from the pool is the right way to go... nothing has quite high a share to justify that yet...
That leaves adding to the card pool.. and barring some targeted printing... its probably not coming from a standard set...
And if you look at the banlist .. the best two candidates are sfm and twin...
Thats if you subscribe to the theory that aggro being way overrepresented isnt a good thing.. and some might not think that now but i doubt in 6 months ppl will feel the same if not much changes...
I think we all can wait after the Grand Prix's to safely speak about a Stoneforge Mystic unban. It's too early. Even if the results are disgruntling, that will not mean an SFM unban will be in the picture, or that WOTC will ever consider that. SFM could have a tombstone for all we know.
Sam Stoddard said in his AMA that they have a few candidates as possible unbans for the future, so it's possible. Everyone who says that all remaining cards on the banlist are broken and will never be unbanned is definitely wrong.
With a few prints in the new sets to prepare Jund and Grixis, I think the SFM unban is safer than ever before considering that abzan coco is tier 2 and Junk is lower tier 2 (though as a Junk player I am a bit biased). There aren't really any other cards (except maybe twin) on the banlist which could actively suppress linearity enough to tame a format with 2/3 T1 aggro decks, so the time is now.
With a few prints in the new sets to prepare Jund and Grixis, I think the SFM unban is safer than ever before considering that abzan coco is tier 2 and Junk is lower tier 2 (though as a Junk player I am a bit biased). There aren't really any other cards (except maybe twin) on the banlist which could actively suppress linearity enough to tame a format with 2/3 T1 aggro decks, so the time is now.
It's not actually Tier 2 though if you play paper.
The Nexus breakdown, and the way this site does its tiers, is great. The numbers are wonderful to have at your fingertips and the articles are informed and interesting. However, looking at only the overall metagame numbers can be VERY misleading. I've long thought we should pay more attention to the individual paper vs. online numbers and this update solidifies that thinking.
Abzan CoCo is a perfect example of this because bugs in MODO make the deck literally unplayable (I used "literally" to differentiate my use of the word "unplayable" from the normal hyperbole associated with the term in M:tG vernacular) online. It has a 0.8% online share and a 4.1% paper share, giving an "overall" share of 3.5% (I'm assuming because of the weighing factors). But it appears that the cutoff between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is at 4% of the meta. So if the deck is non-existent due to bugs online but at 4.1% in paper where there are no bugs, can we really call it a Tier 2 deck?
Here's a fuller illustration of what I mean. Again assuming that the cutoff from Tier 1 to Tier 2 is 4%, here's how I'd actually break down the meta compared to what was posted. Note: It's not clear to me where the line is for tier 2 vs. tier 3 since Kiki Chord at 1.4 is in Tier 2 but Grixis Control/Mid at 1.6 is in Tier 3, so for these purposes I'm going to cut it off at 2%.
TIER 2 MODO %ages
8. Infect - 3.4
9. Merfolk - 3.4
10. RG Tron - 3.1
11. Scapeshift - 2.8
12. Living End - 2.8
13. Bogles - 2.8
14. Ad Naus - 2.5
15. Death and Taxes - 2.5
16. Esper Control - 2.2
While at a quick glance things aren't too different, this actually provides a much different picture. For instance, you now know that Abzan Company is something to prepare for if you're entering a paper tournament instead of being lulled into falsely believing it has fallen out of Tier 1 contention. Another example is that Bogles on MODO is represented more than Dredge or Death's Shadow in paper, yet nobody is clamoring on about Bogles. If you're on MODO you absolutely need to be prepared to face Dredge or Death's Shadow. If you're playing in paper, you barely even need to test the matchups because you have as much chance of facing them as any other random tier 2 deck, which is to say they likely won't be represented at the top tables.
For anybody preparing for a comp REL event, it's INCREDIBLY important not to focus on the overall numbers and to instead make sure you know how things look in your chosen medium.
EDIT: Of course I know that Nexus provides the paper vs. modo numbers - it's where I got these from - but everybody focuses on the overall numbers and completely ignores the context, which creates large problems in both metagame preparation and confusion when discussing the format in general.
I agree completely with your point, but I have just one minor nitpick:
Abzan CoCo is a perfect example of this because bugs in MODO make the deck literally unplayable (I used "literally" to differentiate my use of the word "unplayable" from the normal hyperbole associated with the term in M:tG vernacular) online.
It's not bugs that make it unplayable. For those who don't know, the trigger system on MODO does not let you automate anything. In paper you can demonstrate your loop: "I will sac Kitchen Finks to Viscera Seer for the Scry 1 effect. Persist and Scry go on the stack. If you have no response, I will repeat this an arbitrarily large number of times and cut to a specific card in my deck because of the scry 1 triggers." In MODO there's no way to do this, so you have to fully play out every iteration. That means clicking on Seer to activate it, then clicking on Finks to sacrifice it, ordering your triggers, then resolving the persist and doing it again. It's a gigantic pain in the ass to even gain 20 life with it, much less thousands. You do not get to shortcut your scrying either, so there's no cutting to a specific point in your deck.
That's why Company has such a low meta share on Magic Online.
I agree completely with your point, but I have just one minor nitpick:
Abzan CoCo is a perfect example of this because bugs in MODO make the deck literally unplayable (I used "literally" to differentiate my use of the word "unplayable" from the normal hyperbole associated with the term in M:tG vernacular) online.
It's not bugs that make it unplayable. For those who don't know, the trigger system on MODO does not let you automate anything. In paper you can demonstrate your loop: "I will sac Kitchen Finks to Viscera Seer for the Scry 1 effect. Persist and Scry go on the stack. If you have no response, I will repeat this an arbitrarily large number of times and cut to a specific card in my deck because of the scry 1 triggers." In MODO there's no way to do this, so you have to fully play out every iteration. That means clicking on Seer to activate it, then clicking on Finks to sacrifice it, ordering your triggers, then resolving the persist and doing it again. It's a gigantic pain in the ass to even gain 20 life with it, much less thousands. You do not get to shortcut your scrying either, so there's no cutting to a specific point in your deck.
That's why Company has such a low meta share on Magic Online.
What you say is true, but in ADDITION to that there's a bug with one of their cards - I believe it's Wall of Roots.
That's pretty hard to calculate, seeing as how we only get a portion of the 5-0 records from modo and only get info from paper tournaments that actually report online
If they want to purely attack Jund, my guess is Liliana. It's been noted as the best card in the deck and doesn't significantly impact anything else like Goyf or Bolt would.
I`m not saying that I think it should happen or that it is likely to happen, but as a fun thought experiment:
If they were to ban something out of Jund, what card would it be?
if you want to limit the damage to only jund then abrupt decay or Blackcleave Cliffs. Cliffs to kill it and decay to just nerf it a bit. Both cards would look utterly ridiculous on the list though.
Good lord, they are not going to ban a single land in a dual land cycle. That's insanity.
The type of meta we would need to have where Jund could receive another banning is so hard to imagine that I think it's pointless to talk about unless you start by laying thatout.
I think we all can wait after the Grand Prix's to safely speak about a Stoneforge Mystic unban. It's too early. Even if the results are disgruntling, that will not mean an SFM unban will be in the picture, or that WOTC will ever consider that. SFM could have a tombstone for all we know.
Sam Stoddard said in his AMA that they have a few candidates as possible unbans for the future, so it's possible. Everyone who says that all remaining cards on the banlist are broken and will never be unbanned is definitely wrong.
1 or 2 cards. Surely BBE. I do not know what else. SFM is too much of a risk, as it has been said. Preordain as well, because it holds the power to break the format with a potential combo again in the future. Twin was just banned, and they do not want to reduce the diversity of the format again, even if it is going to be a small decrease.
All the cards except BBE serve a specific purpose in the BL. Nothing is totally safe.
IN WHAT WORLD is BBE safer than SFM. Zoo has two decks in the tier 1 and jund is widely considered to be the best deck in the format. Not to mention RG is the best color in modern by far just judging by the tier 1 decks in the format. Why does elf need to come off the ban list? Meanwhile SFM is literally in the worst color in modern and the meta is chuck full of aggro decks. It's not a safe unban but it's the best current available unban besides tree of tales.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On mtgsalvation people don't want to discuss ideas, so I give people something else to discuss: my controversial opinions.
Bloodbraid elf doesn't fit into bushwhacker zoo OR suicide zoo.
4cmc card with no ramp is too slow, bushwhacker zoo doesn't need to get to 4 mana to win games. BBE just slows it down, they might not even get to cast in since they only run 18/19 lands.
Even more so for suicide zoo, you're relying on instant speed tricks to win games, BBE does nothing for this deck.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
Good lord, they are not going to ban a single land in a dual land cycle. That's insanity.
The type of meta we would need to have where Jund could receive another banning is so hard to imagine that I think it's pointless to talk about unless you start by laying thatout.
Agreed. I was simply answering a hypothetical. In that hypothetical where Jund "must" receive a ban, banning any of 'goyf, bolt, Bob, or Liliana all miss the mark. The real glue of the deck is Cliffs, and it's basically the biggest reason the deck is successful against both combo and aggro while at the same time gaining tempo in midrange and control matches.
Besides, every Green deck runs Goyf or you don't run Green at all. Even Eldrazi decks run Goyf.
Abzan Coco, Elves, Infect, GR Tron, Kiki Chord, RUG Scapeshift, RG Titan Scapeshift, Bogles, RG Breach, Dredge, GW Hatebears, Green Devotion, Wilted Abzan, Amulet Titan, Bubble Hulk, Living End, and Loam Pox are 17 green decks that don't run Tarmogoy, and I've never seen an Edlrazi deck run goyf.
When has Dredge, and living end ever been a green deck? Just because a deck has a green card in it doesn't make it a green deck. And GW Hatebears, devotion, Wilted Azban and even coco can and sometimes do run Goyf. Chord doesn't I'll give you that. And the others are just combo decks such as Titan, Hulk, Loam, and Scapeshift, hell these decks can probably can mash goyf in there and still manage to have some great results with it.
I guess you could say that the real glue of nearly every deck is the lands. Without them, you can't cast any of your spells. But so what?
This is incredibly different. It allows Jund to play either discard or bolt on turn 1 without having to take 3 from a fetch into Blood Crypt. Many Jund players call it the best card in the deck because of what it allows you to do. Jund becomes MUCH worse without Cliffs, which you can't really say for any other card in the deck.
Yeah but that land does the same thing for grixis and mardu when they play it. And jund would become much worse without Tarmogoyf for example so I can say that about another card in the deck.
Cliffs isn't the glue that holds jund together. Goyf is. Goyf synergizes with the discard spells; they buff him up and he provides a clock that's fast enough to make the discard spells more effective by killing the opponent before they can draw out of the disruption. That quick clock at such a low mana cost allows you to leverage the resources from Bob into a dead opponent before Bob kills you. That huge body perfectly compliments the simplified-game-state attrition plan that let's jund play a bunch of removal / liliana's by ensuring that you have the highest quality board state after resources are spent. The 2 mana bolt-proof body ensures that your opponent doesn't (usually) get a tempo advantage when trying to deal with it while you are able to deal with higher CMC threats at a mana advantage with goyf pressure on board.
Hypothetically, if jund stays on top and grows to around 20% or more of the metagame again, I think jund would be worse off by banning goyf, even if they unbanned BBE and DRS to compensate, than from banning Blackcleave Cliffs.
Yeah but that land does the same thing for grixis and mardu when they play it. And jund would become much worse without Tarmogoyf for example so I can say that about another card in the deck.
Cliffs isn't the glue that holds jund together. Goyf is. Goyf synergizes with the discard spells; they buff him up and he provides a clock that's fast enough to make the discard spells more effective by killing the opponent before they can draw out of the disruption. That quick clock at such a low mana cost allows you to leverage the resources from Bob into a dead opponent before Bob kills you. That huge body perfectly compliments the simplified-game-state attrition plan that let's jund play a bunch of removal / liliana's by ensuring that you have the highest quality board state after resources are spent. The 2 mana bolt-proof body ensures that your opponent doesn't (usually) get a tempo advantage when trying to deal with it while you are able to deal with higher CMC threats at a mana advantage with goyf pressure on board.
Hypothetically, if jund stays on top and grows to around 20% or more of the metagame again, I think jund would be worse off by banning goyf, even if they unbanned BBE and DRS to compensate, than from banning Blackcleave Cliffs.
If you're talking about BG/x as a general archetype then yes, Tarmogoyf is on top of the discussion there. But the entire reason to play Jund over Abzan is Cliffs + Bolt. I was answering a hypothetical question about how to ban from the deck "Jund," not the archetype "BG/x." If you ban Cliffs then there's no more Jund and it all just becomes Abzan. If you want to ban "BG/x" as a whole instead, then Tarmogoyf is a better target.
EDIT: Basically I'm just answering a narrow question with a narrow response. If the goal is to cripple Jund and mitigate to the greatest extent possible any collateral damage to other decks, then the most impactful target is Cliffs. I'm not trying to debate what's more powerful, Cliffs vs. Goyf, 'cause that's just ridiculous.
jeeeeeeeez guys. You actually think I'm advocating for a ban like that? I interpreted the question to mean, "hypothetically, even though we all know it's not necessary, what card would hurt Jund but no other deck?" Cliffs fits that perfectly. But OF COURSE it shouldn't be banned. Heck, in my first response I specifically said it would be ridiculous.
This is why up until now I've typically ignored and not answered hypothetical questions. I guess I'll go back to that.
Discuss bans here or don't. This isn't the 'modern is too aggro' thread.
If you want to argue an SFM unban, do so. Just make sure your posts are arguing for an unban/ban, not just musing about your perception of the state of Modern's health/lack of health.
Sensei's Stalling Top is banned because it doesn't really work well in paper Magic.
It's fine on MTGO with the chess clock but in paper it causes too many unintentional draws and delays tournaments too much. Additionally it causes too many accusations of cheating and too many opportunities to conceal intentional cheating as 'just thinking'.
This issue in paper isn't fixable and I do not support MTGO and paper having divergent banlists, so Stalling Top should remain banned.
Edit: It's also entirely possible that Stalling Top would be oppressively good in the format now, with Terminus legal. Terminus and Top have never been legal together in formats smaller than Legacy.
Because of the meta i dont think removing cards from the pool is the right way to go... nothing has quite high a share to justify that yet...
That leaves adding to the card pool.. and barring some targeted printing... its probably not coming from a standard set...
And if you look at the banlist .. the best two candidates are sfm and twin...
Thats if you subscribe to the theory that aggro being way overrepresented isnt a good thing.. and some might not think that now but i doubt in 6 months ppl will feel the same if not much changes...
Sam Stoddard said in his AMA that they have a few candidates as possible unbans for the future, so it's possible. Everyone who says that all remaining cards on the banlist are broken and will never be unbanned is definitely wrong.
The Nexus breakdown, and the way this site does its tiers, is great. The numbers are wonderful to have at your fingertips and the articles are informed and interesting. However, looking at only the overall metagame numbers can be VERY misleading. I've long thought we should pay more attention to the individual paper vs. online numbers and this update solidifies that thinking.
Abzan CoCo is a perfect example of this because bugs in MODO make the deck literally unplayable (I used "literally" to differentiate my use of the word "unplayable" from the normal hyperbole associated with the term in M:tG vernacular) online. It has a 0.8% online share and a 4.1% paper share, giving an "overall" share of 3.5% (I'm assuming because of the weighing factors). But it appears that the cutoff between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is at 4% of the meta. So if the deck is non-existent due to bugs online but at 4.1% in paper where there are no bugs, can we really call it a Tier 2 deck?
Here's a fuller illustration of what I mean. Again assuming that the cutoff from Tier 1 to Tier 2 is 4%, here's how I'd actually break down the meta compared to what was posted. Note: It's not clear to me where the line is for tier 2 vs. tier 3 since Kiki Chord at 1.4 is in Tier 2 but Grixis Control/Mid at 1.6 is in Tier 3, so for these purposes I'm going to cut it off at 2%.
POSTED
TIER 1 Overall %ages
1. Jund - 9.8
2. Affinity - 6.2
3. Infect - 5.7
4. Burn - 5.5
5. Jeskai Control - 5.2
6. Dredge - 4.7
7. Eldrazi - 4.5
8. Death's Shadow - 4.3
9. Merfolk - 4.2
TIER 2 Overall %ages
10. RG Tron - 3.8
11. Abzan Company - 3.5
12. Ad Naus - 3.1
13. Scapeshift - 2.4
14. Abzan - 2.2
15. Living End - 2.2
16. Gruul Zoo - 2.1
DIFFERENTIATING MEDIUMS
PAPER
TIER 1 Paper %ages
1. Jund - 9.7
2. Affinity - 6.2
3. Infect - 5.8
4. Jeskai Control - 5.4
5. Burn - 5.2
6. Eldrazi - 4.7
7. Merfolk - 4.5
8. Abzan Company - 4.1
TIER 2 Paper %ages
9. Ad Naus - 3.5
10. RG Tron - 3.4
11. Dredge - 2.6
12. Death's Shadow - 2.5
13. Abzan - 2.4
14. Scapeshift - 2.3
15. Gruul Zoo - 2.2
16. Living End - 2.1
17. Elves - 2.0
MODO
TIER 1 MODO %ages
1. Dredge - 10.9
2. Death's Shadow - 10.4
3. Jund - 9.2
4. Affinity - 6.7
5. Burn - 6.7
6. Eldrazi - 6.2
7. Jeskai Control - 4.5
TIER 2 MODO %ages
8. Infect - 3.4
9. Merfolk - 3.4
10. RG Tron - 3.1
11. Scapeshift - 2.8
12. Living End - 2.8
13. Bogles - 2.8
14. Ad Naus - 2.5
15. Death and Taxes - 2.5
16. Esper Control - 2.2
While at a quick glance things aren't too different, this actually provides a much different picture. For instance, you now know that Abzan Company is something to prepare for if you're entering a paper tournament instead of being lulled into falsely believing it has fallen out of Tier 1 contention. Another example is that Bogles on MODO is represented more than Dredge or Death's Shadow in paper, yet nobody is clamoring on about Bogles. If you're on MODO you absolutely need to be prepared to face Dredge or Death's Shadow. If you're playing in paper, you barely even need to test the matchups because you have as much chance of facing them as any other random tier 2 deck, which is to say they likely won't be represented at the top tables.
For anybody preparing for a comp REL event, it's INCREDIBLY important not to focus on the overall numbers and to instead make sure you know how things look in your chosen medium.
EDIT: Of course I know that Nexus provides the paper vs. modo numbers - it's where I got these from - but everybody focuses on the overall numbers and completely ignores the context, which creates large problems in both metagame preparation and confusion when discussing the format in general.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
It's not bugs that make it unplayable. For those who don't know, the trigger system on MODO does not let you automate anything. In paper you can demonstrate your loop: "I will sac Kitchen Finks to Viscera Seer for the Scry 1 effect. Persist and Scry go on the stack. If you have no response, I will repeat this an arbitrarily large number of times and cut to a specific card in my deck because of the scry 1 triggers." In MODO there's no way to do this, so you have to fully play out every iteration. That means clicking on Seer to activate it, then clicking on Finks to sacrifice it, ordering your triggers, then resolving the persist and doing it again. It's a gigantic pain in the ass to even gain 20 life with it, much less thousands. You do not get to shortcut your scrying either, so there's no cutting to a specific point in your deck.
That's why Company has such a low meta share on Magic Online.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
EDIT: Here's a Reddit article about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/436vn5/psa_be_very_careful_with_wall_of_roots/
Apparently my info is out of date and the only issue is what MrMonday posted. Which is still a huge barrier to playing that deck online.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
If they were to ban something out of Jund, what card would it be?
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
The type of meta we would need to have where Jund could receive another banning is so hard to imagine that I think it's pointless to talk about unless you start by laying thatout.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
IN WHAT WORLD is BBE safer than SFM. Zoo has two decks in the tier 1 and jund is widely considered to be the best deck in the format. Not to mention RG is the best color in modern by far just judging by the tier 1 decks in the format. Why does elf need to come off the ban list? Meanwhile SFM is literally in the worst color in modern and the meta is chuck full of aggro decks. It's not a safe unban but it's the best current available unban besides tree of tales.
Decks I'm playing in Modern right now:
URB Grixis Reveler (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-grixis-reveler/)
UB Faeries (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/ub-fae-2/)
UW Azorious Control (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-ojutai-control-2/)
4cmc card with no ramp is too slow, bushwhacker zoo doesn't need to get to 4 mana to win games. BBE just slows it down, they might not even get to cast in since they only run 18/19 lands.
Even more so for suicide zoo, you're relying on instant speed tricks to win games, BBE does nothing for this deck.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
When has Dredge, and living end ever been a green deck? Just because a deck has a green card in it doesn't make it a green deck. And GW Hatebears, devotion, Wilted Azban and even coco can and sometimes do run Goyf. Chord doesn't I'll give you that. And the others are just combo decks such as Titan, Hulk, Loam, and Scapeshift, hell these decks can probably can mash goyf in there and still manage to have some great results with it.
Modern Tallowisp Spirits - A Modern Tallowisp Deck UW
Eldrazi Ninjas - Summoning Octopus Jutsu YYYYAAAHHHH!
STANDARD
Naban Wizards
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Cliffs isn't the glue that holds jund together. Goyf is. Goyf synergizes with the discard spells; they buff him up and he provides a clock that's fast enough to make the discard spells more effective by killing the opponent before they can draw out of the disruption. That quick clock at such a low mana cost allows you to leverage the resources from Bob into a dead opponent before Bob kills you. That huge body perfectly compliments the simplified-game-state attrition plan that let's jund play a bunch of removal / liliana's by ensuring that you have the highest quality board state after resources are spent. The 2 mana bolt-proof body ensures that your opponent doesn't (usually) get a tempo advantage when trying to deal with it while you are able to deal with higher CMC threats at a mana advantage with goyf pressure on board.
Hypothetically, if jund stays on top and grows to around 20% or more of the metagame again, I think jund would be worse off by banning goyf, even if they unbanned BBE and DRS to compensate, than from banning Blackcleave Cliffs.
EDIT: Basically I'm just answering a narrow question with a narrow response. If the goal is to cripple Jund and mitigate to the greatest extent possible any collateral damage to other decks, then the most impactful target is Cliffs. I'm not trying to debate what's more powerful, Cliffs vs. Goyf, 'cause that's just ridiculous.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
This is why up until now I've typically ignored and not answered hypothetical questions. I guess I'll go back to that.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Modern Tallowisp Spirits - A Modern Tallowisp Deck UW
Eldrazi Ninjas - Summoning Octopus Jutsu YYYYAAAHHHH!
STANDARD
Naban Wizards