What card do you think is good against blue?

[ahg113]

Salutations folks,

So whenever a deck is being conceptualized, one of the realistic answers it has to have is for blue. Whether or not that’s maindecking or sideboarding, what are some of the better/playable hate cards for the color?

This is more along the lines of SCD, but a multitude of them in one spot.

Obviously, the best card against blue is Great Sable Stag. But aside from that, what are the reasonable cards to include in SBs, or maindeck? The more applicable the card is against a wider field the better, but limiting blue’s ability to be jerks should be foremost.

Off the top of my head I come up with:

Red
REB
Pyroblast
Blood Moon
Magnetic Island
Active Volcano
Goblin Piledriver

Green
Choke
Gaea’s Herald
Spellbane Centaur
Carpet of Flowers
Gaea’s Revenge
Thrun, the Last Troll
Autumn’s Veil


White
Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
Grand Abolisher

Artifact
Defense Grid

Multicolor
Spiteful Visions
Vexing Shusher


What else is out there? Cards like Bloodghast or Demigod of Revenge are good too because they don’t “care” about being countered.

I’m trying to shape up a sideboard in RWB, but am also just interested in general. My meta is heavily blue influenced.

Cheers,
the more playable the suggestion, the better

[frogczar]

I like Scald in addition to everything you listed.

Personally, I would like a reverse version of Chill for red to hose blue with.

[Rizso]

Always liked the 1mana discard effects against blue. Thoughtseize, Inquisition of kozilek, duress and Cabal Therapy

[TsumiBand]

Given people's shitty fear of Blue dominance, I don't understand why REB and friends don't see as much play as StP. No one's ever been able to explain this particular intangibility of Magic to me; people will rock StP even when it sucks, thinking "oh if it's bad i'll just side it out g2-g3", but people won't do a 4x maindeck REB. What's the fundamental difference between "Creatures are good so play Swords" and "Blue is good so play Red Elemental Blast"?

[Tammit67]

Because removing a creature can visibily save your life, while countering a brainstorm does not usually promote board position

[ahg113]

Given people's shitty fear of Blue dominance, I don't understand why REB and friends don't see as much play as StP. No one's ever been able to explain this particular intangibility of Magic to me; people will rock StP even when it sucks, thinking "oh if it's bad i'll just side it out g2-g3", but people won't do a 4x maindeck REB. What's the fundamental difference between "Creatures are good so play Swords" and "Blue is good so play Red Elemental Blast"?

Glassing over the opinion of people’s ‘fear’ of Blue, there is a fundamental difference between StP and REB. It’s a matter of resources, StP excels in maximum effect for minimal effort. Because the opponent sank resources into a board presence that is now removed, the player using StP is ahead. It’s possible that the StP could be compromised (mom effect, counter, etc.), then there is just a wasted mana. When StP is bad, it will remove a man-land at least, or a token for the heck of it.

Contrary, REB is a dead card against all things not blue. While the destroy blue permanent is very relevant, you’re using your “protection spell” as removal, if it gets countered, you’re SoL. The reason you planned on using REB in the first place is to fight counterspells. If it will be used for protection, the player is set back a turn. For as long as the player has the REB, all of his spells are increased by R. And if the blue opponent has more than one counterspell available to cast, then again the player would be SoL.

But I do like the question of why REB/Pyroblast isn’t maindecked more often if the player is weak to blue.

I also like the single black discard effects. But those tend to be boss against anything not dredge/reanimator.

Cheers,
there are no natural food stuffs that are blue

[CorpT]

I think the more relevant question is: Why is Maverick decent to good against various Blue decks. And how can that be duplicated/translated to other decks. Because it doesn't play specific Anti-Blue cards. I think going down that path is a trap that is going to lead you to playing suboptimal cards, even in boards in an effort to deal with something that isn't the root cause of why you're losing.

[Nonex]

I'm currently running 4 Carpet of Flowers in all my sideboards, except in Enchantress, where 3 of them go MD. Card is busted and absurdly underplayed.

[Deviruchi]

I would add to your list Xantid Swarm, Orim's Chant, Silence.

I'm also with Rizso, discard is very good vs blue as a support + counters / removal / bombs. I can also answer this topic: play BWG Deadguy Ale :) When I played it I had very possitive results vs U.

[Finn]

Hymn to Tourach wrecks Show and Tell but only mediocre against decks that smell like aggro.

The thing that annoys me about searching for answers to blue as a color is that it is usually better at co-opting the very measures that beat it than any nonblue deck. Tarmo is a typical example. Cards that buck this trend extremely hard to find, and usually take a nuanced approach to figure out.

Thalia is stupendous in that role because she does not force her deck to be narrow and gets at the heart of what makes blue tick. Aka she won't work with search and counters.

Life from the Loam is actually an anti blue card albeit slow. Blue decks can use it just fine but the design of such a deck is tricky and relegated to slow control. Blue is usually better off with its usual stuff.

That's about all I can think of for cards not relegated to the SB.

[Koby]

Strategic ways to beat blue:

Redundancy
Consistency
Threat density

Zoo, for the most part, is very adept at dispatching Blue decks. The problem with Zoo however is the lack of disruption. Tribal also has good matchups against Blue. Maybe the broad definition of "Blue" isn't sufficient to address properly. Within "Blue" exists three branches - tempo, combo, and control. Fighting "Blue" in the broad sense is a worthless effort because you really need to be able to beat all three varieties. Some decks have a better matchup against say Tempo than against Combo.

What people usually refer to "Blue" in the classical sense is control with heavy counters and some cantrips. We haven't seen this style in Legacy very often in the last 2 years outside of Stoneblade and Landstill-esque variants.

[lavafrogg]

Seedtime screws most counters and brainstorms, you just have to be a boss to play it.

[CorpT]

Strategic ways to beat blue:

Redundancy
Consistency
Threat density

Zoo, for the most part, is very adept at dispatching Blue decks. The problem with Zoo however is the lack of disruption. Tribal also has good matchups against Blue. Maybe the broad definition of "Blue" isn't sufficient to address properly. Within "Blue" exists three branches - tempo, combo, and control. Fighting "Blue" in the broad sense is a worthless effort because you really need to be able to beat all three varieties. Some decks have a better matchup against say Tempo than against Combo.

What people usually refer to "Blue" in the classical sense is control with heavy counters and some cantrips. We haven't seen this style in Legacy very often in the last 2 years outside of Stoneblade and Landstill-esque variants.

This is the better version of what I was thinking. Much better.

[ddt15]

I'm surprised noone has said Aether Vial.

[nedleeds]

If blue were only control ... or only aggro ... or only combo ... it might be easy to answer. But blue is the best aggro color with the best creature, it's the best control color and pairs easily with the best removal color, it also enables all of the (non-belcher) combo decks by salvaging bad hands, protecting with brainstorm and occasionally (as with SnS) protecting the combo on the stack.

The best cards against blue are other blue cards since blue is so absurdly versatile.

[DrJones]

Cavern of Souls. Elvish Spirit Guide is useful on its own and also pretty good against decks playing Daze.

[Rizso]

What makes blue so great isnt whats in their own color but rather what they can splash in with duals and fetchlands. There isnt really much successful monoblue decks but rather blue-fetch/dualland decks. What makes Thrun so good against blue isnt just that it cant be countered its also good against both lightning bolt and stp's.

An other card I like against blue decks are wastelands.

[Vacrix]

Gitaxian Probe. Don't see Force? Drop Emrakul, go.

Oh and Extirpate or Surgical Extraction can be pretty brutal. Hit Jace early with a discard spell, follow up and remove the rest of them.

[Awaclus]

I think the more relevant question is: Why is Maverick decent to good against various Blue decks. And how can that be duplicated/translated to other decks. Because it doesn't play specific Anti-Blue cards. I think going down that path is a trap that is going to lead you to playing suboptimal cards, even in boards in an effort to deal with something that isn't the root cause of why you're losing.

Because it's an aggro deck, and blue has problems with those.

[Piceli89]

Because it's an aggro deck, and blue has problems with those.

Uncorrect answers. Because it's an aggro deck where most of the creatures represent a threat providing advantages that has to be removed as soon as possible. Mother of Runes will blank removals, Knight will begin fetching Wastelands, Ooze will take away Snapcaster and Goyf fodder; above all, Thalia will provide asymmetrical slow-down. In this scenario, you can't realistically fight each of them going 1x1 through Counterspells. You need parallel form of heavy mass removal (Terminus) or continuous one (Grim Lavamancer), or eventually you'll just lose to their redundancy.

Zoo is an aggro deck, but a modern blue deck wouldn't have problem crushing it, because all its beaters are vanilla dorks. In fact, it's dead.