[Deck] Mono-Blue Control (MUC)

[ebbitten]

60 island.dec

Lots of land, never has to mulligan, sight of islands will make oppenents run in fear.


"Indeed your MUC lists have a very distinct game plan. I think the game plan is weak and can be improved, that's why I posted my list. Is my game plan of better than the MUC game plan? In my opinion, yes. How can you disagree if you have not tested the list?"

[ParkerLewis]

If you need proof, please check all top8 decks that run blue and don't run Chalice of the Void. I probably can't come up with better "proof". You can cut one land, then cut 3 other cards. Brainstorm will obviously improve the consistency of any blue non-Chalice deck, finding lands early game, finding FoW early game, shuffling garbage away late game. It will find your better cards in the most efficient way. You can cut the worst cards. I assume you know what the worst 3 cards in your deck are if you have been playing your deck for such a long time.

Should Enchantress run Tarmogoyf because all top8 decks that run green run Tarmogoyf ? Should TES run Force of Will because all top8 decks that run blue run Force of Will ?

No, because it would be stupid.

Each archetype is specific and every card needs to be re-evaluated in its context. Always. There are some very easy calls, but no card is an auto-include.

It just happens that Brainstorm in MUC is one of these examples. As Kadaj correctly explained in the opening posts, there are two kinds of MUC lists; one of them can take advantage of Brainstorm, the other can't. But there is no better list because both have their respective advantages and actual merits, and it would be quite stupid to try to forcefully include Brainstorm in the one who doesn't want it.

Against Goblins my game 1 is OK due to Moat. The manabase is solid because I play only 4 nonbasics. If Goblins were a contender, you could easily add 4 Plague to the sideboard.

I'm sorry but this must be a joke. You're running one Moat with no way to tutor for it except Flash of Insight. You're running only four white mana sources, only one of them is a basic Plains, and you're expecting to be able to have WW open against Goblins ?

I'm not even mentining the fact that getting to four mana, no matter what color they are, against Goblins is actually already the main problem. Simply because they're that fast. Add in land disruption, and seriously, unless you're playing against a really bad player with a really bad list, your Goblin matchup is abysmal. It's crystal clear.

My landstill matchup is favorable. The biggest reason for this is that I have a draw engine, while they have Ideas Unbounds.

Landstill has no draw engine ? Are you forgetting FoF ?

Is MUC good? Not in my opinion, which is why I made these splashes. Your claims of my list being bad are unfounded because you did not test it. You also clearly did not even read the whole decklist before posting. I hope you will read my post and list carefully before replying again. You disappoint me.

As ebitten implied, the problem is the obvious inadequation between your general statements and the list you've posted.

Just looking at your list is enough to know you have no game against Goblins. Once again, your only hope's a freakin' 4cc spell that requires a double WW splash. And removal whose efficiency relies on the number of splash colors you're having on the board. Seriously.

Also, claiming that you have a good game against Landstill with the sole justification that "the biggest reason is that they have no draw engine" is another preposterous / ridiculous statement in every possibly imaginable way.

Brainstorm doesn't relevantly improve your draws? Of course it does, it is the reason to play the card. I am sure most people that play Brainstorm will agree with me here.

Aluren, Solidarity, TES, UGw Threshold. Those are the built decks I have that run Brainstorm and that I frequently play. Brainstorm is a central piece in the strategy of each of them, and I still don't agree with you. The permanent-based MUC Kadaj posted is consistent enough as it is. Adding Brainstorm would not be a smart move because the deck simply wouldn't appreciate it. The power of this list is that the answers are quite generic. You don't run 1-of silver bullets that you would NEED to find in some very specific scenarios. No, you run 3ofs and 4ofs of very versatile answers (Propaganda, B2B, Shackles each hinder many many decks) that will all fit your needs in most cases (barring storm combo, which is the deck's main weakness). Propaganda ? Good against Thresh, Goblins, Landstill, Ichorid, other EtW tokens, any aggro & randomness in general. B2B ? Good against Thresh, Loam, Landstill and randomness in general, useful against Gob (they do run at least 8-10 non-basic). Shackles ? Good against Thresh, Goblins, any aggro & randomness in general. Keg ? Same thing + any kind of EtW/Zombie tokens.

Vedalken Shackles is weak in my opinion (otherwise I would play it), I prefer Moat. I will gladly take one possible dead card (Moat) when my opponents lands don't untap anymore, or tap a nonbasic to cast it. I will win anyway if my opponent has tapped his nonbasic lands and B2B hits.

I'm not sure if there's supposed to be a link between the two parts of this paragraph.

[Maëlig]

If you need proof, please check all top8 decks that run blue and don't run Chalice of the Void. I probably can't come up with better "proof". You can cut one land, then cut 3 other cards. Brainstorm will obviously improve the consistency of any blue non-Chalice deck, finding lands early game, finding FoW early game, shuffling garbage away late game. It will find your better cards in the most efficient way. You can cut the worst cards. I assume you know what the worst 3 cards in your deck are if you have been playing your deck for such a long time.
If Stifle is the only notable reason not to play Fetchlands, then you should definately play them. You can often play around Stifle also. Brainstorm doesn't relevantly improve your draws? Of course it does, it is the reason to play the card. I am sure most people that play Brainstorm will agree with me here.

I fully agree with Eldariel on this one (and on most things he said). I'll add that stifle is not the only problem. A resolved blood moon makes 11 of your lands produce uncolored mana. Plus the obvious dyssinergy with B2B that has already been mentionned. That's a little too much just to run a vanilla-cantrip, if you ask me.

Again, have you tested it? My landstill matchup is favorable. The biggest reason for this is that I have a draw engine, while they have Ideas Unbounds.

WTF? You realize most landstills run 4 standstill in addition to 2 to 4 FoF, right?

Your list is not bad by any means, and it does have some interesting interractions, but it seems very much like a sub-optimal landstill to me.

[Kadaj]

Just because everyone says it's true does not make it true. Just because everyone plays Brainstorm doesn't mean you absolutely should. For example, you claim I should know the three worst cards in my deck. I built my deck precisely so that I wouldn't have three worst cards. My build is so redundant that there's very little classification necessary. And, having played it so much, I can assure you there are no changes I want to make to my list at this date.

Next, I don't need to test your list to know that your gameplan is awful. A 4cc enchantment that relies on a double splash is your buffer against Goblins? You've got to be kidding me. I've tested enough against Goblins to know that you will never get that to work. Next, your Landstill matchup is not favorable. They have no draw engine? Right, so the Standstill that prevented you from playing spells for at least a turn if you want to turn it into Ideas Unbound, as you put it, clearly doesn't count. Or the FoF that they followed up with obviously doesn't count as a draw engine.

I advise you go read the New Member FAQ at The Mana Drain. It clearly explains why you do not have to test every idea to know whether or not it's good or bad.

If you think MUC's gameplan is so bad, why has it procured enough Top 8s to enter the DTB forum on multiple occasions? Clearly, seeing as you claim that Brainstorm's numerous Top 8 apperances are utter proof, that should be proof that you're wrong about MUC being weak.

Anyway, Brainstorm is only as good as the cards it draws you. When it draws you exactly the same cards you had in your hand in the first place what have you achieved? Especially considering all of the weaknesses of Fetchlands, much as you would like to pretend they don't exist, the fact that my list already has redundancy and consistency in the extreme means that making concessions to fit Brainstorm in is a foolish exercise. Besides, according to your own argument, you haven't tested my list, so how would you know whether or not it needs Brainstorm?

[Illissius]

To be honest, I don't entirely agree with either of you guys. On the one hand, the major reason to play MUC over any other control deck is Back to Basics (along with your own manabase stability), and Cunning Wish -> Enlightened Tutor -> Back to Basics is not exactly the same thing. That being said, I think a U/w(/b?) build splashing for Swords and Decree while playing a manabase of (almost) entirely fetchlands and basics plus the normal amount of Back to Basics is a perfectly interesting possibility.

On the other hand, I think the onus really should be on any player not playing Brainstorm to show why that is a good idea. Arguing that Brainstorm doesn't belong in the deck because the deck doesn't have shuffle effects (while correct for a deck which can't reasonably have shuffle effects) is stupid here, because Brainstorm and fetchlands are a package. If you say that the life loss, Stifle, and Moon vulnerability of fetchlands outweigh the advantages of Brainstorm, then you at least have a valid argument, but that is a tough sell. (The other argument you could use would be with a fast aggro deck that doesn't want to waste tempo by playing draw spells, but that doesn't apply here). And there is no viable deck so redundant that it wouldn't want Brainstorm. If Brainstorm were red, Burn would play it. MUC has a lot of variance in how good its cards are in a given situation, against a given deck. When aggro is beating you down, you want board control and not counterspells; against combo you want disruption and threats, not board control; in the late game you want Fact or Fiction and not Ancestral Vision; against some decks, you want Back to Basics, against others, you really don't; and so on. Brainstorm isn't a simple cantrip. Once you recognize that cards aren't either "dead", where you might as well not have even drawn them and they're like -1 card advantage for you, or "not dead" where they're equally useful, but that all cards move on a continuous scale of usefulness according to the card and the situation, you must recognize that Brainstorm gains you card advantage.

For example, you claim I should know the three worst cards in my deck. I built my deck precisely so that I wouldn't have three worst cards.

Here, you touch on a very interesting argument in Magic theory. The argument goes that there is always a worst card. Against any given expected metagame, if you total up the usefulness of each card against each matchup taking into account how often you expect to play against it, you will end up with a card whose total usefulness is less than the others. This is the exact argument people use to justify the fact the 60 cards in a deck is always right, and anything more than 60 is always wrong: your deck has a worst card in it, and if you cut it, you will be more likely to draw the better cards, and your deck will be better. In recent times there has been some recognition that, while this may technically be correct, it is not always definitive, because humans aren't supercomputers with perfect knowledge. While your deck may technically always have a card in it which is the worst, it is not always (even usually, maybe ever) possible to know for sure which one it is. And in this case, you may be better off going with 61 or even 62 cards and accepting that your deck will be marginally worse than it theoretically could be, than taking the risk of making your deck significantly worse if you end up cutting the wrong card. Here, though, the question isn't cutting the deck down to 56 cards; it's cutting the deck to 56 cards and adding four Brainstorms, a card which has significant positive value and will very, very likely be overall "better" than whatever cards you decide are the worst, even if you're wrong and they're only the second, third, or fourth worst.

Since all of this is centered around things which can't be exactly quantified (though very much of Magic is like that) -- the "usefulness" of a card, the card advantage Brainstorm gains, the liability of having fetchlands, and so on -- it's possible that you are actually right about whether Brainstorm belongs in the deck. But given the above, I am rather sceptical, and I think anyone else has a perfect right to also be sceptical. (Beyond a point, though, if neither side is capable of convincing the other or moving the argument forward in any way, continuing it is sort of worthless.)

[Melwis]

Here, you touch on a very interesting argument in Magic theory. The argument goes that there is always a worst card. Against any given expected metagame, if you total up the usefulness of each card against each matchup taking into account how often you expect to play against it, you will end up with a card whose total usefulness is less than the others. This is the exact argument people use to justify the fact the 60 cards in a deck is always right, and anything more than 60 is always wrong: your deck has a worst card in it, and if you cut it, you will be more likely to draw the better cards, and your deck will be better. In recent times there has been some recognition that, while this may technically be correct, it is not always definitive, because humans aren't supercomputers with perfect knowledge. While your deck may technically always have a card in it which is the worst, it is not always (even usually, maybe ever) possible to know for sure which one it is. And in this case, you may be better off going with 61 or even 62 cards and accepting that your deck will be marginally worse than it theoretically could be, than taking the risk of making your deck significantly worse if you end up cutting the wrong card. Here, though, the question isn't cutting the deck down to 56 cards; it's cutting the deck to 56 cards and adding four Brainstorms, a card which has significant positive value and will very, very likely be overall "better" than whatever cards you decide are the worst, even if you're wrong and they're only the second, third, or fourth worst.

Since all of this is centered around things which can't be exactly quantified (though very much of Magic is like that) -- the "usefulness" of a card, the card advantage Brainstorm gains, the liability of having fetchlands, and so on -- it's possible that you are actually right about whether Brainstorm belongs in the deck. But given the above, I am rather sceptical, and I think anyone else has a perfect right to also be sceptical. (Beyond a point, though, if neither side is capable of convincing the other or moving the argument forward in any way, continuing it is sort of worthless.)

That was very interesting to read :)

Ayways, this is my opinion on Brainstorm:

If you look at Brainstorm itself and what it would do in Kadajs list I agree it isn't at all the card it could be simply because the deck lacks shuffle effects. But you need to look at what the card you cut Brainstorm for does aswell. This would probably end up being Ancestral Vision. Now, Proz0r is correct (if you ask me) when he says that this card is absolutely nuts when you have it in your starting hand. But once you've hit lategame (which is MUC's goal isn't it?) Vision has suddenly turned into complete crapness except being FoW food.

And going back to Brainstorm. I said that having Visions in the starting hand was nuts but having Brainstorm is too since it will help you get a much needed FoW or Foil should your opponent play something devastating the first turn.

If I where to make some changes on Kadajs list (not saying they are the correct ones) it would proably be something like:

- 4 Ancestral Vision (Only good in the starting hand imo)

-1 Foil (3 seems like overkill to me. If you want more first turn answers I would rely on Force Spike or Spell Snare)

+ 3 Brainstorm (Le'ts you know what you will be drawing the next few turns, good versus discard and helps you get a crucial FoW/Foil in the starting hand should you need one).

+ 2 Spell Snare/Force Spike

I haven't tested Foil at all so this may be the wrong thing to do but just looking at the card makes me think 3 is simply to much. And since the cards I replace it with will still make you have first turn answers I don't think it can all be that bad. But these are just my opinions and since I understand Kadaj has tested MUC alot more than I have so his choices might be the correct ones.

[Mirrislegend]

Given the lists and discussion, I'm personally favoring the permanent based one. However, Spell Snare basically reads: "Counter every dominant card in the format" and thus begs for a slot. Was it tested Kadaj?

[Brehn]

Yes, a very simple reason. What would you cut for it? Foil serves a specific role, once again, that Spell Snare cannot fill. Namely, an early game pitch-counter that has the flexibility to be utilized in the late game as well. Yes, Spell Snare is good against a lot, but Foil is more or less good against everything and hits a much wider range of targets.

If I had unlimited space obviously I'd include Spell Snare, but seeing as I don't, I can't.

Also, I laughed at this one:

"Counter every dominant card in the format"

Syff.

[Kadaj]

Putting the burden of proof, as it were, on me is perfectly justified in this case, considering Brainstorm is almost ubiquitous in this format where it can fit. However, I'm arguing two things. One, adding Brainstorm doesn't improve the consistency of my build, and the disadvantages of having to add Fetchlands to enable one card that isn't that strong in my build in the first place isn't worth it. While it is very true that in a given situation there will always be a worst card (B2B against Mono-Red Burn, or Propaganda against something that plays absolutely no creatures, for example), I do believe that you can achieve a degree of redudancy against a field, as opposed to a specific deck, where there isn't one card that is actually worse than the others.

Anyway, one of the major problems in this argument is that I don't rate Brainstorm nearly as high as you do. I do not believe burn would play Brainstorm if it were Red. Read The Philosophy of Fire by Mike Flores as to my reasoning there. Yes, Brainstorm is very powerful in decks that have many variable effects that have to be juggled (something like Full English Breakfast, for example), or combo decks like Bomberman that are looking for a specific set of cards, or a deck like Threshold that needs a steady stream of threats and doesn't have the manabase to play stuff like FoF with any consistency. However, Brainstorm is not as strong in a deck like Landstill, for example, where many of its cards do the same thing. Is it poor? Of course not! But it's not so ridiculously broken that it's untouchable. That's basically my argument. Brainstorm is not bad in MUC, quite the opposite as Doks build demonstrates, but it isn't amazing either. You should play the best options available, not just options that are decent.

Another thing that bothers me about how people classify Brainstorm is that they try to claim it's "card advantage". No, it's not card advantage. Argue hyperbole, metaphor, whathaveyou, but Brainstorm does not increase the size of your hand. Period. It certainly does gain card quality, and it does it better than anything else for the price of U, but it doesn't gain card advantage. That's why Ancestral Recall is arguably the most broken card ever printed and Brainstorm is 'just' an amazing cantrip. I would infinitely rather have Ancestral Vision than Brainstorm because I place much higher stock in card advantage than card quality. I want to completely barrel over my opponents by constantly having more cards in hand than they do and having a constant stream of threat after threat.

Now, here's where experience comes in. I have tested my current build except with Brainstorm directly replacing Ancestral Vision and fetchlands included as well. And I hated it. This was well before I wrote this primer, or before I even started championing Brainstormless-MUC, so it wasn't like I had inherent bias to think about that point. Why did I hate it? Because it was infinitely weaker in the mid-game. It was much harder to keep up with decks like Goblins because my hand size was constantly around 2 or 3 by the time they were dropping Ringleaders and reloading because I didn't have enough Counterspells to keep their threats off the board. I decided I needed more mid-game muscle, and I decided I would try something radical: Replace Brainstorm with AV. Low and behold, literally every matchup improved with the exception of combo, which got noticeably worse.

Why? Because, once again, I could now compete with decks like Goblins, Chalice Aggro, and Threshold in the mid-game. Instead of having 2 cards in hand I'd have 5 much more often, and chaining AV into FoF and vice-versa ensured that I almost never ran out of cards. Brainstorm just can't replicate that effect. It simply doesn't draw cards, and drawing cards was the effect I needed. Brainstorm provided consistency in and of that I rarely had dead cards in my hand, but more often than not that was because I had almost no cards in my hand at all. Replacing them with Ancestral Vision provided a different kind of consistency. Namely that I almost always had 4+ cards in hand.

So obviously, I decided that AV was integral to my build's success. But I still wasn't entirely comfortable with just cutting Brainstorm, for many of the same reasons we're having this argument right now. I was so convinced that I would have less dead-draws and whatnot that I decided I'd try and fit Brainstorm back in by cutting down to this:

X16 Island
X4 Flooded Strand
X4 Polluted Delta
X4 Brainstorm
X4 Fact or Fiction
X4 Ancestral Vision
X4 Force of Will
X4 Counterspell
X2 Mana Leak (I hadn't tested Foil yet, these would be Foils now if I did it again)
X3 Propaganda
X3 Powder Keg
X3 Back To Basics
X2 Vedalken Shackles
X1 Morphling
X1 Meloku (I hadn't yet come to the conclusion that Meloku was unnecessary)
X1 Rainbow Efreet

Yet, low and behold, the matchup against Goblins and Threshold were both worse now that I put Brainstorm back in. Fetchlands lost me multiple games against Threshold when they would be stifled, or I had to play around stifle which cost me valuable tempo, and there were 3 games out of 10 that I actually have recorded where I lost to Goblins because I lost 3 life through fetchlands. Obviously it's hard to say what would've happened otherwise because Fetchlands also shuffle the deck, and I did get the Brainstorm interaction twice in one of those games, so it's not totally conclusive. However, it pissed me off enough to at least put it in the back of my mind.

Then, something else kept happening that was basically the nail in Brainstorm's proverbial coffin. I realized how much Brainstorm sucks when you don't have a fetchland. Seriously, every time I drew a Brainstorm without a fetchland I wanted to punch something. No the effect isn't that bad in a vacuum, but in context it was like having a blank card that required me to pay U just to get rid of the damn thing.

At this point I decided I'd figure out if Brainstorm was really worth it in the matchups I thought it would help. So I tested 20 games against Goblins, preboard. 10 without Brainstorm and 10 with, and I recorded the number of Powder Kegs, Propagandas, and B2Bs I drew over the course of each game, in addition to the number of games I endured either mana screw or mana flood.

With Brainstorm the numbers were as follows:
13 Powder Kegs
12 Propaganda
6 B2Bs
1 game with mana flood, 0 games with mana screw.

Without Brainstorm the numbers were:
11 Powder Keg
14 Propaganda
8 B2Bs
2 games with mana flood, 0 games with mana screw.

So obviously the signs here aren't blatantly conclusive. I did find more Propagandas without Brainstorm than I did with it, but I also found more B2Bs and less Powder Kegs. Keg is important early against Goblins because it clears away Aether Vial, and too many B2Bs is irritating because there are definitely situations that they don't help and they are useless in multiples. Yet, there was something else I thought was fairly important. With Brainstorm I went 3-7, without it I went 5-5. Yes, the sample size is small, but I came to some conclusions based on these testings numbers. First, Brainstorm did not immensely improve the consistency of my build, and second, I actually did better against a matchup I was specifically targeting without it than I did with it.

I did this testing a long time ago, and I didn't share the specific numbers because I didn't think it was particularly necessary. It is the intensity of this argument that persuaded me otherwise. I'd be glad to engage in testing with anyone interested if you doubt the numbers I've presented here, and I urge you to test it yourselves. Primarily because testing really is the only way to come to conclusive evidence. Conjecture can only go so far.

[Illissius]

I must say that was a hell of a lot more convincing than what you'd posted before, so I'm glad that you did. There's still the possibility of "well, maybe if you cut these cards instead..."* and so on, but then it just comes down to theory versus practice again and practice trumping, and there not being a way to tell without testing it.

As for the theoretical case of Brainstorm in Burn, I don't want to get into a long discussion about that here, but my thinking was that Brainstorm turns land into burn (or burn into land, should the need arise), and bad burn into better burn. A deck with 43 Lightning Bolts and 17 lands might not want Brainstorms, but actual Burn decks have Bolts in them as well as Incinerates and Magma Jets, and as well as Fireblasts and Prices of Progress, and also the last 2-4 cards which no one can ever seem to agree on.

EDIT - And I agree with you about Brainstorm versus Ancestral Vision. While Brainstorm may gain card advantage (and let's not get bogged down in the semantics of "card advantage" versus "card quality" when we clearly mean the same thing by either in this case), it's also true that Ancestral Vision gains a lot more card advantage. (Looking at it my way, (on average) Brainstorm may gain an effective +0.5 while Vision gains +2; your way, two cards where previously there were no cards is quite the gain in card quality.)

* for the record, relative to the most recent list, my guess would be an Island, a Fact, and 2/3 of a Foil, a Keg, and a B2B

[Richard]

Thanks for the wonderful primer, Kadaj!

One question:
You've tested Curse of Chains in a (completely?) different build.
Do you already have the results?

Not that I think they belong in MUC, I'm just curious.

[Kadaj]

I'd be glad to actually go test my list again with the cuts you've advised. In fact, I fully plan on doing so at some point in the near future. I'll record the same numbers I posted and I'll do it across a few matchups instead of just Goblins. Those are results I look forward to seeing.

At any rate, the Brainstorm debate is hardly something that's ever going to be 'solved' in the sense of a mathematical equation. The only thing I can think of that would really push the debate in either direction would be a string of Top 8 results pointing one way or the other (and I fully hope I'll actually be traveling to some tournaments over the summer, so we'll see how that goes).

Beyond that I think debate should be focused on two things, regarding permanent oriented MUC:

1. The Foil slot.
2. The sideboard

The Foil slot because it's historically been the one that gets shuffled around a lot, and I've probably tried everything imaginable there. One thing I want to really experiment with is whether or not that slot should even be a counterspell. Do we really need 10+? Or does the loss of countering power hurt the control matchup too much?

And the sideboard because, while sideboards are obviously customizable to a specific metagame, I do think we can come to some conclusions as to what a good SB for the general metagame would be.

EDIT:
The Curse of Chains build really didn't work out because the more I tested it the more I realized I should just be playing Uwb control. It was decent, but it didn't really fit the deck's gameplan and it didn't really improve any matchups.

[Illissius]

I'll just note that I don't have a great deal of personal experience with MUC, so I'm a lot less sure about those specific cuts than about Brainstorm theory in general (which is why I only mentioned it as a footnote). If you'll test it nonetheless, then that's great, and I look forward to seeing the results. The reasoning was that Brainstorm will draw you more Islands when you need them, that it also gains card quality/advantage (if not as much, but there's four of them) so one Fact is an appropriate cut (and, again, it'll also draw more Ancestrals and Facts), and then the last two were just my best uneducated guess at what the two worst cards in the deck might be.

As far as the Foil slot goes, given that we have two problems -- "what do we cut for Brainstorm?", and "what do we put in the Foil slot?" -- I'm not sure what the right name for this is (maybe "cutting the Gordian knot?"), but "putting Brainstorm in the Foil slot" becomes hard to ignore. In that case, -3 Foil, -7-9 Island, +4 Brainstorm, +6-8 fetchlands. (Given that fetchlands weaken Foil somewhat, a Brainstorm build might want to have something else besides Foil in that slot regardless.)

[Kadaj]

The issue then becomes what effect we want out of that slot. Can we afford to go down to 8 Counterspells to fit in Brainstorm? Does adding a further card-quality mechanism make up for the loss in control density? I don't know the answer to those questions, although I do intend to find out. Still, my gut feeling is that if we're going to fit Brainstorm in, cutting the additional counterspell is not how to do it. I think having 10+ counters give MUC an advantage over other control that is both extremely important and very hard to replicate. Plus it allows you to fight aggro-control more effectively, and Foil in particular is solid against both Combo and Aggro.

[Illissius]

MUC with only 8 counterspells definitely feels odd, given the stereotype of it as "the deck full of counterspells", and that blue is widely seen as the color worst at board control (maybe after green). The confluence of Back to Basics, the best card drawing, and a nonzero amount of counterspells may still be a good justification, however.

[Angantyr]

I'm testing the deck for a while. I tried Brainstorm + Fetchlands to enable Engineered Explosives. In the games I always wanted Powder Keg instead of EE, but I dont know what to replace Brainstorm with. I dont like Ancestral Vision, but I don't see a good alternative to play instead. Accumulated Knowledge was my favourite carddraw, especialy combined with Fact or Fiction. But the two mana in its casting cost appear to be too much. Ancestral Vision is no real carddraw, ist a refiller and you have to wait too long for your cards.
I see you flaming in half of the thread and I hope there will be some hepful answers instead.

[Kadaj]

You're pretty much right on all counts. Accumulated Knowledge isn't quite good enough, and there isn't a good alternative to Ancestral Vision in that slot if you're looking for card draw. There isn't a whole lot of flexibility there, considering the other options like Think Twice, Accumulated Knowledge, etc, are all far weaker than we can afford to play. If you don't like Ancestral Vision that much, I advise you look into Doks build, which doesn't play it and doesn't want it.

[Illissius]

What about boarding Ophidians (or even Riptide Pilferer) against control and such? They're going to board out removal.
Primary obstacles: Mishra's Factory, Tarmogoyf

EDIT - Another interesting-seeming card is Dream Tides.

[Maëlig]

What about boarding Ophidians (or even Riptide Pilferer) against control and such? They're going to board out removal.
Primary obstacles: Mishra's Factory, Tarmogoyf

I think augury adept would be better fit for that role, as it's also decent against storm combo. Not sure if it's worth running in the sb tough, control is not a MU we are very concerned about...

[ParkerLewis]

EDIT - Another interesting-seeming card is Dream Tides.

It looks like an overcosted and less effective Propaganda. What would be the point of this card (i might be missing something here) ?