[Deck] Mono-Blue Control (MUC) [Archive] - Page 2

Jason

09-10-2008, 08:18 PM

Based on the last suggestion, I'm yearning for the Sower deck to come back to discussion just so I can have something not horribly atrocious that takes my mind off what I just read...

I'm surprised no one made the most obvious comment of all. Only 11 Islands are in the deck, so a turn two Shackles does nothing except steal...Lackey? A 1/2 Tarmogoyf? Yeah. Good choices. You can't even get someone's Mishra's Factory.

Also, it was said, but not emphasized nearly enough: only 4 cards with converted mana cost of 1. If you intend to succeed in setting up Counterbalance/Top efficiently, you seriously need to rethink that idea. Sure Top can flip, but then your opponent is open to casting anything out of the 1 casting cost range. Plus, like it was said, your curve is all over the place to try Counterbalance shenanigans.

And for the most awesome comment of all:

How is staff/colossus better than morphling? I really hope your joking. The only thing morphling has that colossus does not is a set of mana intensive abilities that means it can't be plowed. That problem could be easily solved by chalice and/or counterbalance which is also good all around I hear. Aside from that colossus kills quicker and is really only vulnerable to 1 type of removal whereas morphling can be killed with mass removal and possibly targeted removal if you are low on mana. The point is not even colossus because with this build you could put almost ANY creature into play that you want for 3U. Why would you say morphling is better than that?

I have seen a Morphling get Swords to Plowshares'd ONCE and it was because Morphling was cast in desperation and the opponent had 3 StPs in hand. Morphling gets killed by mass removal, but that is why you have counterspells.

And you say Morphling is mana-intensive. Hard-casting Colossus costs 11. Proteus Staff costs 3 to activate + Mishra's Factory = 4 mana (1 of which is now gone) and Polymorph costs 4 + Mishra's Factory = 5 mana (1 of which is now gone). This will probably leave you tapped out leaving Colossus to get Swords faster than Dark Confidant.

Morphling wins games; if you want your Colossus shenanigans, go play with Gamekeeper.

I hate playing against Landstill - it's my number 1 arch nemesis - and MUC decks that will get destroyed by Landstill are not favored by me at all.

Kadaj

09-12-2008, 09:09 PM

I will succinctly explain why your build is poor, Black. This is essentially because you are creating a MUC build that isn't running Back to Basics. Just to impress this fact upon everyone here, the only reason this deck is even remotely viable is because of Back To Basics. Period. If that card was never printed, there would be almost no incentive not to play more than one color for stuff like Swords, or Deed, or whatever else you want to play.

Also, please, please, please read the thread and the numerous times it has been explained why Counterbalance is garbage in this deck. To summarize, briefly, it sucks in MUC because it is a control deck. Counterbalance is not a hard lock, is mana-intensive, and requires a curve that this deck simply doesn't support. MUC is also completely incapable of actually making the tempo-advantage created by Counter-Top actually matter, because by the time you actually win, it is very likely your opponent will have found a way around it.

At any rate, my advice is simply to actually read the discussion that's gone on in this thread. Just about every suggestion you've made has been tried before, and been demonstrated to be either notably sub-optimal, or just plain poor.

Maëlig

09-19-2008, 08:49 AM

Could Relic of Progenitus (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=129028) be the MD option we've been waiting for to fill those 3 open slots in the permanent-based MUC? It can help in problematic MUs (loam, ichorid) and can shrink goyfs if need be, at worst cyling for 1+1. If not MD, this is surely better than crypt in the SB.

4eak

09-19-2008, 09:46 AM

Nope, doesn't belong in the main. If you have to maindeck this card, then you are playing the wrong deck for your metagame.

As a sideboard choice, I have to admit, I kinda' like it. I'm not convinced it is better than Tormod's, but it deserves testing.

peace,
4eak

Jason

09-19-2008, 07:48 PM

I don't know; possibly it could go main deck. It does strengthen the Ichorid matchup, but that alone isn't a reason to run it; however, the fact it cantrips means it doesn't hurt anything. And unlike Crypt, it actually does something against Tarmogoyf too. This card looks to be much better than Crypt or the ever so slow Phyrexian Furnace (which I have seen play because of the whole cantrip thing). I really like this, but I probably won't have it main deck. Saying that, it seems like a definite sideboard to me.

4eak

09-19-2008, 09:41 PM

however, the fact it cantrips means it doesn't hurt anything.

I realize you aren't running it in the main (good call), but I want to emphasize the fact that there is a cost to running this in the main. The opportunity cost of not running a flat out better spell is very important. You lose functionality by taking away any of the more relevant cards to MUC. A 2-mana cantrip that can do neat graveyard tricks is way overpriced--you have better things to do with 2 mana and 1 out of 60 cards.

I'm definitely all for cantrips, but this is just too expensive and it isn't an instant.

peace,
4eak

DeathwingZERO

09-19-2008, 10:00 PM

I like it in the Sideboard, but I haven't been having too much trouble with the maindeck playing against Ichorid. Propaganda and Keg are absolute tech here, so keeping an opening hand with 3 lands + either is basically an auto keep regardless of the other 3 cards. I've been doing almost the same against Goblins, though I do really like to see a Powder Keg or FoW in addition, just because Lackey or Vial are such annoyances in general, as I've found a lot of the time SGC just rapes me if I am sitting behind a Propaganda wall.

I've been testing a very close build to Kadaj's, running 2 Morphling and Keiga, Tide Star as my kills. Keiga has been very good to me against Thresh and Landstill variants, being able to take an opposing goyf as long as I can keep it from getting StP'd. And even if it does, Morphling almost always won't, and can just chump Goyf all day. A solid 5/5 flying body also makes for a good threat in general, allowing Morphling to be a giant wall if need be, and the 6 mana has never been an issue, since I almost always draw it late game.

So what would people suggest for a sideboard with a pretty diverse field? Last tournament had ITF variants, Ichorid, Goblins, Burn, Landstill, Thresh, Aggro Loam, Rock variants, etc.

I was considering:

4 Chill
4 REB
4 Declaration of Nought (still haven't done any testing with it)
3 Tormod's Crypt

Arne

09-20-2008, 04:43 AM

I'm going to try declaration of naught as well... I think it'll do fine against loam and other decks relying on an engine.

About Relic of Progenitus; I'm going to test that card as well. I'm not sure as how it will do against Ichorid, 'cause I think it might be te slow. On the other hand, against thresh, loam and other slower decks abusing the GY, I think it's going to be a killer card. I also like the cantrip part :D

Maëlig

09-20-2008, 04:59 AM

Declaration of Naught sure seems nice against life from the loam... Isn't it a bit narrow, though? Do you ever miss that extra shackles and Jace against control-ish decks?
Also, crypt is pretty bad in this deck against ichorid. Sure, it's still crypt so it will buy you time (maybe enough to drop a propaganda and seal the game), but since you have absolutely no clock to back it up (except for the threat of droping a propaganda, but it can be delt with), ichorid will play slowly and force you to use it as soon as possible. Relic is overall better, and is still of comparable strength to crypt in this MU imho since it can also deal with this situation. Besides, relic can remove all graveyards on turn 2, which is usually enough against ichorid g2 and 3 when they are a bit slower.
I agree it's probably not a great MD option though, cantrips are generally terrible in MUC that is already a slow deck by nature. It's replacing crypt in my SB as a 4-off, however. No question about it.

Mantis

09-20-2008, 08:50 AM

I guess I'll chime in to make a couple of points. First of all: do not run junk like Proteus Staff/Colossus combo. It requires a lot of setup and slots, but has no advantage over just running a creature like Morphling.

Also, Kira Great Glasspinner is horrible. It's like a 2/2 flyer for 3 mana, what in godsname is that thing doing in a control deck? What is Kira going to control? Your Sower of Temptations not getting STP-ed? Why not just run another counter in that place then? At least a counter does something when you don't happen to draw a Sower. Just yesterday I played against a MUC deck on MWS who ran Kira, needless to say he lost. I had such a lot of time because Kira did not apply any pressure at all and was able to Deed 3 for 1. If that Kira was something that, you know, did apply some pressure or disrupted me in any way, the game would have gotten much harder for me to win, as we were both out of gas.

Stop suggesting stuff like Manlands, splashes etcetera. This defeats the purpose of playing MUC in the first place, which is Back to Basics. I mean, B2B is the sole reason most people here are even attempting to build this deck. Without B2B, just play Landstill or ITF, they can run much better cards anyway.

Captain Hammer

09-20-2008, 01:17 PM

// Lands
24 Island

// Creatures
1 Rainbow Efreet
2 Morphling

// Permanents
4 Propaganda
4 Back to Basics
3 Powder Keg
2 Vedalken Shackles

// Instants
4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
4 Fact or Fiction
4 Ancestral Vision

4 Open Slots

So that's the list. Sealed and complete.

The question is, what to play in the four open slots.

Here are some different configurations...

+2 Mana Leak
+1 Powder Keg
+1 Veldalken Shackles

+2 Spell Snare
+1 Capsize
+1 Powder Keg

+2 Negate
+2 Threads of Disloyalty/Control Magic/Sower of Temptation

4 Chalice of the Void

What else?

Jason

09-20-2008, 06:25 PM

You should definitely run 4 Powder Keg in this list. I am certain on that.

Captain Hammer

09-20-2008, 07:03 PM

Another option that I forgot to mention is...

4 Ponder (a cheaper better impulse).

Lets hammer this list down now.

So you think the list should play 4 Powder Keg, okay, got it.

I'm going to go with...

+2 Spell Snare/Mana Leak
+1 Powder Keg
+1 Veldalken Shackles

So now, the relevent question is...

Which is better?

Spell Snare or Mana Leak?

DeathwingZERO

09-20-2008, 07:28 PM

Kadaj

09-20-2008, 09:54 PM

I actually completely cut Ancestral Visions in place of Ponder, and have been thrilled with the change. In nearly all cases Visions has been good, it's either when I've already sealed the game enough so that I just need to get a finisher (which Fact has been amazing at doing for me), or when I know I'm going to run out of card draw in a stalemate, and can afford the turns to wait on it (again, Fact is better here).

Ponder has instead kept my early hands off of drawing dead cards (like 3x Island when I'm already holding 4, and I need utility ASAP), and also allows me to set up the next few turns without worry, if I don't need to shuffle away. Visions was almost always just "well, if I survive long enough off my topdeck, the 3 extra cards might be worth it 4 turns from now". Honestly, I'd suggest Whispers of the Muse over Ancestral at this point, it's just too slow to make good advantage of past turn 1 plays.

You're looking at AV the wrong way. It's not as powerful as FoF, but its not intended to be. It's essentially designed to be FoF 5-8, much the same way Ponder is Brainstorm 5-8 in Threshold. A slightly weaker card designed to provide redundancy. In the board-control build, MUC will drop its hand pretty quickly because you will have a significant number of permanent answers in your hand that will have you either tapping out or close to it in the early game. You absolutely need more than FoF to provide raw CA, or there's really no advantage to playing MUC over ITF or Landstill. AV is absolutely crucial in giving MUC that extra mid to late game power it needs to be competitive in Legacy, and Ponder simply cannot provide that.

Ponder is poor in MUC for the same reasons Brainstorm is. It simply doesn't do enough to further the deck's gameplan, and its major "strength" over AV (smoothing out rough draws) shouldn't really come up, because "rough" draws should be mulliganed in the first place. I also find many of your statements about AV hard to believe, given that they contradict everything I've experienced my stupidly large amount of games with this deck. I almost never complain when I draw AV on turn 5, I just suspend it and reap the benefit when it resolves down the line and puts the game completely out of reach for my opponent. Fact might be "better" in a vacuum, but we can't run 8 Facts. AV also has the huge benefit of being very easy to defend when it resolves, because it doesn't require a mana investment when it resolves which allows you to simply overpower other control decks in counter wars.

DeathwingZERO

09-21-2008, 02:16 AM

The problem I have with AV is that the early game is the most important. Late games 4 FoF is plenty to get yourself keeping up, but early on AV does nothing for you. MUC builds over time have never relied on their opening 7 solely for keeping themselves good for turns 1-5, I just don't see the point of doing it now.

I especially don't like the reason for AV because it basically says "U: Remove this card in your hand from the game for 4 turns. If you are still alive during that upkeep, this spell will return to the stack". It just doesn't seem worth it. Playing against anything with a clock, this is a card disadvantage that is critical, whereas Ponder can at least dig into spells turn 1-2 when you realize what you are up against. Against control, it's not bad, but it also gives them plenty of time to counter it at their whim, since 4 FoF is all you have to back it up.

If your testing has proven otherwise, then by all means run it. I'm just saying I don't see this card being an absolute 4 of for all versions of the board control MUC. In a faster field, the card just isn't up to par in my opinion.

4eak

09-21-2008, 03:09 AM

MUC has a great mid to late game. MUC isn't in great need of a less-than-FoF card like AV to improve an aspect of the game in which it is already dominant.

MUC is in need, however, of a stronger early game. Cards like Ponder and Brainstorm are perfectly acceptable cards to play in MUC. They improve one of MUC's real weaknesses: the early game.

Ponder is poor in MUC for the same reasons Brainstorm is. It simply doesn't do enough to further the deck's gameplan, and its major "strength" over AV (smoothing out rough draws) shouldn't really come up, because "rough" draws should be mulliganed in the first place.

Draw the line for me; where does a "rough" draw begin? Brainstorm and Ponder improve that line. No matter how you make your deck, there will be a place in which you begin to mulligan, and both of these cards will make you mulligan less often.

For deck that is based so much on CA, mulliganing is a sin you want to avoid.

Of course, I don't advocate Brainstorm or Ponder just upon whether I can keep an opening hand, nor do I believe that "smoothing out rough draws" is the sole "major 'strength' over AV" that these cards provide. They do improve the opener, but there is a lot more to these cards.

Frankly, I'm tired of seeing cards like Brainstorm being thought of as the alternative rather than the standard in this archetype. Brainstorm has proven itself in MUC for too long. In reality, cards like AV are the alternative that actually haven't been proven or put up the same results in blue-based control.

If your testing has proven otherwise, then by all means run it. I'm just saying I don't see this card being an absolute 4 of for all versions of the board control MUC. In a faster field, the card just isn't up to par in my opinion.

Absolutely correct.

I'm not saying don't run AV, but it is ludicrous to think that Brainstorm or Ponder aren't very acceptable cards in the same slot.

You absolutely need more than FoF to provide raw CA, or there's really no advantage to playing MUC over ITF or Landstill.

MUC will always have the most stable mana-base of any control deck, especially when it plays B2B. This alone gives it a serious advantage over ITF or Landstill. AV is not what makes this deck good. The stability of the mana-base, uncommon need to mulligan, consistent deck filtering, and least discriminate stack and board control are what make MUC a powerful and unique deck.

Additionally, MUC is really a different deck than those other control archetypes. ITF and Landstill actually possess less control than MUC. They are much more aggressive and tempo oriented decks than MUC. MUC is designed to be a universal control deck (metagamed to everything)--ITF and Landstill just aren't.

This archetype is hardly obsoleted by choosing to run Brainstorm or Ponder instead of AV or similar CA cards.

peace,
4eak

Poron

09-21-2008, 09:37 AM

ParkerLewis

09-21-2008, 09:47 AM

I really don't undestand why this deck doesn't abuse of Chalice of the Void or Meekstone, both tutorable with Trinket Mage.

For anything bigger than 3power you have Meekstone, for anything smaller you have Trinket Mage and Mishra's, and if your opponent plays Wasteland you put 1x Pithing Needle MD tutorable with Trinket.

I far prefer this way to deal with creatures, the only thing you have to worry about is to keep Needle and Meekstone on the board, much faster and easier than anything else.

Goblins.
Ichorid.
Empty the Warrens.

Three very good reasons that Meekstone sucks and that Propaganda is vastly superior.

Also, there is no reason to run Mishras instead of the regular wincons (Morphling & RE). The deck has very few ways to get rid of on board critters (shackles and keg are the only ones) and doesn't run Humility. So what do you do with Mishras ? Attack into the opposing Tarmogoyfs or threshed Mongeese ? You need some sort of evasion. Morphling and Efreet do have it.

Poron

09-21-2008, 09:57 AM

1x Meekstone for Goyfs and fatties
1x Tormod's Crypt for Ichorid, Loam, and so on
1x Pithing Needle for Wasteland and combos and Wasteland

4x Trinket Mage to tutor them all

Academy Ruin to make it redicolous.

and why not, 4x Propaganda OR Vedalken Shackles (I'm not sure here)

Doesn't it sound good?

Something like

23 Lands
4x Mishra's
6 fetch
2 Academy Ruins
11 Island

we can even decide the CounterTop way, imho so we can Tutor STD with Trinket
4x Counterbalance
4x Sensei's DT
4x Mana Leak
4x Force of Will
4x Brainstorm
4x Stifle (wasteland :P and dreadnuoght)
2x Trickbind
3x Vedalken Shackles

4x Trinket Mage
1x Pithing Needle
1x Tormod's Crypt
1x Meekstone
1x Phyrexian Drednought

cc for Counterbalance
0cc: 24
1cc: 15
2cc: 10
3cc: 7
4cc: 0
5cc: 4

Perhaps a couple of Propaganda could be fine to refill the 3cc slot instead of something 1cc

raharu

09-21-2008, 11:39 AM

A) Mana Leak wat? As a 4 of? I could see it taking less slots (if you really felt Leak would help an early game that needed it), but with 4 of them you'll have dead draws that you would rather not have. On a side note, not running Back to Basics, aside from point C, makes Mana Leak much worse.

B) Your curve is sub-optimal for CBTop, and your numbers (4 of each) are... excessive. You're rarely going to want or need another top after the first, and while 4 Counterbalances are doable, I wouldn't play that many in the main unless my metagame was infested with Krosan Grip.

C) You're not playing Back to Basics. I wouldn't even consider MUC as a viable archetype without B2B. Seriously. It's absurd to not run it.

D) Phyrexian Dreadnought is not what this deck wants. Seriously. Just stick with Efreet and Morphling and you'll be fine. Maybe a Keiga. That's all I've seen presented that's viable.

E) You're playing Academy Ruins and Trinket Mage, not running Back to Basics, and haven't picked up the fetchland + off-color lands + EE setup? rly? That's the only draw that all the changes you've made to MUC to get as far off in left field as you have, and you aren't playing it? I can't... I... I'm flabbergasted. You have no board control whatsoever, no B2B, a bunch of cute, ineffective gimmicks thrown in, and a lack of anything really... relevant. And Mana Leak in place of Counterspell?

WTF³?
I think it's safe to say that your list isn't MUC and is >9000 worse than DreadStill.

4eak

09-21-2008, 01:05 PM

@ Poron

I really don't undestand why this deck doesn't abuse of Chalice of the Void or Meekstone, both tutorable with Trinket Mage.

-Chalice kills some very important slots for us.
-There are better board controllers than Meekstone.

Doesn't it sound good?

Something like

23 Lands
[etc.]

Your deck is lacking.

-Counterbalance is the wrong card for this deck for so many reasons. That cards belongs in a deck that has the right mana curve and can actually abuse the tempo gains more effectively.

-Stifle/Nought is really too vulnerable. There are better win conditions to run.

@ ParkerLewis

Also, there is no reason to run Mishras instead of the regular wincons (Morphling & RE). The deck has very few ways to get rid of on board critters (shackles and keg are the only ones) and doesn't run Humility. So what do you do with Mishras ? Attack into the opposing Tarmogoyfs or threshed Mongeese ? You need some sort of evasion. Morphling and Efreet do have it.

Mishra's and the regular wincons aren't necessarily mutually exclusive; you can run both to good effect in some cases.

@ raharu

Mana Leak wat? As a 4 of? I could see it taking less slots (if you really felt Leak would help an early game that needed it), but with 4 of them you'll have dead draws that you would rather not have. On a side note, not running Back to Basics, aside from point C, makes Mana Leak much worse.

Play a few thousand games, and you'll think differently. Mana leak is uncommonly a dead draw. The early game is critical, and for the first 4 turns, Mana leak is usually the same as a counterspell. As to what you alluded in your sidenote: mana leak becomes even better with B2B. Even in the mid to late game, the card is still very good.

You're not playing Back to Basics. I wouldn't even consider MUC as a viable archetype without B2B. Seriously. It's absurd to not run it.

Actually the deck can perform just fine without B2B, but I definitely think it is a mistake to not run the card in a metagame filled with non-basics. That card is absurdly good, and it makes MUC all the stronger. The archetype is still quite viable (depending upon how you build your deck) without mainboard B2B, even if it is a mistake to not mainboard it in most metagames.

Just stick with Efreet and Morphling and you'll be fine. Maybe a Keiga. That's all I've seen presented that's viable.

Add Meloku to that list.

peace,
4eak

Poron

09-21-2008, 05:34 PM

lol you massacrated my list :P No problem, I still think the Trinket toolbox is still very good for this deck

raharu

09-21-2008, 06:10 PM

@ raharu

Play a few thousand games, and you'll think differently. Mana leak is uncommonly a dead draw. The early game is critical, and for the first 4 turns, Mana leak is usually the same as a counterspell. As to what you alluded in your sidenote: mana leak becomes even better with B2B. Even in the mid to late game, the card is still very good.

I've played a bit with Mana Leak in the past and I've never really liked it. While it's very true that it's great with B2B, without B2B I have a tendency to hate seeing it past turn 6 or so, where countermagic becomes rather... important, patching the holes in your board control, etc., and I'd hate to see my holes spring a leak, ergo I wouldn't consider playing Mana Leaks without 4x Counterspells, but if I had 4 countermagic slots open (and was playing B2B) I would most likely go with the Mana Leaks.

Actually the deck can perform just fine without B2B, but I definitely think it is a mistake to not run the card in a metagame filled with non-basics. That card is absurdly good, and it makes MUC all the stronger. The archetype is still quite viable (depending upon how you build your deck) without mainboard B2B, even if it is a mistake to not mainboard it in most metagames.

Errr... iDunno. In a basic-heavy metagame, I would most certainly prefer some sort of Landstill, were I to play control.

DeathwingZERO

09-21-2008, 07:06 PM

I personally had thought about running Academy Ruins + some tech (Crypt, EE, Chalice, Crucible, Wasteland), but the power of B2B is much better than a toolbox effect.

My questionable choices were going to be pieces I could get with Intuition, since it's a nice 3cc that can be cast as an instant, but it just didn't seem worth it.

-EE would go for 1 or 0, and in most cases the only things it would hit would be creatures. Propaganda does a better job against swarms.

-Crypt would be a one shot, or a multi-shot that would cost a draw and 1U and Academy Ruins in play. I'm honestly not that scared of Ichorid, Propaganda is key here, and stealing their creatures to block their creatures sometimes is enough hilarity that they'll stop attacking without a swarm. Aside from Ichorid, I don't see a need for Crypt.

-Chalice would be nice, but nearly useless. I could only see it being reasonably cast for 0 or 1. Very, very rarely at 2. I can't see anything in those numbers scaring me. Pithing Needle on something of mine, maybe, but then they'd still need to Needle Keg in addition. I don't see any TES style combo decks, so I don't need to worry about that.

-Crucible/Wasteland is cool, but it's one of those "dangers of cool things" problems. If you have B2B, you don't need Wasteland. They'll end up tapping out, or they won't play spells. Either way, B2B > Wastelock.

So ya, my toolbox idea along with Intuitions just got tossed out after enough thought about it. I just didn't see a need for any of the toolbox, since this deck already has great game against board based decks, the sideboard can be tweaked against storm combo and the like.

pingveno

09-21-2008, 09:22 PM

I'm all for trying new things, but not running Back to Basics to run more non-basics is a mistake, and I will tell you why. The answer is simple, Dragon Stompy, kind of. If the format wasn't rife with non-basics, that deck would not be close to viable. Back to Basics is MUC's moon affect, sometimes better, sometimes worse but just as back breaking. It mimics the affect of a blood moon in a different deck, but the affect is just as good. If you don't run Back to Basics then there is no reason to run MUC, there is however, plenty of reasons to splash any and all colors, because they just offer more options to board presence than blue. Back to basics wins just as many games as morphling, it is bar none the strength of the deck.
Another reason, MUC is viable is the fact that it itself is immune to all non-basic hate. Wasteland? Taps for colorless. Moons? Dead cards. Also, one of the strengths is similar to the strengths of burn. All or most removal is dead to the opponent. Stuff like Trinket tool box, and academy ruins are great and all, but they do not belong in MUC. They give your opponent more ways to disrupt you. I dunno, it seems like alot of control players are trying to change the way the deck words, changing the strengths. MUC is a specific kind of deck, and some of these changes are just taking it away from MUC. Sorry for the long post, just had to get some stuff off my chest.

Captain Hammer

09-21-2008, 10:26 PM

1x Meekstone for Goyfs and fatties
1x Tormod's Crypt for Ichorid, Loam, and so on
1x Pithing Needle for Wasteland and combos and Wasteland

4x Trinket Mage to tutor them all

Poron, I like this idea, I think it has potential.

1 Sigil of Distinction might just be an automatic 1 of in this list as well. Why not make your Trinket Mage into a massive threat that eats Goyfs for breakfast?

Also, I like Relic of Progenitus a lot more than Tormod's Crypt. At worst, it cycles so it's never dead, unlike Tormod's Crypt. At best, it shrinks a goyf down to 0/1 so your Mage can eat it (which Crypt can't do), or slows down Ichorid/Tombstalker or Loam or something else.

Don't mess around too much other stuff though. The MUC list's core shell is rather strong.

Here's a sample list...

24 Island

// Creatures
4 Trinket Mage
2 Morphling

// Permanents
4 Propaganda
4 Back to Basics
2 Vedalken Shackles
1 Pithing Needle
1 Relic of Progenitus
1 Chalice of the Void
1 Sigil of Distinction/Meekstone

// Instants
4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
4 Fact or Fiction
4 Ancestral Vision

4eak

09-22-2008, 10:04 PM

@ Poron

lol you massacrated my list :P No problem, I still think the Trinket toolbox is still very good for this deck

The trinket toolbox is a great idea, but not in MUC. You are making a different deck that plays a different role than MUC when you include Trinket mage toolbox.

@ raharu

I agree with you that you shouldn't play Mana Leak before you have 4x Counterspell in the deck. Mana leak still makes for an excellent choice for permission spells 9-12. I'm just defending Mana leak as a viable card in MUC; Mana leak gives MUC a much better early game, it wins counterwars, and it punishes those who try to sandbag.

Errr... iDunno. In a basic-heavy metagame, I would most certainly prefer some sort of Landstill, were I to play control.

Landstill is a lot more forgiving of pilot errors, but MUC is still quite viable when it is well-built and well-played. I can understand playing Landstill because it is easier to play, but I don't agree that it is a better control deck.

@ pingveno

I'm all for trying new things, but not running Back to Basics to run more non-basics is a mistake, and I will tell you why. The answer is simple, Dragon Stompy, kind of. If the format wasn't rife with non-basics, that deck would not be close to viable. Back to Basics is MUC's moon affect, sometimes better, sometimes worse but just as back breaking. It mimics the affect of a blood moon in a different deck, but the affect is just as good. If you don't run Back to Basics then there is no reason to run MUC, there is however, plenty of reasons to splash any and all colors, because they just offer more options to board presence than blue. Back to basics wins just as many games as morphling, it is bar none the strength of the deck.

The difference is that MUC can still win a great deal of matches without B2B and the deck still works quite well even when it is playing against basics.dec. Dragonstompy is much more reliant upon mana-base disruption than MUC.

B2B is an amazing addition, and yes, it wins games all on its own. MUC is hardly dead without it though, and MUC is hardly dead in a metagame without a ton of non-basics.

peace,
4eak

Adan

09-23-2008, 08:03 AM

Please no... The Counterbalance Engine is still strange, since the spells you play have CC3+ while you only have a hand full of CC1 and CC2 spells, thus I'd not recommend the Balance Engine. I am already glad that Kadaj's permanent-based list isn't that reactive like the stack-based list.

The Trinket Mage toolbox seems to be good in theory, but it still steals a lot of consistency since you are running several 1ofs which are - depending on teh situation - baaaad.

What I also don't understand is that you are running ZERO Engineered Explosives, I found them infinite times better than Powder Keg, especially in your list where you can tutor for it (nope, I still don't like Trinket Mage).

Ichorid can also be won via Propaganda, they seldom can do anything against it preboard.

Jason

09-24-2008, 01:04 AM

Back to a previous question from Captain Hammer:

Another option that I forgot to mention is...

4 Ponder (a cheaper better impulse).

Lets hammer this list down now.

So you think the list should play 4 Powder Keg, okay, got it.

I'm going to go with...

+2 Spell Snare/Mana Leak
+1 Powder Keg
+1 Veldalken Shackles

So now, the relevent question is...

Which is better?

Spell Snare or Mana Leak?

I think Spell Snare is better in nearly every situation than Mana Leak. Yes I do think Mana Leak is good, as it almost always a hard counter and with B2B, it is a very scary card mid-late game against landstill. Spell Snare, however seems better because on the draw you are able to stop annoying 2cc spells; whereas, Mana Leak on the draw isn't as much fun to see. You need something that can stop your opponent's turn 2 and that card would be Spell Snare.

And with some of the crazy shenanigans I've seen recently, I would like to make a point that I run the standard MUC list (more or less - I don't main deck Propaganda for a few reasons I stated earlier, but I am contemplating changing it to have them there), but I also run Academy Ruins. It is a great card, even under B2B (you can bounce it back with Meloku...not that it's necessary when Meloku hits play but still...). Why is it great? Put Powder Keg on top of the deck. Or a Krosan Grip'ed Shackles. Or after sideboard, reuse that Tormod's Crypt or Pithing Needle that was destroyed.

Ruins is an excellent utility and by running 1, it is not eating up my Island count so I usually don't see it. However, when I do see it, it doesn't hurt anything. In fact, a lot of times it gives me an edge. I say try replacing an Island with Academy Ruins or dropping one card from a different slot to play with it. You probably won't notice anything until it actually wins you a game, but for those times, I think this card strengthens the deck significantly.

kensook

09-24-2008, 02:14 PM

I agree with having 1 Academy Ruins as an Island. It helps the artifacts in the deck and doesn't disrupt the land drops as it being a 1-of.

EDIT: Sorry, totally forgot about B2B.

Guy I Don't Know

09-24-2008, 02:51 PM

I have two questions, first why play two morphlings, they seem weak, and i would never want to draw two if them or play him before turn 6.

second, why does this deck not play fetches counterbalance and sensei's diving top?

I saw someone post a list with trinket mage and counterbalance, but i mean a non-toolbox list

TeKo

09-24-2008, 03:04 PM

Morphling = weak ??? ... ?? WTF

Look at the mana curve to many cc0 and cc3+ Spells!

Imo Trinket, without Equipment and good targets except EE and Top, isn't that good.

Kadaj

09-24-2008, 03:55 PM

Piece of advice to everyone who posts in this thread:

Read the opening post before asking questions. I'm not going to request that people read the whole thread, as that would be tedious and unruly, but reading the opening post shouldn't be out of the question. If you had, you would know that the reason why we don't play Counterbalance is because:

Counterbalance/Top: This is a big one, and one that will probably be asked about over and over again despite my mentioning it here, but basically this combo sucks in MUC. Before you all throw a fit, Counterbalance is not a hard lock. It’s also not free in terms of deck space. In case you haven’t noticed, MUC is both a very slow deck at actually killing an opponent, making it far easier for someone to break out of Counterbalance, and is lacking in free space to simply slot 7+ cards into the list. In fact, one of the major reasons I bothered to write this primer is because of how far MUC has come, and how close to optimized it truly is. Due to this level of optimization, there is very little room to cut 7 or more cards to make room for Counterbalance/Top.

On top of that, MUC isn’t the type of deck that needs to counter everything, which is one of the major arguments people usually use to pitch Counter/Top. They claim you can’t counter everything, which is why they want to include it. This is incorrect, simply because you don’t WANT to counter everything. What do you think stuff like Engineered Explosives and Vedalken Shackles are in these lists for? Because playing a deck that does nothing but attempt to counter things will get run over in the mid-game when other decks begin to throw too many threats at you for you to be able to counter all of them.

So, in short, Counter-Top is garbage in MUC because this deck is completely incapable of taking advantage of the tempo Counter-Top provides. Intelligent opponents will also be able to play through it anyway, because our curve isn't structured in a way that makes Counter-Top effective anyway, on top of all of the other reasons I just mentioned/referenced.

Morphling is played as a two of because, frankly, it's important to have more than one in case you have to pitch it to force, or let one hit the grave off a FoF, or have it killed, or discarded by Thoughtseize, etc, etc. There are a million reasons, and most of them revolve around resiliency.

Arne

09-24-2008, 04:11 PM

I don't know about morphling being a two-off... I mean, it's a great finisher and all, but what when it gets struck by a thoughtseize into a pate?

I play, rainbow efreet, morphling and teferi and in my opinion, that's good enough. Usually I don't even win with my own creatures, I just use my opponent's or they scoop due to my superiority :wink:

Captain Hammer

09-24-2008, 07:14 PM

Quick rules question: Does Rainbow Efreet die to Sudden Death?

I mean can you phase it out as -1/-3 or does it go straight to the yard?

Eldariel

09-24-2008, 08:07 PM

It dies. A creature that has less toughness than 0 dies as a state-based effect which means there's no window of making plays.

proraptor

09-25-2008, 10:07 AM

I have a 1 question why are you all playing Ancestral vision? I don't really get that, issen't it a bit much 4 turn's. Ok on turn 1 or 2 it's nice but in the late game it's only food for your FOW and issen't it a little risky to play it on turn 2 or something if you want to counter something or play a powder keg?
Secondly I would add 3 spell snare and remove 3 foil!
I would also ask you guys to post suggestions for the sideboard, I'm playing in a meta with lots of Loam variants, Goblins, Thres variants, Dragon stompy and Combo decks like Ichorid, So what should be in the side?
fixed cards are definitly:
4 blue elemental blast
4 chill
1 vedalken shackles
plz help me with the 6 open slots!

Arne

09-25-2008, 11:50 AM

against Ichorid, I would play crypt or maybe even relic of progenitus. Also, FoW and a turn three propaganda is rather good against those nasty zombies.

I've only had problems against DS when they managed to get an early red akroma out.

Thres shouldn't be a problem considering their non-basic heavy manabase.

Pithing needle should be a safe bet against a lot of decks.

kensook

09-25-2008, 03:54 PM

@ proraptor

Read the opening post, it explains a lot about its card choices. Then if you still have a problem elaborate your argument and provide evidence about what you claim. Just saying that we should play spell snare instead of foil doesn't tell us anything.

As for the sideboard, I would play Pithing Needle and Crypts in addition to the cards you provided.

kensook

09-25-2008, 04:17 PM

Sorry for the double post, but I have a question about my own sideboard as well. I play in a meta where every week people bring different decks so I can't really have a SB for a specific meta. My sideboard currently goes like this:

1 Vedalken Shackles
3 Pithing Needle
4 Blue Elemental Blast
4 Chill
3 ???

I am having trouble deciding on the last three slots. I'm thinking of either 3 Annul, 3 Disrupt, or 3 Misdirection. For a general meta, what do you guys think would be best?

Arne

09-25-2008, 04:49 PM

Looking at the chill's and the BEB's, I'd say you have to face a lot of gobbo and/or burn... if not, play crypts... GY is overused in in legacy

Poron

09-30-2008, 07:55 PM

My MUC:

24 Islands

2 Morhpling

4 Powder Keg
4 Propaganda
3 Back to Basic
3 Vedalken Shackles

4 Counterspell
4 Force of Will
2 Misdirection
2 Hinder/Dissipate still to decide, the idea anyway is to cut the Loam thing even before side

4 Fact or Fiction
4 Impulse

Probably the 2x slot will be for Hinder so we also get out of the Burning Wish problem.

This list doesn't fear Chalice at 1, graveyard hate, and almost doesn't fear at all Trinisphere.

I start thinking about play Chalice of the Void ourselves, with mox diamond as support (since we play 24 island) and Thirst for Knowledge to drop the excessing Moxes. (For example instead of Impulse)

This can be very cool, can't it?

Assuming the
-4 Impulse
+4 Thirst for Knowledge

we still have to add 8 cards (chalice and mox) what do we cut? that would be crazy

SB

4 Chill
4 CotV
2 Gaea's Blessing
4 Relic of Progenitus
1 Back to Basic

edit: after some test I realized that both Dissipate and Misdirections are cards we're definitly not going to play often and I always prefer to have Chalice in my side.

-2 Misdirection
-2 Dissipate
-4 Impulse

+4 Thirst for Knowledge
+4 Chalice of the Void

still dreaming rooms for 4 Mox diamond

now trying:
-1 island
-2 fact or fiction
-1 morphling
+4 mox diamond

i'm not happy at all with my cuts but to start with mox + chalice is so big with our deck

Jason

10-02-2008, 06:50 PM

i'm not happy at all with my cuts but to start with mox + chalice is so big with our deck

I don't think Mox + Chalice is that big. First, what is it accomplishing? Is it trying to stop some sort of Belcher combo? Or just slow down Threshold? I don't see it being too exciting because I won't want to have either down in many games, seeing as Powder Keg usually goes off for 0 (sometimes 1...blasted Mongoose) and blowing up my own permanents seems counter productive. I think if you want to slow down Threshold or have extra early disruption, run Spell Snare and/or Force Spike (I would suggest Spell Snare because it is solid in nearly all match ups and rarely a dead card...but Force Spike can be good too depending on who you are playing). Either will be doing the same as Mox + Chalice most of the time and you won't have to eat as many slots in an already solid build.

On top of that, Mox gives you card disadvantage. You have to pitch a land to use it, and MUC relies heavily on lands.

I would be very surprised to see this addition actually benefit an already solid build.

Poron

10-02-2008, 09:26 PM

with 2 morphling, honestly matches are pretty long, while controlling the board and waiting to draw em.

My powder Kegs works most of time set at 2 and chalice is great countering Sensei's Top
Thoughtseize
Brainstorm
Ponder
Stifle
StP
making lot of draw phases dead.

and also allowing you to save your counters for other threats. I think Thoughtseize really hurts us.

Again, a turn 1 mox diamond is always good even without Chalice.
It allows us 1st turn Counterspell, 2nd turn Back to Basics Vedalken Shackles or Propaganda.

in my opinion it is simply BIG the only problem is that we're cutting important slots to make the room for Moxes... that's the only thing.

a new input: has Tabernacle of Pendrell Vale been already discussed here? because in certain matchups where Back to Basic is pretty useless Tabernacle with Propaganda would work great to keep the board control and since we're playing 24 islands... we can also play 22 islands and 2 Tabernacle, or at least in 2x by sideabord.

any thoughts?

Hopo

10-03-2008, 03:13 AM

I would also ask you guys to post suggestions for the sideboard, I'm playing in a meta with lots of Loam variants, Goblins, Thres variants, Dragon stompy and Combo decks like Ichorid, So what should be in the side?
fixed cards are definitly:
4 blue elemental blast
4 chill
1 vedalken shackles
plz help me with the 6 open slots!

If there really is lots of loam, try Declation of Naught. I remember it being used with positive results in Japan. It shines against recurring, dangerous spells and I think loam qualifies as one.

Poron

10-04-2008, 08:33 PM

definitive list (till now):

23 Island
4 Mox Diamond

2 Morphling

4 Counterspell
4 Force of Will

4 Powder Keg
3 Propaganda
2 Back to Basic
3 Vedalken Shackles

3 Fact or Fiction
4 Thirst for Knowledge

SB:
4 Tormod's Crypt (not anymore Relic of Progenitus because the Chalice set 1)
2 Back to Basic
1 Propaganda
4 Chill
2 Gaea's Blessing (wow, come on. it simply resolve a whole matchup without even being played...)
2x free slot (till now)

I'm not sure anyway of the Tormod's Crypt, the reanimatore matchup is pretty easy, just countering the Buried Alive.
Tarmogoyf has already 4 Powder keg and 3 Vedalken that aims to him... Ichorid and Loam, yes.
But against Ichorid i far prefer to have a propaganda or a Powder keg set at 0 and loam... lol, we just need to counter Sismic Assault, the rest is worthless.
So may be we can even save the 4 tormod's sb slot... and go to 6 free slot in SB.

Ideas?

DeathwingZERO

10-04-2008, 09:23 PM

I wouldn't necessarily say the rest is worthless in Aggro Loam. They'll out accelerate you, Grip your Kegs, and pay for your Propaganda effects, while pummeling you with creatures out of range of your Shackles.

Also, as far as the deck itself is concerned, I am very afraid of some of those choices:

2 B2B means that you are not consistent on having it by turn 3 (or turn 2, with your Moxen), I'd bump that to a 4 of, it's the spine of the deck.

3 FoF and 4 Thirst need to be switched. FoF is 1 more mana, but will always generate better draws from it. I would never swap a FoF for any other draw spell legal in the format. It's too good mid and late game, and you have acceleration to pump it out faster.

You need that 4th Propaganda. Seeing multiples of them is better than not, and stacking them just makes it worse on any aggro strategy. This is a key card for beating decks like Ichorid and Loam, you NEED to see multiples so they can't afford to beat you down.

To be honest, I'm very confused at your reliance on Powder Keg (as a 4 of), and playing Moxen with them. You are hitting yourself even harder on your own mana sources if you have to Keg @ 0, which is pretty common for this deck to do. If you are absolutely needing to play the Diamonds, I'd suggest finding a way to fit at least 1-2 Crucible in there.

idraleo

10-04-2008, 10:27 PM

4 Mox Diamond

That' s the bottom line... I quit! [cit.]

Poron

10-04-2008, 10:27 PM

thank you very much for your input, anyway I have never wanted more lands or recurring lands so Crucible of Worlds is surely out of my list, honestly I have never used a Powder Keg at 0, never.
the only time i'm forced in using that is when my opponent has a sort of outnumbered tokens like with Empty the Warrens and there, if you manage in sweeping the board, then, it's game for you.

anyway yes, Powder Keg can also not be a 4x, perhaps we can cut 2x and refill the propaganda and Back to Basics slot, that would be better, perhaps.

I noticed that with Shards of Alara we're returning, at least a little to the mono colored decks and more than that, almost everyone plays much more basic lands than before, the only matchup we really want 4x Back to Basic MD is Threshold, but that's what SB is made for.

Since we're playing 15 artifacts I would never drop 4x Thirst for Knowledge; here it is not strictly worse than Fact or Fiction.

So far, the only thing I can reasonably accept is
-2 Powder Keg
+1 Propaganda
+1 Back to Basic

Chalice of the Void anyway is really wanted here, I would never play this deck without it

Captain Hammer

10-04-2008, 10:57 PM

Chrome Mox >> Mox Diamond

Early on, this deck is mana hungry.

You seriously don't want to miss a land drop for the first six turns atleast.

Like half the games I lose, I lose because I didn't make consistent land drops early on.

After turn 6 or so, it doesn't matter if you don't draw any more lands.

But discarding a land in your opening hand is just not an option.

idraleo

10-04-2008, 10:58 PM

the only matchup we really want 4x Back to Basic MD is Threshold, but that's what SB is made for.

Hi, my name is Landstill, b2b owns me!

Poron

10-04-2008, 11:22 PM

you really still find Landstill today? anyway ok, that depends on the meta...

4x MD imho are anyway too many, 1) because they're useless in multiple and 2) because sometime you're neither going to use them.

I would play MAX 3x MD, but perhaps even 2, and the other 2 SB.

And again, imho with 23 lands mox diamond is worth here, more than a Chrome. with 23 Lands I often have first hands with 3 or more Islands

idraleo

10-04-2008, 11:31 PM

with 23 Lands I often have first hands with 3 or more Islands

Why are you playing MTG over Casinò' s dice so?

Poron

10-04-2008, 11:42 PM

is there a point in your argument?

in my opinion to open with island + mox is great even "psycogically" (hope to have written this well...) because opponent doesn't know if you have a hard counter to show him. again, it can allow us Powder Keg turn 1 if needed, Propaganda turn 2 (nice), and Vedalken shackles turn 2 (big), or in certain matchups a Back to basic turn 2. Not to mention a turn 1 Chalice, that I don't really know why you snob it, but it wins matches even alone...

that's almost all our deck...

diamond > chrome here because
23 lands 37 non lands (15 artifacts) 22 imprintable cards..

diamond>chrome, and since we're playing just Islands it is even better.

my list now runs
4 Propaganda
3 Powder Keg
3 Vedalken Shackles
2 Back to Basic

as board control, the rest is the same.

Captain Hammer

10-05-2008, 02:05 AM

is there a point in your argument?

in my opinion to open with island + mox is great even "psycogically" (hope to have written this well...) .....again, it can allow us ...... Propaganda turn 2 (nice), and Vedalken shackles turn 2 (big), or in certain matchups a Back to basic turn 2.

Again, the requires that out of 23 Islands, you draw three of them along with a Mox Diamond in your opening hand + one card .

If you're saying, you can do that with any real consistency, I think you should get banned from tournaments for deck stacking.

Most of the time, you're going to end up with a Mox Diamond and at best 2 Lands in your opening hand and will end up missing land drops because of your decision to play Mox Diamond.

Chrome Mox I can get behind, because it doesn't make you miss early land drops while still enabling second turn Propanda's etc.

Poron

10-05-2008, 05:10 AM

why don't you try it before?

ParkerLewis

10-05-2008, 05:33 AM

why don't you try it before?

Because it's obvious. There's no need to try, just the need to look at the probabilities. Just fulfilling the "having a MD in starting hand" condition is already 40 %.

3 Island + MD in opening hand should be around 20 % at best.

Add 5-6 % per additional draw. Or something. Gotta check MWS.

edit : MWS says :

7 cards (ie starting hand) : 18 %
7 cards + 1 draw (ie turn 1 or 2, depending on whether you're on the draw or not): 26 %
7 cards + 2 draws (turn 2 or 3) : 34 %
7 cards + 3 draws (turn 3 or 4) : 42 %

And that's also counting the occurences where MD will be drawn and not in starting hand.

Poron

10-05-2008, 06:15 AM

if we're going to play Chrome Mox instead (and that's a choice, we really have to drop the number of lands).

max 22, so we get the 3rd Back to Basic MD.

Arne

10-05-2008, 06:26 AM

Bahamuth

10-05-2008, 09:05 AM

My friend Bart played at a 40-man tournament yesterday, he went 4-0-2 and lost in the t8 quarter finals against a stiflenought deck. So he became fifth. His match-ups were;

- landstill (draw)
- 2 times 4 colour thresh (2x win)
- a faerie-like thresh build (win)
- aggro-loam (win)
-An ID (draw)

And his build was:

22 Island

4 Sower of Temptation
3 Kira, Great Glass-Spinner
1 Morphling
1 Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir

4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
4 Force Spike
1 Spell Snare
4 Fact or Fiction
2 Echoing Truth

3 Back to Basics
3 Propaganda
2 Powder Keg
2 Vedalken Shackles

Sideboard:
4 Pithing Needle
4 Hydroblast
4 Tormod's Crypt
1 Back to Basics
1 Propaganda
1 Powder Keg

Now I know, many of you despised this build but as you can clearly see... It does have potential and imho it's worth discussing. Maybe it's not the conservative build we've all discussed over and over again, maybe it's more aggro-control than pure control, maybe it depends on a certain meta-game (all though Bart didn't know what he was going to face since he didn't play in his home town)... But what I do know is that it's strond enough to get some nice results.

Some of you linked the result of this deck to the playskills of the pilot. This is a different pilot and he also got a nice result in a meta game he didn't know.

These are my opinions on this list.

1) Teferi sucks. The card does way too little to justify play. It can't function as a proper kill, and, even with Sower and Kira, the effect is ignorable.

2) 4 Force Spike is waaay to much. Drawing multiples is very bad. Heck, even drawing a single one is bad in the late game. It's easily the worst topdeck ever.

3) Spell Snare is much better than Force Spike. I'd play 3-2, if I were to play them at all.

4) Echoing Truth mainboard is crap. The card will give carddisadvantage most of the times for not being able to permanently remove a threat from the board. It's especially bad against Thresh.

5) Back to Basics is sick. I really don't understand why you won't play 4. It basically is a must-counter/must-dealwith for 90% of the format. The card isn't even bad in multiples at all, because your opponent will have to deal with it anyway.

Poron

10-05-2008, 09:44 AM

Bahamuth

10-05-2008, 10:06 AM

do you agree with this list or you have some advice?

22 Island
4 Chrome Mox

2 Morphling

4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell

3 Fact or Fiction
4 Thirst for Knowledge

3 Powder Keg
4 Propaganda
3 Back to Basic
3 Vedalken Shackles

4 Chalice of the Void

The list looks pretty solid. I don't have any experience with Thirst, but at least you play plenty of artifacts to support it.

As I said before, I'd play 4 Back to Basics. Also, Fact is better than Thirst, I'm pretty sure about that.

I'm not sure if I like chalice here. In the sideboard it might have a better place. Also, I did test Chrome Mox a bit and I personally found it to be pretty bad. I don't think a control deck like this one should rely on quick mana sources that give carddisadvantage.

DeathwingZERO

10-05-2008, 10:07 AM

He was technically playing 4 B2B, 1 is in the SB. After a number of playtesting sessions vs a varied gauntlet, I'm inclined to stick with that setup myself for an unknown metagame. Three of them gives a good chance to draw them by turn 3 (running Ponder instead of Ancestral), and multiples are dead against decks packing enough basics to survive, or untap effects. And while I'm uncertain of the creatures in that version, their sheer numbers in addition to Shackles might actually seal games faster than Morphlings overall. Not really sure I'm sold on that build, but it's definitely got it's merits in specific metas.

Poron, as far as your build is concerned, I'd suggest a third win condition (so Morphling isn't the only thing you heavily rely on) and what do you think your SB would look like with that setup? Also, is there any specific reason you absolutely want Chalice in here? It's probably almost always going to drop for 0 or 1, and I'm not sure what you'd be afraid of as far as opposing decks that abuse those numbers. Any insight on that choice?

Captain_Morgan

10-05-2008, 10:08 AM

Why isn't Accumulated Knowledge ran anymore? It combo'd well with FoF.

DeathwingZERO

10-05-2008, 10:21 AM

I think it was because in order to really get anything out of it one or more had to be in the yard already. Basically it was just a cantrip the first time, then card advantage the second, and so forth. Fact is just better overall, even if it requires reaching the midgame to use.

Bahamuth

10-05-2008, 10:22 AM

DeathwingZERO

10-05-2008, 10:34 AM

After doing a number of games with the list that was nearly identical to Kadaj's, I just got sick of Ancestral. The decks that I really found annoying were ones that took huge advantage of the early game (a surprisingly large majority of them, really), and not having an "oh shit" button just sucked. I'd find myself with a solid hand for a variety of decks, then find myself stuck with Ancestral while praying my first 4 turns I didn't die when something left field showed up.

I swapped it for random things for a while, and just finally set myself on Ponder, because the shuffle was a better use than Brainstorm, even if it cost me the mana on my turn. Turn 1 that's not an issue, as all you have is FoW anyways. Turn 2 you would either have Counterspell or Keg, turn 3 your permanent based answers go online, and anything after that it's just U to see your draws. Most opponents that know MUC would know these kinds of plays, so you are basically bluffing them with the "Am I holding FoW or not" bit.

While I'm still not sold on it in itself, I still think it's much better off for me than Visions. Once 4 mana is on the table, FoF goes online and gets you where you need to go. That's already a turn ahead of Visions at it's fastest pace, and you really don't need other draws at that point. Chaining FoF's digs you insanely fast, and seeing 5 cards for 1 makes late game Visions so slow in comparison.

In addition, Ponder late games allow you to peek at your topdeck if you like, making FoF incredibly potent, because it's not always blind now.

To sum it up, I just like knowing what's there, and knowing I can dig when I need to. It may not net me card advantage like Visions, but it sure works better in a pinch.

4eak

10-05-2008, 10:37 AM

I prefer Brainstorm to Ponder. However, a few people who are deeply disturbed about losing life over fetches, and thus choose not to run them, prefer to play Ponder because it can shuffle itself.

For decks that have no T1 play, don't run Spellsnare or Force Spike, sorcery speed draw isn't all that terrible. Decks with C-mox shouldn't be running it, obviously, but if you aren't going to run Brainstorm or the above counters, then I highly suggest Ponder, specifically over junkVision. Oh, beware getting dazed on 1st or second turn, even in response to FoW as you are tapped out for sorcery speed draw =)...(go brainstorm go!)

peace,
4eak

holkenborg

10-05-2008, 10:44 AM

These are my opinions on this list.

1) Teferi sucks. The card does way too little to justify play. It can't function as a proper kill, and, even with Sower and Kira, the effect is ignorable.

2) 4 Force Spike is waaay to much. Drawing multiples is very bad. Heck, even drawing a single one is bad in the late game. It's easily the worst topdeck ever.

3) Spell Snare is much better than Force Spike. I'd play 3-2, if I were to play them at all.

4) Echoing Truth mainboard is crap. The card will give carddisadvantage most of the times for not being able to permanently remove a threat from the board. It's especially bad against Thresh.

5) Back to Basics is sick. I really don't understand why you won't play 4. It basically is a must-counter/must-dealwith for 90% of the format. The card isn't even bad in multiples at all, because your opponent will have to deal with it anyway.

I was the one who played the deck and shall respond to your statements:

1. I agree partially. He does not suck (well.. he doesn't finish game like Morphling), but I did not have a second Morphling. If I would have had two Morphlings, I would replace the Teferi.

2. Force Spike I love. Spell Snare is the card of which I am not certain, because it is situational. Back to Basics also is, but he wins games. Propaganda also is (I think) and that is why I moved that cards to the sideboard after the tournament experience. Sure it won me games, but I rather have it sideboard. If you are on the draw, the force spike serves as a T1 spell snare. I used it a lot to counter T1 a spell with CMC 2. Later in the game you pitch it to FoW.

3. I think this has to do with personal styles of playing the game, because the card is situational. Some like it, some don't.

4. Without Echoing Truth you HAVE to counter some cards, because you cannot get rid of them in any other way. Echoing Truth bounces anything you want. Also, I saved my own Kira and Sowers with it! Also you can use Echoing Truth as a Time Walk bouncing the only attacker (often Goyf).

5. Because of two reasons: (1) it is not game against every deck and (2) you don't want to draw two. I think the choice for 4 mainbord is again a personal/meta dependend thing.

After the tournament I changed the mainbord: -3 Propaganda (to sideboard), +1 Vedalken Shackles (1st game I like 3), +1 Spell Snare and +1 Powder Keg.

DeathwingZERO

10-05-2008, 10:51 AM

My biggest problem with the fetchlands and Brainstorm play isn't the loss of life, but that is part of it. There's a few reasons I don't play fetches in addition:

-Having 6 to 8 means that's 6 to 8 less "true" Islands in the deck. This can hurt at times where land destruction like Armageddon can cause crippling issues mid to late game, due to a lack of them remaining in the library.

-They can be Needled. Not very common, but a nuisance nonetheless. This deck is so absolutely mana hungry that any mana denial strategy hurts, especially ones that can drop at any time due to insanely cheap mana costs (especially turn 1).

-Blood Moon. The main reason for this: Keg can't get rid of it. That SUCKS. Once it's in play, you have no removal for it. Again, it's going to severely cripple the number of blue sources you have, which could cause problems in both Shackles and spells, or pinch Morphling activations.

While I love Brainstorm, I absolutely MUST have consistency in every deck I play. If I sacrifice my ability to land permanent and always useful mana sources to get more stability and manipulation of the topdeck, it's a hefty cost. I know my deck is a majority of answers and threats, but I don't know if my opponent will abuse my manabase to the point of them being the control player.

Bahamuth

10-05-2008, 11:50 AM

Force Spike I love. Spell Snare is the card of which I am not certain, because it is situational.

How is Force Spike not situational if it's only useful in the early game?

I think this has to do with personal styles of playing the game, because the card is situational. Some like it, some don't.

Personal style? As in not being able to counter something with Spike, while you could with Spell Snare?

Also, I saved my own Kira and Sowers with it!

You're kidding right? If your opponent actually wastes 2 cards to kill Kira, you've won already.

Also you can use Echoing Truth as a Time Walk bouncing the only attacker (often Goyf).

Why not run Repeal then? It's better at doing this, and even that card is too crappy

Later in the game you pitch it to FoW.

That's not an argument. I can say the same for B2B.

4eak

10-05-2008, 12:18 PM

@ DeathwingZERO

Having 6 to 8 means that's 6 to 8 less "true" Islands in the deck. This can hurt at times where land destruction like Armageddon can cause crippling issues mid to late game, due to a lack of them remaining in the library.

This is generally a good thing as time goes on. I want to be drawing fewer and fewer "true" Islands against the vast majority of decks. As to your example, I can't recall the last time an Armageddon actually resolved against me while I was playing MUC.

-They can be Needled. Not very common, but a nuisance nonetheless. This deck is so absolutely mana hungry that any mana denial strategy hurts, especially ones that can drop at any time due to insanely cheap mana costs (especially turn 1).

Run a 3/3 split on Fetches against Needle. Secondly, I LOVE to see Needle on fetches instead of board control and shackles. Mana denial isn't something that really works against MUC very well (no matter how you cut it) because the deck itself works to deny mana by asymmetrically abusing B2B with a huge number of hard to deny basics.

-Blood Moon. The main reason for this: Keg can't get rid of it. That SUCKS. Once it's in play, you have no removal for it. Again, it's going to severely cripple the number of blue sources you have, which could cause problems in both Shackles and spells, or pinch Morphling activations

Are you serious? 6 fetches is somehow going to destroy MUC's mana base against Blood Moon? Even if you let the card resolve (I probably would think about letting it happen because it is counterbait at best), MUC has plenty of other basic islands to play through it. Seriously, this is very rarely a problem. Blood Moon actually might even help, as your fetches now actually tap for mana, which isn't a terrible thing against decks that run Blood moon.

While I love Brainstorm, I absolutely MUST have consistency in every deck I play.

I'm sorry, I really find this phrase to be funny by itself. Brainstorm does more for consistency than other card every printed in the history of magic. It has a proven track record (95% of the decks that run blue use Brainstorm because it is really that good at making their decks consistent).

Personally, I think Stifle is the strongest card against fetches, but even that would never stop me from running them. MUC players that use fetches properly will not find land disruption to even be a real obstacle.

For the record, I still prefer Brainstorm to Ponder (and every other CQ/CA card you can name) even without fetches. Impulse is the next best card for the function.

@ Bahamuth

How is Force Spike not situational if it's only useful in the early game?

Force spike is useful in more than just the early game. You'll still get plenty of counter usage out of it in mid and late game, especially with B2B. With Brainstorm and Force of Will, this card is very viable. After tons of testing, I agree that Force Spike > Spell Snare. MUC needs a better early game, and Force spike does this better than Spell Snare.

Personal style? As in not being able to counter something with Spike, while you could with Spell Snare?

Let me jump in; instant heavy builds that play draw/go with fewer permanents will make more use out of Force Spike. If you run a bare minimum permission suite, then yeah, Spell Snare is going to look better to you. I would hope he doesn't mean personal style, but rather, the deck makeup or build would call for a different spell. Different builds and strategies will definitely call for different cards.

Kira, Great Glass-Spinner

This card doesn't have a place in MUC. Even some mono blue based tempo deck has better options. Make your win conditions count. Good players do not lose to this card. If you win with this in your deck, it wasn't because 'this was in your deck', but because your opponent needs more practice with 'the magical cards'.

Sower of Temptation

If you really want to use this slot for this function, why not Control Magic? Make them play their creature removal on their own creatures for goodness sakes. Kira is not the answer. I still prefer Shackles.

Why not run Repeal then? It's better at doing this, and even that card is too crappy

Repeal always costs +1 more than your opponent payed. The cantrip is nice (and worth the cost), but the total cost of the spell isn't worth it, nor does Repeal fit the need of the deck.

Bounce is a time walk in this deck, and the mana cost of it matters. Additionally, Echo smashes tokens.

While bounce might look bad on paper, it works wonders for bridging the gap from the early game to board control. And, often times it answers the unanswerable. Test Echo more; I think you'll like it.

B2B

This deck can still win without it. I can definitely see metagames where I prefer this in the sideboard. Most people should be maindecking 3 or 4 though.

peace,
4eak

holkenborg

10-05-2008, 12:48 PM

Allright allright.. lets just wait some time for the deck to end up high on tournaments again.

I don't want to make an enormous post, so some short remarks.

My opponent tried to kill Kira as soon as possible because they know Sower of Temptation is following plus that it did two damage every turn.

If you say Force Spike s*cks lategame, I'm gonna use your own argument: if you reach lategame, you've already won.

At least there is some discussion, which is good :D

Mantis

10-05-2008, 02:55 PM

Back to Basics is the only reason you would ever play MUC, aside from this being your pet deck or you can't afford a 3 color manabase. Think about it, what does this deck that other decks like ITF or Landstill don't? Right, it punishes decks that overcommit on colors. Thus you play this deck in metagames you know people are seriously overcommiting on colors. I mean, Landstill and ITF play better removal and better win conditions and maybe even a better draw engine. The things you've got going are the most solid manabase in the format (and I can definately see why people don't want fetches in there), and B2B.

Don't bring this deck to an unknown metagame as for all you know everyone is playing Goblins and Eva Green and you got yourself a place in the losing bracket.
You run this deck in metagames where there is lots of 3 and 4 color decks and the rest of the decks are aiming for those manabases like Dragon Stompy. You can handle both, whereas with Landstill or ITF you would have a really though time sticking out of the pack in this type of metagame.

Doks

10-05-2008, 08:30 PM

Don't bring this deck to an unknown metagame as for all you know everyone is playing Goblins and Eva Green and you got yourself a place in the losing bracket.

I just experienced the other way 'round. For me, it has proven to be an all around fortress in an unknown metagame.
What are the most played decks?

Probably Landstill, Thresh and everything aggro-controlish running CB / Top, Loam Decks and some aggressive Stompy / Zoo variants, maybe even Goblins, but I've not heard of them for a long time (here in Germany).

MUC is not beaten by the most common stratgies.
CounterTop does not really disturb you.
Landstill and control in general should be good MUs for MUC cuz of B2B.
MUC is not attacked by Manadenial in most cases (Recurring Wastelands, Stifles, Moon effects etc.).

Sure, it's probably not a D2B, but a very resistant archetype.

@ Spell Snare vs. Force Spike:

I always run Snare as a 4of. It's just too important. Other controldecks run spot removal to get rid of that 2nd turn Goyf / Confidant / Meddling Mage or even Lord of Atlantis ;). MUC has Spell Snare.
In addition, it counters all the critical cards, that might make the early game even worse when they'd resolve and cost you the game: Sinkhole / Survival of the fittest / Burning wish and other tutors and even Standstills.
Force Spike can do this, too, but:
Spell Snare keeps its strength during the whole game.

For opponent's important T1-Drops you have FoW and EE / Keg.

Captain_Morgan

10-05-2008, 10:30 PM

Concerning Shackles vs. Treachery, is there much difference concerning those two cards with their drawbacks? Or is it by general speed that Shackles is faster than Treachery that lends itself to the evolution?

DeathwingZERO

10-06-2008, 01:08 AM

I prefer Shackles over everything else for the sole reason that it allows you to steal a different creature if you should choose to untap it. That in itself is an awesome pro for the card.

4eak

10-06-2008, 01:34 AM

@ Doks

I just experienced the other way 'round. For me, it has proven to be an all around fortress in an unknown metagame.

Amen.

And, the more I know my opponent and his deck, the better MUC becomes.

I always run Snare as a 4of. It's just too important. Other controldecks run spot removal to get rid of that 2nd turn Goyf / Confidant / Meddling Mage or even Lord of Atlantis ;). MUC has Spell Snare.

If your meta is fairly set in stone, I could see why you would run Spell Snare. SS is not a building block to the 'fortress in an unknown metagame' in my experience. Force spike does better in this circumstance.

Both SS and FS are two permission spells that belong in different flavors of MUC. I'm unwilling to say either is obsolete, but if I had to choose a general or unknown metagame, I'd pick FS over SS.

@ Captain_Morgan

Concerning Shackles vs. Treachery, is there much difference concerning those two cards with their drawbacks?

Treachery hits anything, but it only targets and resolves once. It costs colored mana, it is an enchantment (harder to remove usually), and is outside of counterbalance curves. It can't be played until turn 5.

Shackles is colorless, switches targets, is reusable, easier to cast and use (over several turns), and the ability is an instant. The drawback of not having enough Islands is actually a rare one when MUC is built and played correctly.

Shackles controls the board; treachery does not. Shackles starts trading immediately and continues to win attrition wars; treachery does not. Shackles is much stronger CA.

I consider Shackles to be the strongest card in the deck (better than FoF, FoW, Brainstorm, and B2B) and the real reason MUC is a viable option. I look at the rest of the deck as building up the point (permission/board clearing/bounce) where Shackles hits play and you stabilize in creature-heavy environments.

peace,
4eak

Captain Hammer

10-06-2008, 01:57 AM

Poron, here is what I would suggest trying out. It's very similar to your list actually.

// Mana
22 Island
4 Chrome Mox

// Creatures
1 Rainbow Efreet
2 Morphling

// Permanents
4 Propaganda
4 Back to Basics
4 Powder Keg
3 Vedalken Shackles

// Instants
4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
4 Fact or Fiction
4 Ancestral Vision

I actually think everyone should try out the above build. Chrome Mox is solid. You usually do have extra business spells that you don't need. And the fact that Chrome Mox speeds up your whole deck by a full turn is insane and shouldn't be underestimated.

A turn one Powder Keg, turn two Shackles/Back to Basics/Propaganda or turn three Fact or Fiction can really save your ass sometimes.

Benie Bederios

10-06-2008, 03:40 AM

someone_unimportant

10-06-2008, 03:43 AM

The most important plus Force Spike has over Spell Snare is that it counters Goblin Lackey on the play. And sometimes Nimble Mongoose. The second most important plus is that people play around it. That doesn't sound like a plus, but once they know you pack it, you have an asymmetric Resistor. I have had people wait a turn to play Dark Confidant/Tarmogoyf/etc so many times even when I don't have the Spike. If it's Spell Snare, they play it no matter what no matter when. I know this is a weird argument, but the times you don't have Force Spike are better than the times you don't have Spell Snare. But mostly it's the countering Goblin Lackey. Also, I strongly suggest 4 Brainstorms in a MUC deck. Especially for those who are underwhelmed with Ancestral Visions (which I personally dislike as well), Brainstorm is so much better than Ponder, it's not even funny. (I think it's better than AV too, but I've given up trying to convince people of this) Being able to change THREE cards in your hand is roughly 1255326636980x better than seeing the top 3 and only being able to draw one. Obviously, this means you want to run fetches, but fetches do not harm the manabase at all. Why do you care about Blood Moon? That card is all kinds of trash against a mostly-monocolored deck. You should not be worried about Stifle for the following slightly oversimplified reasons:

1) You can crack fetches anytime, so opponent must keep U open at all times, and free SoR = yay. Also, if playing Force Spike, you can make amusing things happen when people play 2 drops on turn 3. Like fetch and if they stifle hit their good threat if you choose.

2) There are far better things to Stifle than fetches (Engineered Explosives/Keg)

3) You usually have more lands anyway. Any tempo gained is counteracted by the fact that they've retarded their board development to keep open to Stifle.

4eak

10-06-2008, 03:53 AM

@ someone_unimportant

Can I have your man-babies?

Seriously, it is refreshing to see someone who just plain gets it.

I'd add a few more cards to the "lackey" list, but your argument clearly demonstrates the issue. Relying upon EE/Keg to sweep it is not the answer.

The resistor argument is better than I think many will believe. It is solid tempo in the exact place that MUC needs tempo. It is the biggest kick in the nuts in magic when you eat a Force spike, and it is a solid bluff for a good deal of the game. I just need to live to turn 5. Past turn 5, I'm going to trash my opponent, period.

@ Benie Bederios

Chrome Mox is an additional dead card( against 24/25 lands) late in the game and it's carddisadvantage is quite bad in the early game.

Agreed. It isn't worth the card disadvantage. The only arguments would be that you could drop board control faster, but frankly, I'd rather play counters at 1 for 1 parity and keep my card advantage.

peace,
4eak

DeathwingZERO

10-06-2008, 08:09 AM

The problem with Brainstorm is it NEEDS fetchlands to be effective to it's maximum. Ponder needs nothing, just U on your turn (which is far from crucial in most aspects of the match). The fact that Ponder only gets you one cards off the top doesn't matter, it's that Brainstorm throws away 2 pieces of trash that you HAVE to draw again if you don't see a fetch.

Personally, I just don't see the reason to put yourself into positions that could hurt your mana (even if it's not always an issue) just to run Brainstorm over Ponder. Late game neither of them matter, as FoF is the MVP.

EDIT: Another card I was considering in the 1cc draw slot was actually a trip back down memory lane: Whispers of the Muse. Yes, it's only a cantrip early on, and that tends to suck. But with the deck being such a board controlling stall engine, the late game spending the extra mana is really no different than it was roughly 10-12 years ago. It'd take a lot more testing to consider it over being able to see what's coming up, but I really like it's staying power.

Maagler

10-06-2008, 08:31 AM

This must have already been discussed, but has anyone tried counterbalance top in this deck? or is everything to high in cmc for it to be viable. I there was already discussions on it could anyone direct me to the pages?

4eak

10-06-2008, 08:35 AM

@ DeathwingZERO

The problem with Brainstorm is it NEEDS fetchlands to be effective to it's maximum

At its maximum effectiveness:

Brainstorm > Ancestral Recall

I'm sure you aren't going to require that cards are as good as Ancestral recall before we start playing them in Legacy MUC. I'm perfectly willing to play Brainstorm even when it isn't at maximum effectiveness because even mediocre Brainstorms are worlds better than the other options.

Brainstorm, even without a fetch, is powerful. The instant speed matters, and the way in which it affects your active hand is tremendous. Fetches just make it better, but Brainstorm is quite viable even with a fetch to turn it into awesome-sauce. Brainstorm is just as important as FoF. The card is hands down better than Ponder or jankVision. With that said, I do try to save Brainstorm for fetches, but it isn't necessary (it is just a strong tactic).

@ Maagler

This must have already been discussed, but has anyone tried counterbalance top in this deck? or is everything to high in cmc for it to be viable. I there was already discussions on it could anyone direct me to the pages?

hehe, yeah (I can't tell if you are joking or not, because that question gets asked a whole lot). Just in case you aren't joking...You could search for it, but let me save you the trouble (although, I suggest reading the thread first if you are going to continue posting in it):

Counterbalance will never be played in MUC.

peace,
4eak

ParkerLewis

10-06-2008, 08:36 AM

This must have already been discussed, but has anyone tried counterbalance top in this deck?

Yeah. In the opening post.

Poron

10-06-2008, 03:36 PM

may I have your opinion for Chrome Mox?

or better, can I have your opinion for Chrome Mox in a list that will surely play Chalice of the Void?

ParkerLewis

10-06-2008, 05:00 PM

may I have your opinion for Chrome Mox?

or better, can I have your opinion for Chrome Mox in a list that will surely play Chalice of the Void?

If you want to play Chalices, then you more than need some acceleration, otherwise you'll look quite sad when you'll try playing your Chalice @ 2 by... turn four.

Hence, being mono-blue, I don't think you have a lot of choices except for Moxes. Or City/Tomb.

Does that mean you should play them in MUC ? I certainly wouldn't, for the large number of reasons already discussed. 4 Moxes aren't going to be enough to make your Chalices the least bit reliable (ie : not crap most of the time). You need more accel for that. Hence, City/Tombs. But now, the list still isn't optimal at all, because you have all that consistent accel that the Chalices required to not suck (and sure, now they definitely don't), but you're not doing much with it other than that (not to mention that those 2-mana lands do have their share of suckyness if not actively abused by the decklist). So how can you further take advantage of the TEMPO (you know, MUC being the antithesis of a tempo deck. hint, hint) you're gaining by having so much more mana than your opponent so early ? Certainly not by playing Shackles a turn earlier (well, with only one island in play, they would suck anyway). So ? Well, you play threats, of course ! Hmmm... aren't we just slowly morphing into Faerie Stompy ? Why, yes, we are : )

Don't get me wrong, FS is not a bad deck in any sense... it's simply a (totally) different one. Seriously, FS is a very fine deck. If you want to play Chalices in a blue shell, all chances are it's the best way to do so and you probably should pick the deck up. But in MUC... well, not so much. At all.

Mordel

10-06-2008, 05:05 PM

Chrome mox fits into the idea of an accelerated blue-type deck. It offers an extra mana at the cost of CA. The vast majority of MUC decks in this thread coincide with the draw-go appraoch to the archetype, which means grinding your opponent down with card advantage and a land drop every turn basically. Chrome mox fits into such an archetype HORRIBLY. There have been exceptions in this rule before(mirrodin/kamigawa type two), but generally speaking, it is a step in the wrong direction unless you have a very specific metagame in mind.

In my extremely humble opinion, if you want chrome moxes and turn one chalices, play a tomb stompy deck. If you want to play some extremely challenging and very geek-adrenaline-rewarding matches, play MUC.

You need to have a really, really good reason to justify running moxes in MUC, imho anyway...especially considering that daze, force spike and fow can basically achieve the same end without you proactively burning a card to do so.

Jason

10-06-2008, 08:32 PM

In my extremely humble opinion, if you want chrome moxes and turn one chalices, play a tomb stompy deck. If you want to play some extremely challenging and very geek-adrenaline-rewarding matches, play MUC.

Agreed. The moxen should go in more accelerated decks. You are supplying yourself with card disadvantage by playing Mox Diamond/Chrome Mox. With Mox Diamond, you need to kill one of your lands off, which is a huge concern with this deck. I want to hit a land every turn for the first 5 or 6 turns. With Mox Diamond, you certainly won't. Yes a turn 2 B2B is awesome, but it slows down your Shackles because you will have one less Island available. I always foresee the situation where you only have 3 Islands and a Mox, and you can't steal that 4/5 Tarmogoyf; you could have, if you wouldn't have pitched the 4th Island. Similar situations go with Chrome Mox. All the cards in this deck are solid and now you want to pitch one just for a little bit of speed. This deck isn't going to win in the first 5 turns (usually...I have before with Powder Keg vs. Affinity), so the added speed is not worth the price you are paying.

As for Brainstorm + Fetches. I HATE this idea:

1) You can crack fetches anytime, so opponent must keep U open at all times, and free SoR = yay. Also, if playing Force Spike, you can make amusing things happen when people play 2 drops on turn 3. Like fetch and if they stifle hit their good threat if you choose.

2) There are far better things to Stifle than fetches (Engineered Explosives/Keg)

3) You usually have more lands anyway. Any tempo gained is counteracted by the fact that they've retarded their board development to keep open to Stifle.

1. Yes, you can crack fetches any time. And Stifle only costs 1 blue mana, so generally speaking, they can Stone Rain you in response to your "any time". And by killing off your land, I don't think your opponent is going to be too upset about your super tech response of Force Spike'ing their threat because the opponent has slowed you down now and can play another threat (or two) next turn and know you won't have the mana to respond to everything.
2. This may be true, but if you open the opportunity to slowing down even more, an aggressive player will take it and beat your face in for it.
3. Not always true, especially if you are playing weird Mox Diamond decks too. I run 24 land, 4 Impulse and 1 Shoreline Ranger and I have trouble hitting my 5th land drop consistently.

Captain_Morgan

10-06-2008, 08:49 PM

Thanks for answering my questions.

4eak

10-06-2008, 10:11 PM

@ Jason

As for Brainstorm + Fetches. I HATE this idea:

What exactly do you hate? Do you think Brainstorm+fetchlands don't belong in MUC? Do you think Stifle is really that amazing against the deck? Or are you just attempting to correct someone_unimportant's argument regarding how MUC interacts with Stifle?

I'm not sure what you are concluding.

I'll grant stifle is the most effective card that exists against fetchlands in MUC, but it doesn't mean MUC shouldn't be using fetchlands. Stifle is an overrated card. Unless you play Dreadnought and Wasteland in your deck, then stifle is a poor choice. If MUC played non-basics, where waste+stifle actually did more, I could understand a reasonable hesitation to play the enormous 6 fetchlands in MUC.

Do you even know the odds of an opponent having an active stifle against 6 fetchlands? Those odds get even worse when MUC plays around stifle too...MUC's mana-base has very little to worry about except crazy ideas like Chrome Mox (if Mana Drain was legal, then I would reconsider).

Yes, you can crack fetches any time. And Stifle only costs 1 blue mana, so generally speaking, they can Stone Rain you in response to your "any time".

If you fear a stifle, then play around it. It is the equivalent of how one might play against Daze of Force Spike. In this case, if both players are leaving one land untapped, one for playing Stifle, and the other a fetchland-to-be-stifled, then there is a neither a net gain nor loss of tempo on either side of the table (initially).

I don't have a problem with such a standoff, however, because I'm MUC, and I play more lands than pretty much every deck out there. The odds are that I'll be winning the land and tempo wars in the following turns of a such a stand-off.

So, you either crack the fetch when they tap out (because they know better than to wait you out), or you both of you just sit there. I don't see a problem with that. You both basically timewalk, and then MUC starts dropping more lands than his opponent.

I don't think your opponent is going to be too upset about your super tech response of Force Spike'ing their threat because the opponent has slowed you down now and can play another threat (or two) next turn and know you won't have the mana to respond to everything.

Force Spike is hardly "tech" in MUC. The card has been played in The Deck for a very long time. It is still a solid choice; it is not some arbitrary card choice. As to how Force Spike is used in this example, I don't understand the problem. Sacrificing a Land and using up Force Spike is a trade I'd almost always do to get a real threat and a counter to my board clearing out of my opponenent's hands.

MUC will just drop more lands, and it will to continue to counter and clear the board after this scenario. Stifle did nothing for your opponent in this example, it just made their position even weaker.

This may be true, but if you open the opportunity to slowing down even more, an aggressive player will take it and beat your face in for it.

That is a poor response to what someone_unimportant said.

Unless you are winning in the next few turns against MUC, hitting one of their lands with Stifle is the wrong play. Goblins can actually benefit from the short-term tempo gains of mana-disruption, but decks that are running stifle are unlikely to be able to take advantage of the mana-disruption nearly as effectively.

Stifle is best used against board clearers, especially for aggro-control tempo decks that need to win before MUC resets the board (and Stifle is just better sandbagged for use against a board clearer, or better yet, if I were playing aggro-control, I'd probably be pitching my stifle to FoW if I had it).

You can't stop MUC's mana-base.

Not always true, especially if you are playing weird Mox Diamond decks too.

Playing a normal MUC deck, yes, it is absolutely true that we are going to have more lands than our opponents, and stifles are really not that good at disrupting our mana-base. Mox Diamonds and Shoreline rangers are the exception, not the standard by which we should judge the stability of MUC's mana-base.

I run 24 land, 4 Impulse and 1 Shoreline Ranger and I have trouble hitting my 5th land drop consistently.

I don't usually have much of a problem getting my land drops. I suggest trying:

4x Brainstorm
2-3x Impulse
24-25x Lands

peace,
4eak

Jason

10-07-2008, 12:08 AM

[B][SIZE="3"]
What exactly do you hate? Do you think Brainstorm+fetchlands don't belong in MUC? Do you think Stifle is really that amazing against the deck? Or are you just attempting to correct someone_unimportant's argument regarding how MUC interacts with Stifle?

Apparently, you didn't read the entire thread because I have explained numerous times why I am against Brainstorm + Fetchlands. The biggest reason is indeed Stifle. Maybe I'm crazy but the last few tournaments I have played in had several tempo Threshold decks that were maindecking Stifle (so they could beat out the other Threshold decks and destroying their manabase). Because of this, Stifling a fetch land against a deck that isn't really doing as far as dropping threats seems like a good play. Say it's turn three for your opponent and they play Tarmogoyf. You crack your fetch in response, and they Stifle it, putting you at 1 land and a 2 (or 3) power creature staring at you getting bigger every turn. You say play around the Stifle. Solid theory - now you can't respond to the Goyf with a counterspell and you can't play the Shackles or B2B on turn 3 because you're going to be one land behind. You wait, and by that time Goyf has already destroyed you. I'm not as scared against Stifle+Dreadnought because I have always come up strong against that deck (but then again, my lands aren't getting destroyed by Stifles and Trickbinds). I am mostly worried about the excessive number of tempo Threshold decks.

[B][SIZE="3"]
Do you even know the odds of an opponent having an active stifle against 6 fetchlands? Those odds get even worse when MUC plays around stifle too...MUC's mana-base has very little to worry about except crazy ideas like Chrome Mox (if Mana Drain was legal, then I would reconsider).

[B][SIZE="3"]
Force Spike is hardly "tech" in MUC. The card has been played in The Deck for a very long time. It is still a solid choice; it is not some arbitrary card choice. As to how Force Spike is used in this example, I don't understand the problem. Sacrificing a Land and using up Force Spike is a trade I'd almost always do to get a real threat and a counter to my board clearing out of my opponenent's hands.

I didn't claim Force Spike is "tech"; I was referring to waiting for the opponent to play a 2-drop on turn three, you cracking your fetch, them Stifling it, and then you Force Spiking the threat. To me that sounds counter-intuitive. I was attempting to point out the silliness in using a fetchland to utilize Force Spike to your advantage.

[B][SIZE="3"]
I don't usually have much of a problem getting my land drops. I suggest trying:

4x Brainstorm
2-3x Impulse
24-25x Lands

I would seriously like to know why 4x Brainstorm + 6x Fetchland + 24x Land + 2x Impulse makes me hit land drops more consistently than 4x Impulse + 1x Shoreline Ranger + 24x Land (that is, of course assuming my opponent did not Stifle my fetch). I'm not being sarcastic at all. I apparently suck at drawing because I have come to situations where I have Impulsed twice in the first 3 turns and still ended up with only 3 lands - which were the ones in my opening hand. Could someone explain why that is the case - it seems to happen quite frequently?

Jason

10-07-2008, 12:12 AM

Note: I did respond to the second point about the odds but I'm too lazy to type it out again (I must have deleted it accidentally).

I do know the odds and it is low, but seeing as the odds of me playing at least one if not two or three decks that do maindeck Stifle is quite probable, I would argue that my land getting destroyed causing a game loss (possibly match loss) is not worth the chance of playing it.

someone_unimportant

10-07-2008, 03:21 AM

Say it's turn three for your opponent and they play Tarmogoyf. You crack your fetch in response, and they Stifle it, putting you at 1 land and a 2 (or 3) power creature staring at you getting bigger every turn. You say play around the Stifle. Solid theory - now you can't respond to the Goyf with a counterspell and you can't play the Shackles or B2B on turn 3 because you're going to be one land behind.
Your example is nonsense. The Tarmogoyf has 0,1, or 2 (max) power because no player has played almost any spells. The worst case is if opponent leads fetch, pass, land, some cantrip, pass, land, tarmogoyf. If they played spells earlier, then they would be tapped out and you could crack the fetch. There is no way in HELL I would want to counter this Tarmogoyf. Grizzly bears that maybe grow eventually are not scary. Your opponent played a 2-power vanilla creature on turn THREE. In LEGACY. The second-fastest format in the game. If you're not equipped to deal with that, then I don't know what to say. The faaaar scarier card in my experience is Dark Confidant in Ugb Thresh, and yes I will sacrifice a land to counter it. In fact, I have had opponents, fearing the Spike, not Stifling my lands to resolve their Bob, which I believe is correct, by the way. Also, I usually play Shackles and B2B on the fourth turn, so there are no Daze Shenanigans. Propaganda, Impulse, Brainstorm, and EE are what I play on turn 3. Also, as a tiny aside, I don't actually play the card Counterspell in my deck, so that's not an issue for me, although my point about not countering Goyf still stands.

I didn't claim Force Spike is "tech"; I was referring to waiting for the opponent to play a 2-drop on turn three, you cracking your fetch, them Stifling it, and then you Force Spiking the threat. To me that sounds counter-intuitive. I was attempting to point out the silliness in using a fetchland to utilize Force Spike to your advantage.[\QUOTE]
That was less evidence and more anecdote, I apologize. The point I meant to make was that occasionally match wins can directly correlate to sticking only a few cards (one of these is Dark Confidant), which can result in opponents playing around Spike by not Stifling. I gave this as another example of ways to play around stifle. And as I said above, yes I would sacrifice a land to be able to counter Dark Confidant.

[QUOTE=Jason;282240]I would seriously like to know why 4x Brainstorm + 6x Fetchland + 24x Land + 2x Impulse makes me hit land drops more consistently than 4x Impulse + 1x Shoreline Ranger + 24x Land (that is, of course assuming my opponent did not Stifle my fetch). I'm not being sarcastic at all. I apparently suck at drawing because I have come to situations where I have Impulsed twice in the first 3 turns and still ended up with only 3 lands - which were the ones in my opening hand. Could someone explain why that is the case - it seems to happen quite frequently?
Just going by numbers, 24x Land + 4 x 3 seen cards + 2 x 4 seen cards = 44. 24x land + 4 x 4 + 1 x 1 = 41. Other than that, there's also that you can play brainstorm off less lands, which can increase the chance a bit as well. Lastly, you might just be unlucky. That's all I could think of.

Personally, I think the -1 life matters a whole lot more than Stifle's presence in the metagame. And finally, Brainstorm is amazing. This is because all your threats are not equal. B2B != Propaganda != Shackles != EE/Keg, etc. They are all good in very specific stages of the game and many become significantly worse if they are not in that stage. Brainstorm being able to DO things before turns 5-8 is phenomenally important. Fact or Fiction can take over the card advantage role. If anyone is interested more about this, me and Kadaj duked it out on pages 29 and 30 of the old MUC thread.

Aside @ 4eak: Maybe. And actually, Spike vs. Lackey is essentially equivalent to Keg vs. Lackey, but slightly better. They both only really matter on the play.

EDIT: If anyone cares, this is my list as best I can remember it.

4x Brainstorm
4x Impulse
4x Fact or Fiction
4x Force of Will
4x Force Spike
4x Propaganda
4x Back to Basics
3x Vedalken Shackles
3x Engineered Explosives

2x Morphling
1x Meloku

3x Polluted Delta
3x Flooded Strand
1x Plains
1x Swamp
15x Island

Yeah, I skimmed on the lands a little bit. 8x 1-2 mana finders made me feel ok about it.

4eak

10-07-2008, 03:29 AM

@ Jason

Maybe I'm crazy but the last few tournaments I have played in had several tempo Threshold decks that were maindecking Stifle (so they could beat out the other Threshold decks and destroying their manabase).

Yup. Stifle does a great job against low-land count, heavy fetch decks. That doesn't mean it does a good job against MUC.

Say it's turn three for your opponent and they play Tarmogoyf. You crack your fetch in response, and they Stifle it, putting you at 1 land and a 2 (or 3) power creature staring at you getting bigger every turn.

An example of stifle working to perfection. The vast majority of the time, Stifle is not going to be this good. You continue to misrepresent Stifle's utility in the matchup and the probability of these sorts of plays.

In addition, MUC plays a heavy land count and board control for a reason. We can regain control even from this point; our high quantity of lands, board control, and FoW can handle the stifle issue. To your specific issue: there are other options besides Countespell and Mana leak in this situation.

I was attempting to point out the silliness in using a fetchland to utilize Force Spike to your advantage.

He wasn't "using a fetchland to utilize Force spike." He was explaining that Stifle trix aren't unanswerable, and that even force spike can punish the use of Stifle to great effect.

So, regarding the situation you gave me, of the number of options available to MUC, I could even Force Spike in response to the Goyf. Pure and simple--Stifle isn't all that amazing, and we have options, including Force Spike.

You say play around the Stifle.

Yes, I do, and I will continue to say so, because it has a high probability of succeeding.

Stifle is too conditional against MUC's manabase. I generally open hands with 2-3 lands and a cantrip. I have very good odds of playing pure basics for the first 3-4 turns, without requiring the use of fetches, and they have very low odds of making the play you have mentioned.

I would seriously like to know why 4x Brainstorm + 6x Fetchland + 24x Land + 2x Impulse makes me hit land drops more consistently than 4x Impulse + 1x Shoreline Ranger + 24x Land (that is, of course assuming my opponent did not Stifle my fetch). I'm not being sarcastic at all. I apparently suck at drawing because I have come to situations where I have Impulsed twice in the first 3 turns and still ended up with only 3 lands - which were the ones in my opening hand. Could someone explain why that is the case - it seems to happen quite frequently?

Well, first of all, you are going to mulligan more than I will because I can keep hands that you can't. This means I have a higher starting hand count on average than you--it is quite possible that I'll be seeing more lands in my first 3 turns just because of this.

Additionally, running 6-7 cantrips, as opposed to your 4+Islandcycle, means I will be seeing more cards than you.

Please note that you could always go up to 25 lands and 7 cantrips (as I suggested) if you feel you are somehow very unlucky. My suggestion would definitely increase the number of lands you'd be seeing.

I would argue that my land getting destroyed causing a game loss (possibly match loss) is not worth the chance of playing it.

And, your argument would be wrong.

Brainstorm will win you 10x the games you will ever lose to a Stifle on fetch.

@ someone_unimportant

4x Brainstorm
4x Impulse
4x Fact or Fiction
4x Force of Will
4x Force Spike
4x Propaganda
4x Back to Basics
3x Vedalken Shackles
3x Engineered Explosives

2x Morphling
1x Meloku

3x Polluted Delta
3x Flooded Strand
1x Plains
1x Swamp
15x Island

Wowsers, no Counterpsell, no Manaleak? That takes some balls dude. You have 8 permission spells! That is a very tempo oriented set of counters. But, I can definitely see why you choose them in such a permanent-heavy MUC.

That deck looks like it is transforming into combo-prison.dec with heavy cantrips and light permission to drop prison bombs. In many ways it is the opposite tactic of my version. You play permanent-based control, and I play mostly stack-based control.

I have a fairly different strategy for the first game of a match. I play a main that is not what you find listed on the boards (although, after siding, it can look the same).

Current Main:

CQ/CA: 10
4x Brainstorm
2x Impulse
4x Fact or Fiction

Permission: 16
4x Force of Will
4x Counterspell
4x Mana Leak
4x Force Spike

Board Control: 8
2x Echoing Truth
3x Vedalken Shackles
3x Nevi's Disk (like deed, a completely underestimated card--and it isn't slow in a deck designed to use to it properly)

Win-Stuff: 2
2x Meloku

Mana-Base: 24
3x Polluted Delta
3x Flooded Strand
14x Island
4x Mishra's Factory

This is a fairly heavy instant speed draw/go style, but it performs very well. Here in Thailand, I have to prepare for a very diverse metagame when we play magic. I keep an even match against Threshold and Goblins (being extremely stack-control heavy is better than the grey area inbetween the spectrum of permanent and stack-based control), but I keep my options quite open against a broad metagame.

If you want to know, Propaganda's and B2B's are in the side (and the fact that B2B hits factory is nearly irrelevant when I actually side in B2B to destroy whole decks). I bring them in when I know exactly what I am playing against. Neither card is actually necessary in the main for MUC to have a good game against most every deck.

peace,
4eak

ParkerLewis

10-07-2008, 05:59 AM

If you want to know, Propaganda's and B2B's are in the side (and the fact that B2B hits factory is nearly irrelevant when I actually side in B2B to destroy whole decks). I bring them in when I know exactly what I am playing against. Neither card is actually necessary in the main for MUC to have a good game against most every deck.

The thing is, B2B is better than good against 90% of the Tier 1 & 2 decks. So, unless you do expect a lot of random crap (which is possible, I don't know your metagame, and there are a lot of places where it's underdeveloped), B2Bs belong in the main. They're the reason the deck was viable in the first place.

Maybe you specifically have a metagame that allows for not putting them in, but you definitely shouldn't be consider it a generally normal choice.

4eak

10-07-2008, 11:21 AM

@ ParkerLewis

Let me preface my reply by explaining that I've tested Kadaj's list extensively, and I appreciate the value of a permanent-based control strategy. I think he did a good job making the distinction in his opening post, but I think he failed to really develop a stack-based control strategy for MUC. I am not claiming the the permanent-based control strategy isn't viable, I'm merely offering a viable alternative build which has a slightly different strategy that requires different cards. I suggest playtesting my build before you dismiss it.

I'm not exactly sure about the purpose of your post--I thought I was sufficiently clear that I didn't find my deck represented the current builds of others on the Source. I also hope I was clear that the Thai metagame is different and diverse, and not normal by your standards. I don't think our metagame is "random crap", I just think it is different. We often play many of the same decks, usually in different proportions to the quantities played in your 'normal' metagame.

Even if this version of MUC is the preferred version in a very diverse metagame like mine, that doesn't mean the deck I listed doesn't have viable applications to other metagames, including the one listed in the DTBF.

I didn't list the deck for no reason though (and I'm not implying that you said anything of the sort). Not only does my version of the deck perform well against the Thai metagame, I've found that it does well in almost any metagame, including against a large portion of the DTBF (which is what I believe you are referring to as the 'normal' metagame). To your point: I know for a fact that B2B isn't absolutely necessary for winning. MUC can still viably be played in virtue of its permission, consistency, board clearing and pure card advantage, and if built to control the stack specifically doesn't necessarily need the help of tempo permanents such as Propaganda and B2B, even against that DTB metagame.

B2B is powerful, and against the DTB metagame, the card definitely belongs in a permanent-based control version of MUC, but MUC is still a viable choice even without B2B in the main--you just need to build and play it correctly.

I'm not against the inclusion of B2B if you are facing the DTB Gauntlet. I'm saying that it isn't absolutely necessary to have B2B in the main for MUC to be viable against the DTB Gauntlet. If you played a stack-based control version of MUC, as opposed to a permanent-based, you would see that B2B isn't a requirement.

We would be overstepping our bounds to say that a stack-oriented control list of MUC, even one not playing B2B in the main, is not a viable option to play. It plays a different role, but it is still quite viable. The deck has relevant strengths that permanent-based control lacks. Admittedly, the deck is hard to pilot, but it can perform not just in my unknown and very diverse metagame, but even in the developed (perhaps even incestuous) metagame to which you are referring as "normal".

A stack-control MUC has a very different agenda than most of the MUC builds listed and played by Legacy players (which is predominantly permanent-based control), specifically, B2B isn't fulfilling the same role and isn't as important in this version of the deck.

peace,
4eak

Nihil Credo

10-07-2008, 11:52 AM

No objection on your points, 4eak, but if you don't run B2B, AND you're not afraid of being Stifle/Wasted to hell (as evidenced by your use of fetches and Mishra's), then what's stopping you from running a second colour?

Both white and black have better removal and better win conditions for control, as well as helping with some critical weak spots of the deck (e.g. graveyard, land destruction, enchantments).

ParkerLewis

10-07-2008, 01:00 PM

I've found that it does well in almost any metagame, including against a large portion of the DTBF (which is what I believe you are referring to as the 'normal' metagame). To your point: I know for a fact that B2B isn't absolutely necessary for winning. MUC can still viably be played in virtue of its permission, consistency, board clearing and pure card advantage, and if built to control the stack specifically doesn't necessarily need the help of tempo permanents such as Propaganda and B2B, even against that DTB metagame.

B2B is powerful, and against the DTB metagame, the card definitely belongs in a permanent-based control version of MUC, [I]but MUC is still a viable choice even without B2B in the main--you just need to build and play it correctly.

Well, if you want to, we can switch "non viable" to "utterly suboptimal", but it feels a bit like nitpicking (once again in a developed, tier1-tier2 metagame).

Could you provide a quick overview of your metagame ? I'm not looking to make judgements on it (your meta is what it is), I just think that it would better help put things in context.

Sorry if you did it somewhere already. You really write too much, man ;) (all jokes aside, and with all due respect, you could say almost all the same things you say in way less words, which would facilitate discussion and encourage its continuation)

4eak

10-07-2008, 01:48 PM

@ Nihil Credo

No objection on your points, 4eak, but if you don't run B2B, AND you're not afraid of being Stifle/Wasted to hell (as evidenced by your use of fetches and Mishra's), then what's stopping you from running a second colour?

I do run B2B as a 4x in the sideboard. This alone is a good enough reason to stay mono blue. Now, that might seem difficult to believe that a sideboard card would be strong enough that we'd really consider staying mono-color for it, but this isn't just any deck. MUC can be built to have a decent game against almost all decks in the main, and even stronger against some post-board. So, I still use B2B, but only in the Games 2 and 3 that call for it.

I'm not afraid of Stifles/Wasteland specifically because I am playing a fairly strong mana-base. As you point out, the mana-base could be stronger (and at times I've removed the Mishra's), but I don't find it as necessary. MUC, even packing fetches+Mishra's still has a stronger mana-base than if I was effectively splashing. Losing a Mishra's is not the same thing as losing an entire color. Not splashing keeps the land base very strong and consistent.

In addition, the smoothness of the mana-coloring (which becomes card advantage in fewer hands mulliganed), a huge blue spell count (with choices about what to pitch to FoW), and a more universal control gameplan (for example, this version has a much better game against combo than permanent-control versions) all push the deck into MUC.

Both white and black have better removal and better win conditions for control

The removal might seem tempting, but I'm not looking to play Landstill. A strong permission base, bounce, Shackles, and Nevi's disk gives the deck a very strong board control position. If you play correctly (and I'm not saying that is easily accomplished), then you'll exercise a great deal of control over what gets into and stays in play.

As for win conditions, I think it is very difficult to beat Meloku. Few cards can play so many roles. Meloku clogs the board, does some good combat tricks, and most importantly, he does the best job at managing the role change from control to aggro. Plus, he's blue. Additionally, the Factories win plenty of games.

@ ParkerLewis

"utterly suboptimal"

I wouldn't have said it was viable if I thought it was suboptimal. We have a different view of the meaning and value of the Tier 1/DTB forum. I take it with a grain of salt. Even in the states, few tournaments matched the metagame predicted in the DTB. Even when we use the DTBF as just a basic standard or starting place, we still have many unknowns that should not be dismissed.

You might find it suboptimal (which is an odd thing to conclude without testing) against only the DTBF, but I'm interested in more than just defeating decks listed on the DTBF when I play MUC. This version can win against the known decks (especially when you've practiced the matches over and over), but it also has raw strength against the unknown aspects of a metagame. Having that "Fortress in an unknown metagame" is part of the reason to play the stack-control version of MUC, and it has viability and application to plenty of metagames that aren't all exactly following the tiered structure you see on this site. The word "optimal" is much harder to measure than you make it out to be.

Could you provide a quick overview of your metagame ?

The metagame here varies a lot, and our tournaments are small. We do see some jank, but we see plenty of Source-list netdecks too. For the more regular players, we have some who play Goblins, Threshold and Landstill. We don't have any seriously played aggro-loam or Ichorid. We have very little Fish or Dreadnought. We have some tendrils combo players. Sometimes we see other interesting decks like W/B Pox, Stasis and a few seemingly random decks. And, of course, we often have someone who wants to play a ported T2 deck.

A few of us test heavily the DTB gauntlet though (as we test with and play against friends in the states). Feel free to remove my metagame from the context. I'll be happy to defend the choices in the context of a universal Legacy metagame.

peace,
4eak

Mordel

10-07-2008, 01:54 PM

Despite being a random on the forums still at this point, I am going to say the reason that I don't like fetches is because they interfere with me dropping a land every single turn after a while. I absolutely do not like that. I used fetches when I was playing around with the idea of blessing-go(didn't work out great anyway, the deck that is) and I wasn't really thrilled with the fetches: I was missing land drops once the games rolled into the middle point.

Back in the day, I was in love with thawing glaciers(1.x days of yore) because they sort of circumvented this problem and at the same time improved my brainstorms and impulses. They also only took up three to two slots and my deck would continue to be consistent if they got wasted. Unfortunately they are not really viable anymore though. Kind of a pointless thing to mention, yes, vbut I felt like mentioning it.

As far as I am concerned with my pseudo-religious beliefs in regards to draw-go you deck should be able to survive the first few turns by dropping a land consistently, countering game breaking cards and on the fourth or so turn, refilling you hand. I absolutely do not like getting no actual card advantage from my draw spells and just digging. Brainstorm and impulse were awesome when one could actually get away with running an ophidian, but that shit doesn't fly anymore and I absolutely hate having my hand grinded down and being potentially forced to miss land drops because I need a counter, or a shackles and need to toss the lands away because they are generally amongst the first cards you pitch to brainstorms or impulses. I'd much rather pilot my deck so that I survive the first few turn using my life total as a clock and have a AV refill my hand and have a card like impulse or brainstorm on "oh shit, I need to dig" duty...impulse is obviously preferred for this task.

With that said, I can appreciate the approach of many players that favor the brainstorm/impulse/fetch land approach because the combination of these cards clearly contributes to being able to find bombs(btb, shackles,keg, disk etc etc) faster and win the game almost entirely on the search arget's back. I guess it comes down to what you metagame looks like. Through personal experience though, I have found that going with the the traditional Buehler blue approach has served me better in largely unknown/undefined metagames...that is mostly because I have found that dropping a land each turn and seldom having your hand drop below three tends to serve quite well in a control matchup...with that said, it's still my personal preference.

The ongoing debate of whether to run fetches and cantrips that search is kind of moot in my point of view because tools for specific jobs are being debated: if you need a bomb asap in your metagame, play with fetches and dig cantrips and if you eed to be dropping land every turn and maintain card advantage(aka lots of control imho), play a deck that runs more raw CA and less to none search.

That's my thoughts on the issue of fetches anyway.

ParkerLewis

10-07-2008, 02:52 PM

I wouldn't have said it was viable if I thought it was suboptimal. We have a different view of the meaning and value of the Tier 1/DTB forum. I take it with a grain of salt. Even in the states, few tournaments matched the metagame predicted in the DTB. Even when we use the DTBF as just a basic standard or starting place, we still have many unknowns that should not be dismissed.

Well, I'm taking it with a grain of salt too (as it is supposed to be). What I said was "tier 1 / tier 2". Ie 90 % decks that are chock-full of nonbasic goodness. Hence the success of decks like Dragon Stompy that pack a whopping 7 to 8 moon effects (a large part of DS players would probably play even more if they had a way to. in any case, such a high number is really telling something).

In another way, 90 % decks against which B2B is the best card in your 75.

Hence, unless Ichorid, Burn, or "random mono basics.junk" does make up a very significant portion of the metagame, no MD B2B => suboptimal.

Apart from that, I totally agree that if the metagame you're facing relies a lot less on duals / other nonbasics than other metas, B2B can stay in the SB.

Barsoom

10-07-2008, 04:18 PM

@ DoksI consider Shackles to be the strongest card in the deck (better than FoF, FoW, Brainstorm, and B2B) and the real reason MUC is a viable option. I look at the rest of the deck as building up the point (permission/board clearing/bounce) where Shackles hits play and you stabilize in creature-heavy environments.
peace,
4eak

Quoted for truth; Shackles wins games, people scoops to it, opponents hate this card as much as we, MUC players, love it.
It's for sure the best card in the deck.

Poron

10-07-2008, 05:40 PM

these days I have been playing with MUC and I'm pretty happy with the results but I realized that it's stupid not to deal easily with things that uses repeated activated ability, such as Survival, vexking shusher etc.
and since Chalice of the Void is very cool but not exactly suiting the list, i would consider to drop it and to return to a 1cc viable list.

let's consider again

brainstorm
spell snare
pithing needle sb
relic of progenitus sb
stifle

I would really like to play some Stifle, may be 3x and Spell Snare too.
no Brainstorm because I don't want to run fetches at all.

referring to my list I would probably play
-4 Chalice of the Void
-1 Island
+3 Stifle
+2 Spell Snare (or something very tricky)

Poron

10-07-2008, 05:41 PM

Well, I'm taking it with a grain of salt too (as it is supposed to be). What I said was "tier 1 / tier 2". Ie 90 % decks that are chock-full of nonbasic goodness. Hence the success of decks like Dragon Stompy that pack a whopping 7 to 8 moon effects (a large part of DS players would probably play even more if they had a way to. in any case, such a high number is really telling something).

In another way, 90 % decks against which B2B is the best card in your 75.

Hence, unless Ichorid, Burn, or "random mono basics.junk" does make up a very significant portion of the metagame, no MD B2B => suboptimal.

Apart from that, I totally agree that if the metagame you're facing relies a lot less on duals / other nonbasics than other metas, B2B can stay in the SB.

I remember you that even if non basic lands count as Mountain they are still non basic and won't untap even under the effect of Blood Moon/Magus.

It's the same for Price of Progress, with Blood Moon it still does its damages

ParkerLewis

10-07-2008, 05:48 PM

I remember you that even if non basic lands count as Mountain they are still non basic and won't untap even under the effect of Blood Moon/Magus.

It's the same for Price of Progress, with Blood Moon it still does its damages

Hmm, you're right. But I'm not sure I get your point ? :confused:

Jason

10-07-2008, 07:30 PM

referring to my list I would probably play
-4 Chalice of the Void
-1 Island
+3 Stifle
+2 Spell Snare (or something very tricky)

I'm not sure what Stifle is actually accomplishing in MUC. Yes, it will slow down your opponent for a couple turns if it is a control deck, but if it is an aggressive deck where all the spells cost 1 or 2, Stifle won't make that much of a difference. I feel it is only playable in really aggressive high-tempo decks, and this deck would not qualify.

Also, I don't think taking out an Island is a good idea. Rarely is cutting a land the best choice. I'm not sure what your list was before, but I would suggest from the above:
-0 Island
+0 Stifle
+4 Spell Snare

pingveno

10-07-2008, 10:09 PM

I haven't seen anything said about Oona, Queen of the Fae, so I guess I will start. It is, in my opinion, the best finisher that MUC has, aside from Morphling. It can end the game in 3 turns and has instant board presence. Sure she is one more mana than Meloku, but she also has a sizable power and toughness (5/5, with flying) and doesn't require you to bounce lands to make tokens. I've tested a 2/1, Morphling/Oona split and have been really happy with it. I feel it is strictly better than Meloku. Thoughts?

Arsenal

10-07-2008, 11:12 PM

I like Rainbow Efreet over both Meloku and Oona. 2/1 Morphling/Efreet split has been doing well for me. However, if your meta supports a token machine (like Oona and Meloku), then I don't see why you can't run her.

Mordel

10-08-2008, 02:19 AM

I have never really thought about Oona. I guess she could to a lot of damage fast, but I don't really like that she comes out two turns after an efreet would and one after a morphling would. She also has absolutely no immunity to targetted removal, which means you are going to be tenuously spending mana on her ability to make her compensate for the turn later that she comes out, protecting her and protecting yourself with counterspells. Waiting one turn longer to connect for five and an ability that you need to wait for a turn to deal more damage is kind of a turn off for me too. Yes, you will end up doing more damage should things go undisturbed, but I still don't realy like her. The milling part is sort of a mixed bag because you could be getting an opponent closer to a business card...or getting rid of one. Thetoken poduction is kind of situational too. I see too spending three mana to get one token happening way too often, whereas with a morphling, you get an obscenely tough creature and with efreet, you get a card that is nearly unkillable, period...despite it taking six swings to win you the game.

I was never a fan of Meloku in 1.5 muc...ever. I even felt kind of dirty running it in 1.x. Oona is totally better than Meloku for sure though.

I guess whatever gets the job done quick, but creatures with some sort of ability that adds resilience are better in draw-go style decks. Why leave yourself open to stupid shit like topdecked stp when you just finished blowing your stack of counterspells on an opponent's last attempt to get a crucial spell through etc etc.

ParkerLewis

10-08-2008, 04:24 AM

Only problem with Oona is its vulnerability.

The huge plus of Efreet (as Morphling, but nobody's discussing Morphling status) is that you'll never need to waste a counter on protecting your wincon.

The vulnerability problem is then worsened by Oona's mana cost. It means that unless you have FoW in hand, it's very risky to play it before reaching 8 lands.

Plus, MUC being the deck it is, it's probably the least capable deck to take advantage of the 3 turn clock. Don't misunderstand me, this is still an important point -- just not as much as it would be in any other decks (except for maybe Landstill).

4eak

10-08-2008, 06:16 AM

@ ParkerLewis

You are exaggerating the strength of B2B against the Tier 1 and 2 decks. Shackles is still the best card in the deck because it gives us our game against creature-based decks to begin with. MUC can win in a format that turns creatures sideways without B2B, but you can't without shackles.

Of course, If your opponent's gameplan involves untapping their non-basics many times, then yes, B2B is gamebreaking and the strongest card. There are several decks, including Tier 1 and 2 decks, that still function well under B2B, and in those cases B2B really isn't all that great.

You continue to neglect my argument. I'll try this one last time:

The strength of MUC is being able to answer the universal metagame and the unknown. The more you limit the scope of your metagame, moving from universal to specific, the less incentive there is to play MUC as opposed to other control decks.

Permanent-based MUC strategies have an edge over stack-based versions against the DTB forum. While the permanent-based strategy has a decent game against the unknown, its strength is that it is highly tuned to a specific metagame, and if all I had to beat were decks found in that forum, I would be running my permanent-based control list over a stack-based list too. If you were to play MUC in that metagame, then B2B is clearly an auto 4x.

If you are playing against the DTB forum exclusively, why would you play MUC? There are other decks that are simply better. The strength of MUC is not how it plays against a very specific metagame, but rather how the deck plays against the unknown and unspecific.

Most people will not be facing the DTB forum exclusively. There are usually many other archetypes for which we must prepare. And, permanent-based strategies are going to be weaker in those circumstances--that includes the use of B2B in the main. Against unknown metagames, stack-based control has a serious advantage over permanent-based control. That doesn't mean B2B isn't amazing, it just isn't required as maindeck material.

Stack-based control versions of MUC play a fundamentally different role because it is pursuing an unknown metagame, not the DTB forum (although it can perform there as well). Even if the deck isn't optimal against the DTB, in practice, the strategy is quite viable and it is actually optimal to use B2B in your sideboard in the Stack-based control version.

peace,
4eak

Poron

10-08-2008, 06:49 AM

Since we're playing again 1cc, in my opinion we have to consider Meekstone

ParkerLewis

10-08-2008, 08:25 AM

F* sh*t the internet @ work. Took half an hour to write a very long and detailed answer only to see it disappear. I F* HATE that.

Sorry, I had to express my rage. Will probably rewrite the answer later in this post.

holkenborg

10-08-2008, 08:32 AM

I think I saw your post with a summary of all good performing MUC lists of the last years and an analysis of it. I clicked it away to read it at home, but couldn't find it anymore :frown:

Arsenal

10-08-2008, 09:21 AM

Since we're playing again 1cc, in my opinion we have to consider Meekstone

Meh, it'll be too much hassle (making sure Morphling is 2/4 when Meekstone checks, Rainbow Efreet is 3/1) than what you get out of it imo.

Between Shackles, Keg, and Propaganda, creature control shouldn't be that much of an issue mid-late game.

EDIT: I'm retarded about Morphling (totally forgot about untapping for U), but my point about Rainbow Efreet/any other creature you want to use that has 3 or greater power (like Oona) stands.

4eak

10-08-2008, 12:13 PM

@ ParkerLewis

F* sh*t the internet @ work. Took half an hour to write a very long and detailed answer only to see it disappear. I F* HATE that.

Sorry, I had to express my rage. Will probably rewrite the answer later in this post.

Yeah, I hate that. After the third time that happened to me, I just started writing longer posts in notepad.

I hope you are bringing more to your next post than tournament results. While I study them, I'm quite skeptical of what sorts of conclusions can really be drawn from them.

MUC is an uncommonly played deck in a format that is also uncommonly played. Additionally, MUC can be one of the more skill intensive archetypes to play, some versions more than others, and there are many implications of a deck that is hard to play.

Tournament data is not the holy grail. The sample size is actually very small for a game with this many variables; and frankly, player skill has more to do with winning the tournament than having the best deck or an optimal version of a deck.

Arguments concerning optimality are exceedingly hard to support using a small sample size, and the problem becomes compounded when you cannot isolate and remove things such as player skill from the equation.

Now, you might ask what makes me think I would have any better a chance at calculating optimality if we aren't going to base our support solely on tournament results. Our testing gauntlet has a fairly unique system for calculating player skill and enabling us to remove player skill from equations when attempting to define a deck's optimality. Tables of 1000's of games among several players with a version of a deck, as opposed to something like deckcheck, gives much better data from which to draw conclusions concerning optimality outside the context of player skill.

But, perhaps I'm still missing something.

peace,
4eak

Mordel

10-08-2008, 01:27 PM

Another thought on Oona: I think I would actually rather run palinchron than Oona. I would never run palinchron, but I would if someone told me I had to run one or the other.

I am pretty sure that tourney reports are all you have when it comes to a reliable information source on the elusive "optimum" build.

B2B was a no-brainer for me personally ever since I played the deck in old 1.x.
In the worst case scenario, it could be pitched to an FoW instead of a brainstorm or impulse...or back in the day, a forbid's buyback.

That reminds me, I don't have the lists all memorized yet, but has anyone been playing with a singleton copy of forbid? It isn't what it used to be, but it is still nice to have one in a deck sometimes.

Edit: I don't really like meekstone at all. It forces you to spend an extra mana each turn to untap morphling and it makes you spend more on rainbow(if I am not mistaken, phasing creatures come back into play, during the untap phase untapped. The phase does not untap them, that is just when they come into play). Either way making me phase an efreet more than I need to and making me spend an extra mana on morph every turn is irritating.
If you find yourself reaching for a meekstone, you might want to consider either tuning your counters better for the early game, runnin something like masticore maybe or just plain playing a different deck.

Arsenal

10-08-2008, 02:37 PM

I don't remember who it was, but someone in the old MUC thread swore by a singleton Forbid.

Good lookin on that phasing ruling. Phasing is so... 1997.

Poron

10-08-2008, 02:52 PM

Meh, it'll be too much hassle (making sure Morphling is 2/4 when Meekstone checks, Rainbow Efreet is 3/1) than what you get out of it imo.

Between Shackles, Keg, and Propaganda, creature control shouldn't be that much of an issue mid-late game.

EDIT: I'm retarded about Morphling (totally forgot about untapping for U), but my point about Rainbow Efreet/any other creature you want to use that has 3 or greater power (like Oona) stands.

well I don't play Efreet so... :P

anyway a single drop 1cc that can take away Tombstalker, Tarmogoyf, Dreadnought, etc. seems pretty big...

obviously always playing Shackles and Propaganda.

I'm not sure of Powder Keg really... it's slow and rarely its something that wouldn't have been severed by meekstone

ParkerLewis

10-08-2008, 03:13 PM

Might as well make a new post for clarity of discussion.

I'll do it again, but much more quickly. tired from work, and so on, and rewrite something you already wrote the same day is an incredibly boring work.

Of course, If your opponent's gameplan involves untapping their non-basics many times, then yes, B2B is gamebreaking and the strongest card. There are several decks, including Tier 1 and 2 decks, that still function well under B2B, and in those cases B2B really isn't all that great.

Count them. Then, compare it to the number of deck you didn't count.

The more you limit the scope of your metagame, moving from universal to specific, the less incentive there is to play MUC as opposed to other control decks.

That's where I disagree. I don't agree with the underlying idea of "the universal metagame". By definition, a metagame is local. And - this is where it gets interesting - this is something you already know, and act in consequence of. And everybody also does. Nobody's preparing for "the universal metagame", and there is a simple proof for that.

Consider this decklist :

4x Blurred Mongoose
4x Giant Solifuge
4x Choke
4x Boil
4x Krosan Grip
4x Hull Breach
4x Sirocco
4x City of Solitude
4x Pyroblast
4x Red Elemental Blast

10 Forest
10 Mountain

By the simple and basic fact that you chose to play MUC, you already made the assumption that there's no way in hell you'll encounter this deck (and there's nothing wrong with that specific assumption, of course). It goes even further than choosing a deck, it happens as soon as you choose a strategy. Hence, you're ALWAYS specifically preparing.

Now, what I'm saying is this : the more developed a metagame is, the more heavily it tends to rely on duals and other non-basic goodness. Just look at the dtb forum (once again, NOT as a metagame itslef, but as a sample of decks that would be part of a developed metagame). B2B is a very troublesome card for the vast majority of them.

The only thing left to determine is at what point B2B deserves to be MD. Is it when it's very troublesome for 70 % of your expected opponents ? 75 % ? More ? I'm not sure there's even a definite number, but i think you'll agree that the point where the line is drawn is probably around 75 %. Especially here, considering the decks where B2B doesn't shine are usually unoptimized, random decklist, which you already have good tools to fight.

That being clearly said, i stand by my former statement :

Hence, unless Ichorid, Burn, or "random mono basics.junk" does make up a very significant portion of the metagame, no MD B2B => suboptimal.

Apart from that, I totally agree that if the metagame you're facing relies a lot less on duals / other nonbasics than other metas, B2B can stay in the SB.

Jason

10-08-2008, 03:16 PM

I'm not sure of Powder Keg really... it's slow and rarely its something that wouldn't have been severed by meekstone

Meekstone is no good against Decree tokens and Ichorid.

Yeah, you have Propaganda, but it really can't hurt to have a Keg sitting at 0, can it? And it is one of the two cards that makes Affinity cry (the other being Shackles).

kensook

10-08-2008, 03:24 PM

If I were to put in Graveyard hate in the SB, would it be Relic of Progenitus or Tormod's Crypt?

Arsenal

10-08-2008, 03:45 PM

Relic, it cantrips, and we don't give a rat's ass about our graveyard (in fact, getting rid of our yard will only hurt your opponent's Goyf). I'd play Relic over Crypt.

Mordel

10-08-2008, 07:34 PM

Relic is totally awesome. The sad thing about my recollection of the efreet's phasing abillity went back to when I used to play draw-go back in mirage/tempest type two. Someone varified it though? How sad: I actually remembered it off the top of my head =/

I stand by my opinion that meekstone is just chaff: between powder keg/disk, counters and othe popular measures against fast creatures, you have every tool you really need to fight aggro unless you are lacking in muc piloting abilities or you are bringing muc into a metagame it has absolutely no business being in.

Winning at a single digit life total is nothing new for muc even in a good match; a card like meekstone seems to be a response to this situation arising.

@Parker:

I would consider running three copies of B2B main and one side even in a metagame where it will only be useful against 50% or so of the metagame because the vast majority of those decks are at the top tables. Even if it is only for the first few rounds, muc usually ends up on one of those tables because you just plain outplayed some people in early rounds.

I wouldn't go as far as to say this is a set in stone rule, but people that chose to grab the box that says "muc" on it for a tourney are generally skilled players and this is even more applicable for undefined metagames. I know lots of really good players that go for disruption/beats for an undefined meta, but not many go for permission. The crux of this statement is there is often a chasm of skill that separates someone that will bring some random jank deck to a tourney and the guy that brings an muc deck because he has no idea what he is playing against and knows that he is liable to have at least a 50/50 chance against everything if he brings blue.

Yes, the above is largely anecdotal, but I think it proves a valid point: if you are playing draw-go, you are not going to be sweating about random scrubs, you are going to be sweating about the guys that actually know how and what to play against you and those guys are going to be rocking expensive mana bases. Hell, I know some really good players that started playing a year or so after r&d nerfed muc decks and when mirrodin block rounded itself out and kamigawa came in they were absolutely clueless about how to properly play against my muc deck.

I think main deck B2B are absolutely vital for an undefined metagame though and I find it kind of hard to believe that there is anyone that disagrees with that...then again they could have a lot of experience(s) that gives them an opinion contrary to yours and mine...

For reference purposes, I am a fan of the following build:

// Deck file for Magic Workstation (http://www.magicworkstation.com)

// Lands
24 [UG] Island
1 [AL] Thawing Glaciers
// Creatures
2 [US] Morphling
1 [VI] Rainbow Efreet

// Spells
3 [7E] Force Spike
2 [DIS] Spell Snare
2 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
4 [UD] Powder Keg
3 [US] Back to Basics
2 [IN] Disrupt
1 [EX] Forbid
4 [IN] Fact or Fiction
4 [TSP] Ancestral Vision
4 [6E] Counterspell
4 [AL] Force of Will

(My excuse for not including an sb is that it is pretty out-dated and that's about it.)

Edit: Another thing about including stuff like meekstone is that if you are risking adding chaff like it in a deck, you missed learning that some extremely specialized (though still versatile) decks just lose because lady luck just wasn't looking your way. Shit happens. You shouldn't compromise tried tested and true slots for situational cards.

DeathwingZERO

10-09-2008, 11:59 PM

I'm starting to consider maindecking a 3-of either of Pithing Needle or Chalice, solely because testing against any decks packing CounterTop engines, SDT practically steals the game for them on it's own. Keg doesn't answer it, countering it just wastes a crucial counter spell on my end and they'll dig for another, and when CounterTop goes online, all of my countermagic (and 2 of my threats: Morphling) go offline. Shit's just not funny.

I've come to this conclusion for a few reasons. Thresh plays those annoying little shits by the name of Mongoose. When they get big, I can't really stop them. Keg needs to drop and wait a turn to activate for 1. This is while they ride that single Mongoose across my dome for 3 damage a turn, because I can't answer it. Blow Keg -> another Mongoose hits. If I try to get another Keg on the table, they just Countertop up one of their many 2cc spells. If I'm lucky enough to find a Morphling, they'll just dig for the FoW for Top, or just counter it while nullifying my own countermagic. This seems......not right.

Has anyone played Thresh matchups enough with Kadaj's version to know what to do about decks like Tempo Thresh or just those effing Mongeese in general? I'm kinda sick of losing games to a 3/3 I can't answer once it hits table.

Mordel

10-10-2008, 12:58 AM

For the counterbalance issue there is always annul...spire golem in the sideboard? I know that isn't really terribly plausibe, but there is always stuff like masticore, which can't ping the the mongoose, but will win a fight and can easily take down a goyf if you don't have a shackles or a counter [or two] for it.

I know thresh is an absurdly consistant deck, but your outlined scenario seems like a game you weren't meant to win: Between b2b and counters like force spike, daze, spellsnare, annul and fow, getting the countertop thing going should be pretty fucking hard for them. The average threshold deck runs what? dazes and fow's...maybe a singleton counterspell?

In my experience thresh will sometimes get great opening hands and everything just pans out perfect, but often they will spend the first turn basically digging. The dangerous thing about that is them picking up a bunch of dazes and fow's, but realistically, you really don't have to play anything until they do and considering you shouldn't be missing a land drop for almost the entire duration of the game, when they eventualy have to go on the offensive, you stand to have way better posturing to stop any aggressive plays. After sideboarding, things become a lot more dangerous with pyroblasts and so forth though.

Putting needle in main is your call. Chalice is terrible though. If you really fear countertop, run a few annuls main or something and side pithing needles in. If they manage to draw into a piece of countertop before you even get the lands down to stop it, you weren't meant to win that game, as sad and defeatest as that might sound.

Arsenal

10-10-2008, 10:11 AM

@ Mordel

How is your B2B + Thawing Glaciers setup working out? On paper, it doesn't look like it should be meshing well. You want Islands laid early game (for turn 1 counters, draw, dig, etc), and you try to resolve B2B asap versus most decks, so when exactly do you get max effectiveness out of Glaciers?

If your meta doesn't require it, then kudos, but do you ever miss maindeck Propaganda? How do you withstand creature rushes?

Mordel

10-10-2008, 01:15 PM

The deck is somewhat outdated, but thawing glaciers was sort of thrown in as a sixty-first land. Sometimes it works okay and others it doesn't.
Creature rushes were weathered by a stiff upper-lip, and early counters that would be followed by kegs and nerves of steel lol. I pretty much made the deck off of the top of my head: it was an adaptation of my old forbiddian deck. I basically took the wastelands and glaciers out and added/replaced a few things with newer things. To be honest though, excluding a few forbids, the counters stayed almost the exact same as before.

If I was going to play the deck current day, I'd probably have to hide behind propagandas, but when I played it, there was a lot of thresh, burn, random combo, deadguy and landstill floating around m-l. Many times I'd finish a game at next to next to no life. I actually sort of stopped playing the deck around the time flash started to get going...in fact I gave the format a break when flash happened.

I actually had chills in the sideboard instead of propagandas, basically (I just looked on my pc). I am not sure what exactly was going on in my head; here is the outdated sideboard. Feel free to laugh:

1 shackles
4 chill
2 hydroblast
1 blue elemental blast
1 back to basics
4 tormod's crypt
2 trickbind (at the time, I assume that I was thinking that if I am going to only run two, I need to makes sure that they resolve or something)

For what it's worth, I think I went the old school route that I used to take against sligh with goblins, which is eventually lock them out with chill. At the time, I think burn was really pissing me off and that is why the sideboard is so...lacking.

Arsenal

10-11-2008, 12:43 PM

ParkerLewis

10-11-2008, 03:34 PM

So I've noticed that the countermagic card pool usually looks like this:

Counterspell
Force of Will
Spell Snare
Force Spike

Now, I'm of the opinion that these 4 give MUC, both builds, the best countermagic to combat early-mid-late game nonsense.

However, have all the other countermagic cards been tested thoroughly? For example, Foil and Forbid have been advocated by some, but we haven't heard anything more. What about Mana Leak/Rune Snag? Outdated? Dissipate? 3cmc counters too expensive?

FoW, CS, and Spell snare are usually enough. If you want to add additional ones though, I guess the best one is Mana Leak. He's best early and mid-game - the point of the game where the deck struggles the most before stabilizing and winning. And then, late game, you'll be free to use the CS you didn't use earlier.

But once again, FoW/CS/Spell Snare are usually enough for lots of builds and metas.

Jason

10-13-2008, 05:51 PM

I agree that Mana Leak is probably the next best counter after Force of Will, Counterspell, and Spell Snare. It is almost always a hard counter or a scare card with the threat of Back to Basics. I think it is a solid choice, definitely better than Rune Snag unless you can actually fit 4x Rune Snag. I think that may be too many; I'm trying 2-3x Mana Leak now.

Cryptic Command is also amazing, because it can wreck all sorts of stuff. Countering spells is always fun, but it is so versatile. The bounce is awesome if your opponent actually resolved something dumb (e.g. Choke or Humility), drawing is nice, and I have even used the "fog" to stall threshold and find a Powder Keg for that pesky Mongoose or a Shackles for a Tarmogoyf.

NQN

10-13-2008, 06:54 PM

slylie

10-13-2008, 07:06 PM

Since I really love Jace and Cryptic Command`s one of my favourite cards too, I want to play MUC in some 8-20 player tournaments. I didn´t read the thread completely. Here´s my actual list:
// Lands
4 [ON] Flooded Strand
3 [ON] Polluted Delta
6 [IA] Snow-Covered Island
6 [PT] Island (3)
1 [PT] Swamp (2)
1 [PT] Plains (1)
1 [A] Scrubland

// Creatures
1 [US] Morphling
1 [LRW] Jace Beleren
1 [CHK] Meloku the Clouded Mirror

// Spells
3 [US] Back to Basics
3 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [A] Counterspell
2 [LRW] Cryptic Command
3 [DIS] Spell Snare
4 [MM] Brainstorm
2 [FD] Engineered Explosives
3 [IN] Fact or Fiction
4 [FNM] Accumulated Knowledge
3 [AT] Swords to Plowshares

What do you think about it? Any obv coefficient I forgot while building this?

Looking for advice,
NQN

From following this thread I can tell you that most people will tell you your lands are too few, and the brainstorm/saclands is a waste of life, opens you up to tricks like stifle. Your list looks like it doesn't know if it wants to be MUC or Counterbalance-less counterbalance X. :smile: . But yeh stick to basic lands and just replace the explosives with powder kegs and listen to the people who know more what they are talking about.

donnhart

10-14-2008, 02:55 AM

From following this thread I can tell you that most people will tell you your lands are too few, and the brainstorm/saclands is a waste of life, opens you up to tricks like stifle. Your list looks like it doesn't know if it wants to be MUC or Counterbalance-less counterbalance X. :smile: . But yeh stick to basic lands and just replace the explosives with powder kegs and listen to the people who know more what they are talking about.

I dont agree with slylie. I had played this list (replace the commands with cunning wishes) in 3 tourneys (13 - 27 player) and piloted it to 2x 2nd place + 1x 1st place.
http://www.deckcheck.net/list.php?creator=Christian%20Donner
22 lands are enough, and stifle/lifeloss is not an issue. Also EE is better than Powder Keg if you can support it.
Only the Scrubland could be a Tundra...

So go for the tourney with this list and tell us what happened. :wink:

Mordel

10-14-2008, 02:08 PM

Meloku is horribly vulnerable and is terrible for tempo. One can argue that he wins the game as soon as he drops, but quite frankly; just about any creature that MUC will win the game when it drops. Morphling, Rainbow Efreet or Masticore 4tw.

Oona or Meloku are terrible imo...I am not sure which is worse though, because Meloku is tiny AND produces tokens at the cost of land, while Oona costs a bunch, has a somewhat inconsistent token production effect and the only thing durable about her is her five toughness and black colour.

One of the primary goals of MUC construction should be to include cards that limit as many outs for your opponent as possible. When I first saw Meloku in that deck, I thought "hmmmm, sweet someone else with a singleton forbid" and then I continue looking and I see none, as well as cryptic command.

There is nothing wrong with cryptic command necessarily, but in most of MUC's bad matchups that I have played I would much rather have either a cheaper card that bounces, counters or draws me a card. Then again, I haven't been playing my MUC deck a bunch lately.

Rood

10-14-2008, 04:54 PM

So I've noticed that the countermagic card pool usually looks like this:

Counterspell
Force of Will
Spell Snare
Force Spike

I haven't played this deck very much lately but I've never liked Force Spike except in one GrO variant I saw one time. MUC has so many tools to go into the late game that Force Spike honestly is just a dead card most of the time. Any card over that slot I think would suffice.

Arsenal

10-14-2008, 05:23 PM

I thought as much; FoW, CS, SS, and FS are the best 4 spells. The reason I was asking was because I was looking thought my binder and came across all these old counters; Dissipate, Forbid, Mana Leak, Rune Snag, Miscalculation, Desertion (lol), etc.

Mordel

10-14-2008, 07:17 PM

Forbid is worth a singleton slot if you are going for the draw-go strategy, in my opinion.

Shawon

10-14-2008, 08:01 PM

Forbid is worth a singleton slot if you are going for the draw-go strategy, in my opinion.

How? You don't have any recurring CA (Ophidian) to make Forbid worthwhile. Thus, Forbid is strictly a worse Counterspell.

EDIT: What if your opp counters Forbid? Is it still worth it to include Forbid?

Mordel

10-15-2008, 01:30 PM

It may be strictly worse than counterspell, but you are already running four counterspells.

In most situations you don't buyback forbid if it will get countered...who does that? lol

It is basically a nice card to have one of in muc, if you are going with the draw-go strategy because:
-very easy to fit into the deck
-in many situations the extra colourless mana doesn' make a big difference
-in some situations when you have a full hand and a visions ticking away or an fof in your hand; you will be drawing the same amount of cards that an ophidian or magpie would have got you over the course of three turns.

Also, on force spike: I like to have another option for stopping a lackey on the first turn besides dropping my hand to five so early with an FoW. Keep in mind that is based on a "stack" version and not a permanent-based version.
Forces and disrupts are also very nice to have against decks like deadguy and Eva Green, in my opinion.

Doks

10-15-2008, 06:12 PM

Forces and disrupts are also very nice to have against decks like deadguy and Eva Green, in my opinion.

And what exaclty does Force Spike do better with its mid-latgegame weakness than Spell Snare over the course of a whole game?

One might argue about that singleton Forbid, but I am not convinced of this Force Spike > Spell Snare discussion in an unknown metagame.

Shawon

10-15-2008, 11:53 PM

It is basically a nice card to have one of in muc, if you are going with the draw-go strategy because:
-very easy to fit into the deck
-in many situations the extra colourless mana doesn' make a big difference
-in some situations when you have a full hand and a visions ticking away or an fof in your hand; you will be drawing the same amount of cards that an ophidian or magpie would have got you over the course of three turns.

What I'm arguing is that Forbid is a bad fit into the deck, not an easy/hard fit. It's bad for MUC, even as a singleton. Your reasons for using it don't hold much weight. It's only best when you already have CA i.e. when you're winning, hence it's "win-more."

Forbid isn't maybe strictly worse than Counterspell, it is strictly worse than Counterspell, as the Buyback is very insignificant.

Mordel

10-16-2008, 03:38 AM

Shawon: To each his own. Some situations aren't necessarily "win-more" when you have very little actual counters in your hand and a great deal of chaff. I am going to leave any other debate to be dealt with by others if they want, because quite frankly, neither of us will change our opinions.

Doks: If you scroll up to my semi-outdated version of MUC, you will notice that I run both force spike and spell snare. I really like countering first turn plays. What can I say? Some people may dislike running them. Hell, I might eventually too when I get around to testing MUC more. As long as the deck remains draw-go, though chances are they will stay. If the deck shifts to a permanent-based game, then I will most assuredly drop them.

I am absolutely, positively not trying to come off as pompous whatsoever when I ask this, so please keep replies civil: has anyone that questions force spike/disrupt played much draw-go? As in a deck that is basically three or less kill creatures, fourteen or more counters, draw and a fairly limited amount of actual removal...which comes in the form of powder keg or disk?
The first few turns are absolutely crucial for this strategy. I don't like running the risk of an opponent dropping anything threatening while I am in the middle of dropping my first three lands in the game.

I don't want to sound like I think I am the most experienced draw-go player, because I am definitely not compared to a lot of people on the forums, but I would like to think that I have learned a thing or two about it from playing it in every format that it has been viable in since I first copied Buelher's deck from a duelist when I was a kid.

Once again though, my argument and ramblings could be moot because the permanent-based builds might be better in a universal metagame.

Shawon

10-16-2008, 11:43 AM

It's not that Force Spike and Disrupt are bad cards for MUC by themselves, it's just that there are better cards. Spiritmonger isn't a bad creature, but it's "bad" because it's overshadowed by tons of better creatures.

That said, I don't think Force Spike is bad in MUC, but there are better cards, such as Foil. The reason why I think Foil is better than Force Spike is because Foil can be relevant both early game and mid game. Force Spike is only good in the early game, and it quickly becomes weaker. Foil, if anything, becomes stronger as you're more able to hardcast it, which happens a lot, I mean alot. Also, if you're talking about countering 1st turn plays, Foil does a better job countering turn 1 Lackey on the play than Force Spike (or Disrupt). Foil fits awesomely into MUC because you can easily offset the pitch cost with Visions/FoFs (unlike multiple Forbid+buyback).

You want to win all of your counter wars. Another reason why I think Foil as well as Spell Snare are better than Force Spike or Disrupt.

However, I'm speaking from using the perm-based MUC version. I guess with the stack-oriented version you have more room for counters, so you can fit Force Spike and Disrupt, but even then I'm sure you could be adding better cards.

Mordel

10-16-2008, 07:28 PM

Permanent-based builds have several ways to recoup against threats that weren't worth foiling or fowing early, but draw-go doesn't. I also like foil, but the kicker is that the only thing standing between draw-go and loss is counters and a few disks. That means you can't afford to pitch two cards on top of casting one anymore than you want to cast a fow in the first or two if you can help it. Foil works if you have stuff like propaganda on the table and/or EE's, kegs and shackles, amongst other things coming up soon, but permission control doesn't like to lose three cards so early in a game...especially if one is a land. In the same token, a forbid works in a singleton slot for said strategy because you are getting it as a singleton notably later in the game(ideally) and might need a reusable counter because you have expended the others and have superfluous land and/or draw(or whatever really an odd force spike even) with a win condition sitting on the table. At this point forbid is sort of a winmore card, I suppose, but I would rather have a soft lock when I am already winning than see my opponent drop something that can keep my morph at bay or kill it and have nothing to do against it potentially.

Forbid is largely a preferential choice for a singleton slot as you have acknowledged.

Masque

10-20-2008, 06:25 PM

While I think that Force Spike CAN be a dead card late game, a lot of the time this is not so. It forces your opponent to play around it in the late game if you play one early on, or in game two, and with Back to Basics and Propaganda, Force Spike can often be a one mana Counterspell. Spell Snare is good too, not only in the early game, but for slapping down things in the late game. Sure it can be a dead card, but often this is not so with so many efficient two-drops in Legacy. Thus I will agree that Force of Will/Counterspell/Force Spike/Spell Snare is definitely the suite to beat of all suites in countering. Also I don't like Forbid. As someone mentioned above, it really is win-more.

Mister Agent

10-20-2008, 07:29 PM

In general, I don't find force spike to be that adequate in MUC considering it's a deck that does not have early game aggressiveness. Now if this deck had some sort of clock then perhaps you could force your opponent to run into a force spike. Making force spike a more productive spell then previously. However, I am not saying you should change this deck on how it plays though.

frogboy

10-20-2008, 09:44 PM

In general, I don't find force spike to be that adequate in MUC considering it's a deck that does not have early game aggressiveness.

The lack of early game aggressiveness is usually the reason people play Force Spike.

Poron

10-20-2008, 10:05 PM

that's why i like CotV instead of 4x Force Spike

Mordel

10-20-2008, 11:58 PM

that's why i like CotV instead of 4x Force Spike

Wtflolbbqmaobrbwtbidk!

I can understand not liking force spike, but did you ponder the retardedness of that statement before typing it?

"I prefer to run something that generally costs two or more mana instead of something that costs one and does something against my opponent's turn one plays, besides zero cc spells."

Honestly, appreciation for force spike is largely based on what approach to the archetype you prefer. Just accept it.

Besides, didn't you post a list a few pages back that pretty much asserted that you have a less than adequate grasp of either approaches to the archetype...chrome moxes and so forth? Hopefully I am mixing people up.

Okay, I definitely am not. You also suggested meekstone(!!). I am not trying to come acorss as attacking you, personally or anything, but I am definitely questioning your grasp of muc.

I'll repeat this again too: if you are looking for a deck that speeds out chalices and plays chrome moxes, check out tomb aggro.

Poron

10-21-2008, 07:56 AM

we're talking about the aggressiveness in the early game? CotV is my choice for that.

Mantis

10-21-2008, 09:10 AM

Getting attacked by a Lackey putting Ringleader into play the turn after you just cast a Chalice of the Void for 1 makes up for what lack in aggresiveness?

ParkerLewis

10-21-2008, 01:01 PM

Mordel

10-21-2008, 01:49 PM

I think the mox/chalice/meekstone thing is why I honestly don't trust or take any of his insight remotely seriously.

Arne

10-21-2008, 04:26 PM

okay, I'll just let the CotV thing for what it is... 'cause playing a chalice on the 2nd turn, giving the opponent the chance to play at least one 1CC spell and tapping out just doesn't sound to good.

About force spike in MUC; force spike is great in the early game and useful in mid and late game. Force spike in mid and late game, asuming you have B2B out, forces your opponents to choose whether to have their spell countered or to tap one of their non-basics. In a lot of situations they don't even have mana left to pay for force spike.

Even a turn one draw-go will leave your opponent wondering whether you have a spike in hand or not. If your opponent chooses to play around force spike, he's working towards your, favorable, late-game.

Mordel

10-21-2008, 04:49 PM

That is pretty much how I feel about force spike, but some people haven't played it enough or at all or something like that. It isn't for every deck, but it is so good fo draw-go. Disrupt is another favorite...counter a duress/hymn/thoughseize and cantrip? Yes please.

Something worth pointing out though is that the draw-go strategy's strength is also it's flaw in that it tries to make a huge part of the opponent's deck dead by running nothing, but draw, counters and land basically. I am not sure if that really works too well with dtb anymore.

I dusted off draw-go and tried it out and it wasn't great. I managed to outplay a few opponents because they didn't really no what I was playing in the first game and then in the second game they didn't really know how to play against me that well(lack of practice most likely). They should have won the games, but they didn't. A key example is playing spells a turn later and saving discard etc. Maybe they just outright sucked.

I think if I was going to actually hit a tournamnt, I would go with a permanent-based muc, even though I love draw-go because I like winning more.

Arne

10-21-2008, 04:59 PM

oh don't get me wrong! I'm a permanent MUC player by heart. I even played the kira/sower version (which I really can recommend). But the first turns are for every type of MUC the same... just draw, play land, go... So what I meant with ' draw-go' in my previous post is mainly the first turn.

Mordel

10-21-2008, 07:37 PM

Definitely; the big difference between the two strategies is that permanent-based muc can recover easily against early plays an opponent makes with propaganda and EE(if you run such a build) as well as the stuff draw-go(ie stack based?) builds run aswell. Which is probably why some people are shitting bricks at the mention of force spike being good in the archetype.

To the force spike critics:Force Spike is a very poor card to use in permanent-based muc.

Just based off of what I see on forums, legacy is very permanent-based right now and obviously blowing up the board and taxing attacks is a lot more affective in most metagames than trying to counter the worst threats and mitigate the effects of ones that hit the table by stealing or blowing them up when they get too dangerous. I still think a really well-tuned stack-based build could do okay, every game would just be needlessly more difficult than if you were to simply run permanent muc. At least that's what I think.

Arne

10-22-2008, 04:35 AM

my view on it all is that, in no way, you can counter everything. People know that and can play spells they WANT to have countered so their big threats can come through (in a stack-orientated build). My meta consists of a lot of aggro-control decks like thresh and the like. Decks that run cards like mongoose which you really want to counter cause they're hard to deal with late game (in the 2nd and 3rd game a keg is gonna be gripped). I'm not saying thresh is a difficult matchup, but a mongoose can be a bitch.

I usually play against a lot of experienced players who know they don't need to play their goyf and that a mongoose will do fine. They'll keep their counters and krosan grip for your kegs/EE/Disk.

So I'd like to have a counterspell like FS in my opening hand, so I can counter that early mongoose without using a FoW.

But maybe the use of Force Spike is meta-related or it depends on personal style... I, for one, like it...

Mister Agent

10-22-2008, 03:25 PM

The lack of early game aggressiveness is usually the reason people play Force Spike.

Agreed. But for the most part MUC has plenty of early game tools to push it towards the late game

I actually run spell snare in the same slot for obvious reasons.

Mordel

10-22-2008, 04:39 PM

Spell snare is good for being on the draw, but it does absolutely nothing against first turn duress, mongoose, top and so forth. Spellsnare is without a doubt a better card overall, no argument there, but it does the job just as well on a two mana spell on the second turn and does absolutely nothing on the first turn one mana spells, like a mongoose.

Hoojo

10-22-2008, 05:07 PM

It looks like the only real threat people are concerned about having a first turn counter is Nimble Mongoose. Between Propaganda, Powder Keg, and blocking with your own creature, I don't see any reason to run Force Spike, as it will be 4 cards in your deck that you want in your opening hand each time. I'd rather bank on Force of Will and Foil as my turn 0 and 1 counters than run a card that will only minorly affect the late game.

Rascal

10-22-2008, 06:06 PM

I have some questions for the Mono U players:

I´m a really newbaye to the Legacy format.

My meta looks like this:

http://www.cmus.cz/dnn/Fórum/tabid/54/forumid/52/threadid/13251/scope/posts/Default.aspx

http://www.cmus.cz/dnn/Fórum/tabid/54/forumid/52/threadid/11691/scope/posts/Default.aspx

http://www.cmus.cz/dnn/Fórum/tabid/54/forumid/52/threadid/9881/scope/posts/Default.aspx

http://www.cmus.cz/dnn/Fórum/tabid/54/forumid/52/threadid/5790/scope/posts/Default.aspx

http://www.cmus.cz/dnn/Fórum/tabid/54/forumid/52/threadid/4385/scope/posts/Default.aspx

Can be the Mono U archetype the right way to choose? I´d like to play it.
Obviously circa 20-30 players on tourney, I would like to do TOP8.

Which is the right way to play this deck against the main strategies?
Can someone explain it to me, please?

What is the right starting point for my meta?

Can it looks like this? ( http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=20392 )
or this looks interesting http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=19840

Thanks for all your ideas and suggestions:wink:

Mordel

10-23-2008, 03:21 AM

Probably the standard build that you list first. Personally, I have little experience spending very much mana during my own turn while playing a mono blue, so maybe someone more familiar with the Sower/Spinner builds can fill you in, but if I am going to spend mana during my turn, I want it to be a bomb that saves/heavily protects my ass now. I don't want to be casting a creature that just insures that whatever creature I steal next turn for four mana won't be easy to take back. The deck also runs too few lands for my taste.

You and a friend should make a gauntlet a tune a deck accordingly. Though whether you go with draw-go, stack or sower/spinner, you need to have a really good understanding of how most of those deck work and what spells need to be countered and win. I don't think that muc is necessarily a good choice for a deck to start out with in a format you aren't terribly familiar with.

You've read the primer I assume?

Arne

10-23-2008, 04:11 AM

I've played both variants of MUC and I can say that they'll both run well. But you will have to side a lot of anti-red... cards like chill, BEB en hydroblast.

You play against a lot of decks that have nice creatures for you to take over :wink: So a sower/spinner could do well. But I do think you have to have some sort of experience in magic and your meta to truly know how to play MUC.

I see a lot of decks with a least three colors so a B2B should be a cool card to play with. Like Mordel suggested; run a gauntlet with a friend and learn how to play with both builds.

FlavaSava

10-27-2008, 11:39 AM

Hi,
my actual list looks so:
Lands(22)
10 Islands
2 Plains
1 Swamp
1 Tundra
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
CQ+CA(11)
4 Brainstorm
4 Accumulated Knowledge
1 Jace Beleren
2 Fact or Fiction
Permission(13)
3 Spell Snare
4 Counterspell
4 Force of Will
2 Cryptic Command
Removal(7)
4 Swords to Plowshares
3 Enginneered Explosives
Other(5)
3 Back to Basics
2 Vedalken Shalkes
Killoption(2)
1 Morphling
1 Decree of Justice

Sb
4 Hydroblast
4 Relic of Protegenius
4 Propaganda
2 Echoing Truth
1 Back to Basics

I´m not happy about the Sb and a bit about DoJ,
i would love it to play a additional killoption and 1 more Fact or Ficiton. What do u say?
Meta
http://trader-online.de/turniere/siegerdecks.htm
becomes more and more Zoo and Sligh

Arsenal

10-27-2008, 11:48 AM

The lack of maindeck Propaganda jumped out at me at first, although it's absense is somewhat mitigated by the presense of 4x Swords to Plowshares. However, I still don't see it being enough. One of the main reasons to run Propaganda, aside from the obvious creature control aspect, is because it has excellent synergy with Back to Basics. Making your opponent labor over attacking versus casting spells is awesome.

Personally, I think 2 FoF is too low. A resolved FoF in MUC usually wins you the game. I would never run less than 3, and I almost always run 4 regardless of if I'm running the stack-heavy or permanent-heavy build.

I don't like AK without Intuition (and barely even like AK with Intuition). If you're looking actual draw, then perhaps Think Twice would do well in that slot. Or if you're looking for additional filtering, Impulse would do nicely in that slot.

FlavaSava

10-27-2008, 12:03 PM

Yeah i totally agree with you that´re exactly my problems, but what i should change?

Arsenal

10-27-2008, 12:06 PM

Kadaj's opening post covers the different builds of MUC (stack vs. permanent based) pretty well. I'd suggest reading it and see which build you'd like to run.

Mordel

10-27-2008, 02:28 PM

Accumulated knowledge is too conditional. While two cards for two mana is a good deal, it isn't thge kind of dig you need.

I have no idea why your are running commands at all. You might be happier with a efreet in the place of DoJ. Swords is awesome, but seems out of place in muc. The reason is that when it comes to board control elements, you want to try to avoid one for ones or have a reusable one for one mechanism(shackles, masticore etc). The deck missing out on a copy of spellsnare, fact or fiction and mor counters is an example of why, in my opinion.

FlavaSava

10-27-2008, 03:24 PM

Yes i agree about Accu is too conditional but i dislike think twice and the meta is too aggressive to play meditate.
@SS,FoF and mor Counters
If i could play i want the deck would have 70 and mor cards
@swords i play them because of lackey (ok i may play only 3 copies)
@Command its a repeal which is very versaitle u may counter or bounce or even tap all opps creature to get mor time

E/:
What do u say about this list?
4 Spell Snare
4 Counterspell
4 Force of will
2 Repeal
2 Cryptic Command
4 Ancestral Vision
3 Fact or Ficiton
1 jace Beleren
3 B2B
3 Engineered Explosives
3 Vedalken Shalkes
2 Morphling
1 Oona/Meloku/DoJ/Efreet?
12 Island
1 Plains
1 Swamp
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
Sb
4 Propaganda
3 Blue Elemental Blast
4 Hydroblast
4 Relic of Protegenius

I would prefer to play Brainstrom, to pay off the Fetchies

Mordel

10-27-2008, 04:13 PM

NEEDS MOAR EFREET. Oona sucks. With BEB and Hydroblast as possibilities in the sideboard, you shouldn't be too worried about goblins...besides, if you were why on earth are propaganda's in the sideboard?

Sure with a propaganda out, goblins can still try to hurl shit at you with the SGC, but you can snag it from them with them having no recourse to get it back in the first game and in the second they will have grip or something, but you will have BEB.

FlavaSava

10-27-2008, 05:07 PM

In my meta propaganda is too often a dead card, because there also aggro decks like sligh and many control decks.
in 50 percent of matches the card is "dead".
And if i would play, what should i cut

Mordel

10-27-2008, 05:33 PM

Cryptic and repeal.

raharu

10-27-2008, 10:13 PM

In regards to Fetchlands, a land count of 22, and Morphling, how does that work out?

Mordel

10-28-2008, 12:01 AM

I will cast my vote on...quite poorly in a deck that likes to drop a land every turn until they win.

FlavaSava

10-28-2008, 09:53 AM

With Brainstorm there is no problem with only 22 lands, in my opinion its enough

Shawon

10-28-2008, 10:14 AM

Has Jace Beleren actually been working for people? Some people use him, some people don't, but I haven't read any confirmed result that he is a solid inclusion. I tested Jace Beleren myself, but I didn't like him because with him added, I usually ended up drawing more draw and not answers. All in all, I think he's superfluous to MUC and as far as I'm concerned the mill-switch mechanism isn't all that relevant, seems win-more actually.

Shimster

10-28-2008, 11:21 AM

Has Jace Beleren actually been working for people?
For me, he has.

For others, it's a metagame decision.

Jace is good in the permanent based version in a metagame with a lot of control, Thresh and Aggro Loam.

It's bullshit against wheenie decks, as you can't defend him (neither with your own finishers, nor with Shackles).

I wouldn't use him in a different metagame though. There he's just better in UWb Landstill, where you've better creature control an Mishra's Factory.

He isn't superfluous against control, but he pushes most MUs over parity. Modern Landstill versions run a lot more basics than you like them to do, so B2B isn't the controlkiller it once was.

Keep that in mind. :laugh:

raharu

10-28-2008, 08:14 PM

In regards to Fetchlands, a land count of 22, and Morphling, how does that work out?
This was meant in reference to Morphling itself, because with less 'real' mana sources, Morphling doesn't look too hot. Control with 22 lands is fine, just fine (look at ITF), but Morphling is a issue all unto itself, considering exactly how mana-intensive it is.

kyan

10-29-2008, 11:38 AM

Guys, do you think Rhystic Study has a place in MUC? But then again, the deck is already tight and I would not know which card/s to replace.

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks

Arsenal

10-29-2008, 12:00 PM

Decklists are too tight as it is for a sub-optimal draw engine. Barring very few instances (Taurean Mauler), giving your opponent the option of you gaining an advantage is bad.

donnhart

11-02-2008, 04:34 PM

Hello Guys,

at Pro Tour Berlin, i decided to play this deck in the 40 Duals Legacy sideevent:

4 Flooded Strand
3 Polluted Delta
12 Island
1 Swamp
1 Plains
1 Scrubland

// Creatures
1 Morphling
1 Jace Beleren
1 Meloku the Clouded Mirror

// Spells
3 Back to Basics
3 Vedalken Shackles
4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
2 Cunning Wish
3 Spell Snare
4 Brainstorm
3 Engineered Explosives
3 Fact or Fiction
3 Ponder
3 Swords to Plowshares
1 Propaganda

Sideboard
3 Meddling Mage
2 Extirpate
3 Hydroblast
2 Propaganda
1 Meditate
1 Dismantling Blow
1 Vedalken Shackles
1 Echoing Truth
1 Enlighted Tutor

I went 6:2 loosing only to Vial Goblins and NGQ/w featuring Back to Basics.
Wins were 4c Thresh, Dredge, 2x ANT, Belcher, WhiteStaxx what means place 9 of 115 player thanks to a bad tiebreaker.
So what i want to ask, the one of Propaganda maindeck always sucked. What do you think of replacing it with a Senseis Divining Top?
Also what cut for the third Propaganda in sb?
I thought of Shackles, Truth or Tutor...

Thanks for your ideas :smile:

Mordel

11-03-2008, 04:15 AM

donnhart

11-03-2008, 05:19 AM

A soothsaying seems like potentially stronger singleton copy than top. If the deck worked reasonably well, it worked reasonably well, sorceries in mono blue make my head hurt. Wtf is with the ponders? Wouldn't impulse be better because it gives you more dig or something else that is an instant?

One day before, i played the Oldbox - Legacy side event (50 player) with 4 Accumulated Knowledge instead of 3 Ponder and 1 Propaganda, going 2-2-1 Drop. :rolleyes:
I lost 3 games, because i didnt manage to hit my early landdrops. So a little brainstorming at the evening brought me to add more one drops (ponder). Sorcery speed hurts, agree with that. But i think that one mana more or less is an issue while digging the first turns for an answer.
Ponder saves me game3 against dredge. In need to find an answer to his beatdown,me with 5 lands in play, i cast ponder -> draw ponder,crack fetch, cast ponder into 2 islands and propaganda. That was lucky, sure.
Perhaps i had managed it too with an impulse -> finding one of my 6 outs, we will hardly ever know...

Soothsaying seems at least interesting, but i dont like blowing up my own permanets with EE@1.

Mordel

11-03-2008, 04:12 PM

Soothsaying is more of a mid/late game card than an early card. I don't really like one cc crads in muc that much unless they are force spike or disrupt generally. Chalice is an extremely prevalent turn one play and I find that in most situations it would feel like a complete waste to fow it, so if you let it land, your ponders AND brainstorms' costs are invalidated. You know your metagame better than me, but I like to make an opponent's first turn chalice dead and a wasted turn/city of traitors. That's just me though.

Accumulated knowledge is fucking awful without a saphire medallion/merchant scroll/intuition engine, impulse digs four deep everytime, whereas ak is a cantrip on the first cast, barely better on the second and finally decent. The problem with that is that against a lot of decks, if you actually see the third copy, you have probably forced your opponent into the late game and are going to win. I hate ak so much. I don't know which I hate more: sorceries or ak lol.

Soulles

11-04-2008, 07:09 PM

Sunday i ended up 5th with my sower/kira build. Tournament of 31 people.
Was kind off a good day of testing for the upcoming Legacy nationals. Had an undefeated swiss standing of 4-0-1.

Few changes i made since my mol tournament
Increased my land count by 1
Main deck propaganda 3x
Increased spell snare count by 1
Force spike count decreased by 1
Echoing truth Gone
Forbid gone

So my list

23x Island

3x Kira great glass spinner
4x Sower
2x Morphling

4x Force of Will
3x Force Spike
3x Spell Snare
4x Counter spell

3x Back to basic
3x Propaganda
2x Powder keg
2x Vedalkan shackles

4x Fact or fiction

My Sideboard
3x Tormod's Crypt
3x Chalice of the void
3x Stifle
3x Declaration of Naught'
1x back to basics

So my match ups.

First round 1 vs ANT
Game 1: I manage to survive 2x chant and a duress (2x fow on chant). Eventually i am out of juice and top deck a spell snare. In the meanwhile i had a kira clock going on. He goes off and resolves ANT. Draws allot, untill he reaches 4 life. I look at the cards and see 2 tutors, 1 wish, allot of mana acceleration but no kill. I look at my hand and see that i can spell snare his tutor and go for the win. He thinks he won and says, ritual> mox > etc i play tutor and tendrils you for storm 8. And i reply but you have to have it first to do that ;).

Sideboard: Shackles, powder keg, propaganda and 1 back to basics out (though in the end he did say he play Empty the warrens as alternative kill)
In: Declaration of Naught, Chalice of the void and Stifle

Game1: My opponent mull to 6 and i keep an awesome hand with chalice and 2x stifle and a counter spell. But then i knew if he went turn 1 off, i was owned but it was a chance i took and most of the times i like taking chances in Magic :).
Turn 1 , i think he played a cantrip and passed the turn, which gave me an inner smile. My turn follows with an Island and chalice on 0 and go. During the match up he tries to go off but i had 2 stifles and eventually a chalice for 2 , so he couldn't look for answers anymore and that was my first win.

Round 2 vs 3c ThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh UGW
Game 1: My opponent mulls twice i think. But what i could remember form the game was he never countered anything. So i was like screw it, this guy plays just aggro with some permanent control thing. So i resolve B2B turn 3 and Morphling turn 5 and won very quick.

Sideboard: An additional Back to basics in.

Game2: Because i had the impression he played no counters, i resolved back to basic turn 3 again. Few turns later he tried to resolve a mongoose but it got force spiked. I resolve again a morphling turn 5 and win.

So i asked the person. Do you play any Fow or Dazes? He replied with yes but he just never saw any in both matches,. so.lucky me :D. I hate daze! It makes me try to resolve stuff a turn later.

Round 3 vs a good friend of mine with White Stax

Game1: When I saw the pairing that i had to face him, i was a bit down. I really hate these underdog deck match ups. But i set up a game plan before the round started and decided to stop my land drops after 5 lands.

I remember i started and eventually casted a Kira. He was already at 12 or so due the ancient tombs. I had to see 2 Ghostly prisons resolve. It is a card i can't waste counters on but I do hate it! He tries to resolve a Crucible of Worlds but i counter that. Because of my Kira clock, he had no choice but playing Armageddon. I had no counters but 3 lands in my hand and said sure. He had no flagstones or crucible and was stuck at one land. I dropped 4 lands in 4 turns and continued my Kira beat down till he died.

Sideboard: Propaganda out, Decleration of Naught in.

Game 2: I kinda lost there. Mana screw ;/ Was stuck on 3 mana i think or less. Anyway Magus killed me :D

Game 3: Fun match! i think he played a Trinisphere on turn 2. And even when i could have countered it, i decided not too. I looked at my hand and decided to just keep dropping lands till 5 and counter crucial cards from him. I still managed to use a 3 mana spell snare for his Defence grid and turn later I counter his Crucible of Worlds. Turn later I drop a declaration of naught naming geddon and a turn later I believe a Kira was dropped for the beat down. Luckly his Ancient tomb tapping made him lose some life. Then he casted 2 oblivion rings to remove my creature, which was very amusing to see but I just casted a second one and took the remaining 4 life.

Round 4: It’s the fear

Game 1
I win the dice roll and decided to start. I was thrilled facing this deck, since I read some about it on the forum. And I don’t think it is a deck that is being played allot in the Dutch scene (first time I encounter it so far). Regarding that, I still did not have much information about the deck, besides knowing that it tries to resurrect every threat and the intuition engine.

Knowing that I played the game with resolving a back to basic. My opponent couldn’t do much after that. I think he played a deed and it went off. But my Kira and Sower stealing the goyf were enough to seal the game.

Sideboard: Was kind off lost on this. First time I encountered the deck. Not sure if I needed to board in crypts or not and was thinking how useful is Force spike on the draw. And i was also wondering about propaganda. Either way, I boarded in needles x2, 1x back to basic and boarded out 3x propaganda.

Game 2. Well I can be very short about it. I think I dropped 15 lands and had 3 spells. That was after I made a mulligan to six.

Game 3. I kept a poker hand and I was the one who started. It was 2x Force spike, 2x Force of Will, 1x Back to basic, 1x Kira and one Island. :D

I did not want to mulligan again like last round and decided to keep it, due the amount of counters and the swiss-standing position I was in.

My first draw was not a land, but the 3 after those were lands. So I eventually I try to resolve my back to basic vs his none basics being tapped but a Force of Will stopped me from doing that. A kira received a Force of Will as well and after I used a fact or fiction, I managed to pick up a Back to basics from the piles which he split it in to 4 good cards vs 1 back to basics.

I looked at his graveyard and noticed 2 Force of Wills. I took the gamble of the back to basic in the hope he had no Force of Will. It resolved and it was game over, because he had a tapped out none basic mana base. I think a sower stealing something was enough to end the match. He then said he did have the third Force of Will, just 0 blue cards to use hehe

Round 5 4c gifts still

I wanted to play, even though we were both in the top8. It didn’t matter, I lose or he loses or just ID. But the reason I did want to play is to try my deck. It is a very tough match up. He can clean the board every time. He has gigapede game 2, which is one the most annoying creatures ever made vs MUC. And also grips to deal with. But I knew that game 2 , I will have my fourth back to basic and crypts and needles to help

Game 1
I am not going in to detail of this game. At some point his Garruk had a 20+ counter on him. But there was a standstill in play and my shackles and one Mishra. My game plan was to try to wait during standstill and pick up as many counters as I can and try to resolve a back to basic, while he is heavily tapped out due some situation. But after Garruk reaching 2 counters and a second Mishra coming in to play and tokens started being made. I decided just to go for it. Doing an end of turn Fact or fiction to draw a little more. Cracking his Standstill though. I try to cast a Back to basic and a heavy counter war starts and I lose it. So we went to game 2.

Game2
I play it aggressive, resolving a turn 3 Kira. I remember him playing a deed, which I try to needle the next turn. A counter war starts and I win it. He was forced to play an EE for my needle, which I could not counter. He blew up my needle and then used deed for 3. After that I resolved a back to basic and won from there. We decided to draw the final game, due time.

Quarter Finals
I was matched to a good friend from the scene. I was pondering on what he could play but couldn’t really remember. I knew he played Goyf Sligh, but he changed from that.

Game 1
Because me, not knowing what he was playing I kept an opening hand of 5 land, a kira and a sower. I started with land go. He went a turn 1 thoughtseize, taking out my Sower ;/
He went on turn 2 dark ritual > Hypie. I was like!!! Eva green, oeps. So I lost horrible to hypnotic spectre.

Sideboard Boarded in Naughts, out Propaganda.

Game 2
so I knew I was going to lose. Choke being in boarded. I hardly win game 2 vs Eva green or 3. However on the crucial moment I had to mulligan of course. This game did not go as expected though. Due the mulligan I kept a hand without a FoW. In short. He went turn 1 hypie. I kept dropping land every turn.. Every time the hypie attacked though , the random discard effect did not grab my sower!!. He even dropped a choke on turn. So on turn 4 I tap out and play sower and managed to get the hypie :D. And I won by beating him down with that lol. He didn’t draw much good after that hypie, besides a second hypie. But he was at 4 life so it was done after few turns.

Game 3.
Can be very short about that. I got 3 thoughtseizes in 4 turns and then a 6/7 goyf beat me in 3 turns :D

Well I still have no idea what to do or change in the deck for the nationals, where the expected player amount will exceed 110-120 people. I think Combo and goyf/control based decks will be played allot. I Am very much thinking of removing propaganda out of the main board again and maybe playing stifles main board.

Mordel

11-04-2008, 09:07 PM

Good report. The thresh match was hilarious. I usually go for the slow roll against thresh and just run them out of steam, but fast morph beats works. While b2b is obviously extremely viable in the matchup I was still pretty surprised that it locked him out so badly: a lot of ugw thresh lists that I have seen rock b2b in the main, so they can operate under one not so badly. Either way it worked out well for you though =D

If you are expecting lots of Eva, you might want to up force spikes or look into squeezing disrupt in or something. I haven't played muc extensively lately, but I really liked having disrupt against pikula and sui black, so Eva wouldn't be much of a stretch at all: you cantrip on their discard that can wreck a hand you would have mulled without the card that got snagged.

People have discussed md stifles on here before, but I'll kind of paraphrase that and say that stifle is better-suited to an aggressive deck. While it is ridiculously awesome, I don't think that it really fits into a muc deck's main.

Moar keg and moar spell snare strike about the list, but I didn't see any complaints in that department in the report, so that is probably just my own preference speaking there. Declaration seems pretty tech. I am not entirely sold on chalice though. You might want to maybe try to squeeze in an extra land or two. Twenty-three is solid, but with sowers especially you will want hit a drop every turn and minimize mulls. I used to be infamous amongst people that I playtested with for including a sixty-first land in muc. I don't do that anymore really, but your deck looks really tight for slots, so that might be a plan.

holkenborg

11-05-2008, 05:29 AM

Well I still have no idea what to do or change in the deck for the nationals, where the expected player amount will exceed 110-120 people. I think Combo and goyf/control based decks will be played allot. I Am very much thinking of removing propaganda out of the main board again and maybe playing stifles main board.

Nice report! After game 2 I read the decklist again and thought someone else copied your list. It was until I read the name 'Magus' that I figured out it was you writing this article, haha.

I saw you playing Propaganda's main this time. Why is that? When I played your deck in Utrecht last time (same meta) I played them main too, but would not do that again for sure.

Anyway, you were wondering about what to play if you expect Combo and goyf-control. I'd say get rid of Propaganda and put in extra counters. I would play a 4th Spell Snare and 3 Shackles.

So I suggest (mainbord): -3 Propaganda, +1 Spell Snare, +1 Vedalken Shackles, +1 Force Spike/BtB

Soulles

11-05-2008, 10:38 AM

I am definitely thinking of playing a third shackles. Having some additional card to deal with big threats is prolly better than a mainboard propeganda.

I just wanted to retry the card main board again. I did not expect much from it and much it did not give during the tournament.

I am scared of elf decks and affinity. There is a good chance the Dutch Nationals (which will have a visit from our German friends as well) will have a few of these decks. The elfball (i think that is how they call it) showed in Extended that it can dominate a t8. And it has good potential to be a legacy deck with the needed modifications.

For Affinity i have no sideboard i think. Don't think i can permit using 3 slots for Rebuild.

Disrupt is really an intresting choice. I never tried it, but the way i imagine the card is being to situational. But i could be wrong.

Mordel

11-05-2008, 02:37 PM

ebbitten

11-05-2008, 05:55 PM

Disrupt is quite situational. You need to know that you will be facing lots of first turn discard and burn before you bother with it. If you are afraid of affinity, just run flux. I think that affinity can actually come back from a rebuild, but energy flux flat out destroys them. Affinity gets one chance for a big alpha strike after it lands on the table and after that, they're done.
Energy Flux is also relevant versus stax type decks because of their dependence on artifacts.

Verbal warning for terrible post (no caps, punctuations, etc.) Please see our Site Rules (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7455) on writing skills. - Bardo

Media314r8

11-05-2008, 06:04 PM

Jason

11-05-2008, 08:58 PM

I've never had too big a problem against affinity. It's fast, but a turn two Powder Keg for 0 usually wrecks its day and they cannot recover. Especially if you hit a turn shackles on your next turn and steal the best creature they managed to get in play. Just make sure to counter the annoying cards, like Ravager (especially if Disciple is in play) and Cranial Plating if you don't have the Keg.

In summation, cards that wreck Affinity: Powder Keg and Vedalken Shackles.

Mordel

11-05-2008, 09:05 PM

Media: So explain what you mean exactly with your reply...do you mean them having two non-artifact sources of mana out? Because them having two non-artifat mana sources out versus all of their permanents going to the bin, plus the presence of powerkegs and or explosives seem to make a fairly solid case for flux imo.

Doks

11-06-2008, 11:00 AM

I played several times against affinity with stack-oriented build and I got to say that this is a favorable match up, even if it might look like that at the first look.

Snare and Force their dangerous T2 plays (plating and ravager / atog), keg away their 1/1 beaters and save some counters for their fatties - they will soon be out of gas and shackles just destroys them when you cath their first beater and start chump blocking them out of attackers.
Note - Repeal is too funny against their flying X/2 Ornithopters, you'll love this :D.
B2B when they're tapped out on T3 is just pwnage, too; I'd take the 5 damage they might deal with a big ravager next turn und just lock them out of the game in return, fair trade ;).

I guess the match up for perm based MUC is even better since every bomb they drop destroys them, too.

conclusion: you really don't need any flux or other targetted artifact hate in SB.

Adan

11-06-2008, 12:00 PM

In summation, cards that wreck Affinity: Powder Keg and Vedalken Shackles.

What? Back to Basics and Propaganda. Powder Keg and Shackles are terribly slow.

jthanatos

11-06-2008, 12:57 PM

What? Back to Basics and Propaganda. Powder Keg and Shackles are terribly slow.

I dunno, 2 mana to destroy all their lands and thopters seems good to me. They cry, you pose...it all seems good.

jjjoness'

11-06-2008, 01:18 PM

I dunno, 2 mana to destroy all their lands and thopters seems good to me. They cry, you pose...it all seems good.
They still have Citadels, Springleaf Drum, Ancient Tomb and sometimes Glimmervoid. Not a big deal.

4eak

11-07-2008, 04:31 AM

@ Doks

MUC vs. Affinity isn't as positive a matchup for MUC as you might think (post-boarding, Vial Affinity has the winning odds actually). Vial and MoE are very bad news (not that MUC doesn't have answers). Vial is obvious, but MoE is less obvious. He's goyf on crack. When I play affinity, I rarely have to swing with MoE more than once. With SoA, Affinity has hit the theshold requirement of bombs to make it a tough match for MUC (regardless of your build).

After sideboards though, including cards like Winter Orb and Needle, MUC does not have a positive matchup.

I think this matchup is one we are less concerned about because Affinity is rarely played by good magic players, and so we can often count on low-play skill against Affinity decks. Optimized affinity decks with good pilots, however, are very difficult matches for MUC. Before shards I would be inclined to agree with you, but since MoE, this is actually a negative matchup in our testing.

@ Adan

What? Back to Basics and Propaganda. Powder Keg and Shackles are terribly slow.

Speaking as someone who plays both decks way too much, let me tell you: Shackles and board clearing (Keg or Disk) are how you win the match. You control through permission/bounce until you can resolve a board control bomb, and then you win.

B2B and Propaganda definitely slow Affinity down, but not by as much as you seem to think. Affinity is similar to goblins in its ability to play with next to no mana, and mana-denial alone is a patent mistake against affinity. B2B + Propaganda is still a winnable game for Affinity. Shackles + Disk/Keg is nearly an auto-scoop for affinity.

As an affinity player I can still play spells through B2B and I can swing with one huge creature through your propaganda(s), but I will lose to the attrition wars of Shackles, I lose to my own disciple triggers when you take them, and I lose my board when you Disk/Keg. A blown disk/keg is like 4-5 time walks against affinity, and it seals the game usually.

MoE has changed this matchup, but Shackles and Board Clearing are still the best answers to this deck.

peace,
4eak

Jason

11-07-2008, 07:04 PM

MUC vs. Affinity isn't as positive a matchup for MUC as you might think (post-boarding, Vial Affinity has the winning odds actually). Vial and MoE are very bad news (not that MUC doesn't have answers). Vial is obvious, but MoE is less obvious. He's goyf on crack. When I play affinity, I rarely have to swing with MoE more than once. With SoA, Affinity has hit the theshold requirement of bombs to make it a tough match for MUC (regardless of your build).

I agree with everything you said in the post; I haven't actually played against any legacy Affinity decks that are using Shards. I have played against some solid Extended legal Affinity decks in casual play and I do agree Affinity has gained ground in the new set. Powder Keg + Shackles is the way to go in defeating Affinity, but Master of Etherium is hotness that will wreck anyone's day.

Tao

11-08-2008, 07:57 AM

For the finisher discussion for pure Control builds: I think Call the Sykybreaker is the best finsiher available together with Morphling. Unless you plan to play Morphling with none or only one free Mana it does not cost more Mana than Morphling.

Call the Skybreaker

Sorcery, 5UU
Put a 5/5 blue and red Elemental creature token with flying into play.
Retrace (You may play this card from your graveyard by discarding a land card in addition to paying its other costs.)

+

- big and flying
- turns land draws into 5/5 flyers in the late game
- immune against Counterbalance
- immune against Mass Removal
- immune against targeted Removal
- immune againt Moat

-

- can be temporarily handled by Spot Removal, E. Explosives or Bounce with Tempo Loss
- vulnerable against Yard-Hate

holkenborg

11-08-2008, 08:45 AM

+

- big and flying
- turns land draws into 5/5 flyers in the late game
- immune against Counterbalance
- immune against Mass Removal
- immune against targeted Removal
- immune againt Moat

-

- can be temporarily handled by Spot Removal, E. Explosives or Bounce with Tempo Loss
- vulnerable against Yard-Hate

I like the suggestion but, Morphling is also big and flying, has also shroud and is also immune against Moat making the positive list a bit smaller. Actually, there are two big advantages: it turns late-game lands into 5/5 flyers (which can be good) and you can effort to let one die, which you can't with Morphling most of the times. On the other hand, you only cast Morphling when you have the situation under control OR if you have to because of an opponent's clock. In both cases Morphling > Call the Skybreaker.

Tao

11-08-2008, 09:02 AM

n both cases Morphling > Call the Skybreaker.

because?

But anyway. That is irrelevant because I meant Call the Skybreaker not to replace Morphling but to replace the 2nd Finisher (Efreet, Meloku, Oona or Teferi).

holkenborg

11-08-2008, 09:16 AM

Oke, I would play 2 Morphling, but as a third killer this is an interesting option..

Shawon

11-08-2008, 04:47 PM

Call the Skybreaker is a sorcery, so I think that makes it unplayable in (perm-based) MUC; it conflicts with the role of MUC as a reactive deck. Plus, it's 7 cc. Way too expensive.

Tao

11-08-2008, 05:00 PM

The currently played Oona or Meloku are also "Sorceries". And like Morphling you won't play them without free mana so CTS is virtually even cheaper.

donnhart

11-08-2008, 05:41 PM

I dont think that Call the Skybreaker fits in muc. You dont want to spend 7 mana to get a 5/5 flying vanilla. And you dont want to pay it second time if they bounce the token or do something else with it.
Once Morphling or Meloku is in play its easier to protect them, then find a land and tap 7 (!) mana to generate a new token.

Morph or Meluko can come turn 5 with FoW backup if needed, but you cant call your skybreaker before turn 10, waht makes it a really dead card in earlygame.

Tao

11-08-2008, 06:55 PM

The hardcore control builds usually play a 2nd Win Condition beneath Morphling. Not all do this, but the majority. This discussion is about that slot. Right now they play Oona, Meloku or Rainbow Efreet but I say that Call the Skybreaker is superior to them in nearly each way.

And you dont want to pay it second time if they bounce the token or do something else with it.

Wrong. That's exactly what you want to do. Creating (virtual) card advantage. Trading their spells with your lands.

Once Morphling or Meloku is in play its easier to protect them, then find a land and tap 7 (!) mana to generate a new token.

I don't argue about Morphling, so keep him out of discussion.

When you start to protect Meloku or Oona you trade their dead cards with your best cards, hardcounters in a hope of an easy win after untapping. Sometimes it destroys them (Removal, Force, they have no relevant play, you untap and make 6 Token ftw), sometimes it destroys you (EoT Removal- Force, 2nd Removal Meloku dead, they untap and resolve whatever they want because you have no FoW). That's gambling.

Morph or Meluko can come turn 5 with FoW backup if needed, but you cant call your skybreaker before turn 10, waht makes it a really dead card in earlygame.

Playing Morphling on turn 5 is usually an act of desperation. In the vast majority of your games 6 Mana is the minimum you want to have in play so you can at least counter one Sword/Bolt and from 6 to 7 Mana is most times just one turn with a drawing deck like MUC.

Illissius

11-08-2008, 08:49 PM

If inevitability is the key criterion, Call the Skybreaker is an intriguing idea (and one I must admit I've also thought of, if not for this deck). Still, it is slow as hell. Cards like Rainbow Efreet have at least some utility in the early (okay, mid) game. And though you do keep extra mana open for Efreet, Morphling, and friends when you play them, you use that mana to counter your opponent's attempts to kill your creature and keep it in play, so it's actually doing something; whereas with Call the Skybreaker in the same situation, your only option is paying another seven mana next turn. But yeah, it probably wins the contest for hardest to permanently deal with.

Tao

11-08-2008, 10:09 PM

The only purpose of running a different threat as a 3rd win condition IS inevitability. If you wanted nothing but a 3rd threat in the deck then you should just play a 3rd Morphling.

Bahamuth

11-09-2008, 02:41 AM

The only purpose of running a different threat as a 3rd win condition IS inevitability. If you wanted nothing but a 3rd threat in the deck then you should just play a 3rd Morphling.

Morphling still dies to Needle and Deed. Therefore, I play a Rainbow Efreet, which I think is by far the best option.

frogboy

11-09-2008, 03:21 AM

You dont want to spend 7 mana to get a 5/5 flying vanilla.

Like, sure, but most decks have a hard time beating "dragon go" every turn.

Jason

11-09-2008, 03:05 PM

Morphling still dies to Needle and Deed. Therefore, I play a Rainbow Efreet, which I think is by far the best option.

Pretty sure Efreet gets hurt by Needle. I think you meant Wrath and Deed. I agree Rainbow Efreet is probably the best bet because of the fact it is the hardest to deal with. Needle and Humility are all that mess with the guy. Morphling or Meloku get hurt by Wrath, Deed, Needle or Humility. I'm going to have to say I like Rainbow Efreet as the next best creature after Morphling.

Saying this, I do find it interesting to bring up Call the Skybreaker. The creature generated dies to spot removal and mass removal but it can keep coming back. I don't think it is the best idea because it costs too much but it is certainly worth a try if you feel Rainbow Efreet or Meloku isn't working well for you.

The main problem I would see with this is I prefer Relic in my sideboard over Crypt because it replaces itself by drawing a card and it makes Tarmogoyf un-fat. Relic + Call the Skybreaker obviously won't work together well. That can easily be changed by using Crypt but I personally do think Relic is better.

Shawon

11-09-2008, 03:28 PM

Also, the retrace cost is nothing to scoff at.

I think Call the Skybreaker isn't a bad card in MUC albeit it is terribly slow, but with its retrace cost and such, I just don't think it's worth the slots in MUC.

Shimster

11-11-2008, 09:57 AM

Zach Tartell

11-11-2008, 10:40 AM

I vote for Call the Skybreaker, as it has got a nice synergie with Fact or Fiction.

Did you ever revealed a pile of 4 Islands + 1 Morphling/Efreet/Oona/Meloku/Guile/whatever? Your opponent is obviously going to make a 4 to 1 split. With Call the Skybreaker, you can just go for the Islands.

...and then tap out on your turn to get a measly 5/5 flier? I don't know if MUC has changed ridiculously since I last looked at this thread, but I've got to say - Call sounds like a terrible idea.

Oona is probably the best "win fast" way to do it - even if she gets swords'd she'll still leave a couple guys out (and, remember, if you allow removal to resolve on your win condition in a deck that plays at least 8 hard counters you need to practice more).

Brehn

11-11-2008, 11:20 AM

...and then tap out on your turn to get a measly 5/5 flier? I don't know if MUC has changed ridiculously since I last looked at this thread, but I've got to say - Call sounds like a terrible idea.

Why?

It's absolutely comparable to Meloku or Oona, for which you tap out to get a measly 5/5 or 2/4 flier. And no, Oona doesn't leave a couple of guys out if she gets sworded. If you let Swords on your win condition resolve more than one turn after you've played it, you
a) are winning anyway
b) are losing anyway
c) have made a mistake

And no, Call the Skybreaker doesn't make you vulnerable to graveyard hate. If the opponent is boarding in hate - great! He has fewer relevant spells in his deck now. If he doesn't - great! He has no way to stop you from producing a token every 2-3 turns once you draw CtS. This is a win-win situation. It turns his Swords to Plowshares into a relevant spell? Gaining 5 life without losing a wincon isn't bad at all for a control deck. There are enough situations where I'd love to draw a Renewed Faith out of nowhere, even if it costed more than 3 mana.

Plus:
- It solves the Fact or Fiction into wincon-issue to a certain extent.
- this:

When you start to protect Meloku or Oona you trade their dead cards with your best cards, hardcounters in a hope of an easy win after untapping.

--> CtS sounds like a good inclusion. Having played 1 Morphling, 1 Meloku, 1 Efreet, I'll try switching the Efreet with CtS now. But I'm not sure - maybe it's correct to switch Meloku. Testing will tell.

Hoojo

11-11-2008, 11:55 AM

Bahamuth

11-11-2008, 12:10 PM

I'm intrigued by Call the Skybreaker as its a threat that doesn't require constant protection; yes, you will most likely tap out to bring him in, but you don't have to hold counters or keep mana open in case of Swords to Plowshares and co. I'd say its worth testing.

Agreed. I'm probably going to test it as well.

By the way, I don't think anyone mentioned the list that Top 8'ed ad The Source tournament. Here it is:

Richard Zuleg: Mono-Blue Control

4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
3 Spell Snare
4 Propaganda
4 Back to Basics
3 Vedalken Shackles
4 Powder Keg
2 Morphling
1 Rainbow Effreet
3 Impulse
4 Fact or Fiction
24 Island

SB:
4 Negate
1 Spell Snare
1 Disrupt
3 Relic of Progentius
4 Blue Elemental Blast
1 Hydroblast
1 Decleration of Naught

Does anyone have an idea what the Negates are there for? The list seemssolid, but the sideboard is really pretty random....

Arsenal

11-11-2008, 12:46 PM

List seems pretty standard, sideboard seems kinda "meh", but I too would like to hear the reasoning behind Negate. 1U seems kinda slow versus combo, as Disrupt and/or Misdirection would seem to be a better choice. If Negate wasn't there for the combo matchup, perhaps for the control matchup? But even then, I'd probably want Mana Leak in there (nice synergy with Propaganda & B2B versus certain decks). And Negate does little versus aggro, so... :confused:

Captain Hammer

11-11-2008, 01:24 PM

Bahamuth

11-11-2008, 01:34 PM

This deck thrives completely off of card advantage.

I'd disagree. This deck thrives more off dropping bombs. Propaganda, Back to Basics and Shackles are both most essential to this deck. The only matchup where the cardadvantage is the thing this deck does thrive on, is in a control mirror, but even then Back to Basics might be just as good as drawing 3 random cards (4 turns later).

EDIT: Call The Skybreak is also pretty sick against control. Impulse is way better at finding it.

Mordel

11-11-2008, 02:28 PM

The reasoning for impulse over visions is probably him wantin to dig for b2b, shackles and keg more than sheer card advantage. I was playing with three AV by mistake for a while and it was fucking horrible. I prefer visions, but I understand why someone might run impulse over it.

Retrace on Call seems like the biggest strike against it. I am not impressed by it between that and a whopping seven. I honestly do not see MUC's problem of needing more finishers as the reason it is not a DTB at the moment. I think what is more suspect for it is not putting out the sheer numbers like landstill does. Run call as a single slot if you have room, I run forbid, so really in principle I see nothing wrong with call.

Pithing needle on fruity efreet/morphling is fucking bad argument though: early on(the most likely time an opponent will resolve a needle), you have the whole goddamned game to draw a keg and sit on it for a single turn. Also, who on earth is playin a needle versus MUC and naming a kill card, rather than keg or shackles? If needle is resolving because you don't have FoW and you tapped out to play your kill creatures. Deed should not be hitting play either when you are in kill mode. MUC is one of the few decks that I play where the end game for it is generally the same in any match: your opponent is out of gas and you put a creature down and let it protect itself for a few turns and only counter the severe stuff.

Oona is fucking horribad though. Seriously. The odd person that places and has one instead of an efreet probably wasn't able to find and efreet or something because six mana for a more or less vanilla 5/5 is absurd. The milling ability is so incredibly subpar that...I was going to say words fail me, but I found some: it will get you several two 1/1's for four mana on average...neat. The milling ability is situationally useful against top, but here's the kicker: if you are playing your six mana kill card while your opponent has a CB/CDT down, chances are you don't really give a shit about it anymore. I like to cast my kill creature with at around half of my mana still open as a rule almost and the difference between an Efreet and Oona is four turns or so. I don't mind playing a slow deck, but if I am going to wait those turns, I will not be doing so because I want to protect my 5/5 flier with a shitty mill/token ability with cards in my hand if I can avoid it.

For the sake of argument, lets take a fish scenario and spread the numbers out for efreet and Oona, lets also assume that we only need to do eighteen points because this is legacy:

Efreet comes out on the fourth turn:
3+3+3+3+3+3=eighteen damage over six turns and death on the tenth turn for a non-existant opponent.

Oona comes out on the sixth turn, lets also assume that you are getting a token a turn:

5+6+7=nineteen damage on the ninth turn.

You have one turn's difference in time on the ol' death by counter-wall clock and a extremely vulnerable creature that will leave a few easy to deal with 1/1 fliers in its wake when it dies. PASS.

I have similar feelings about Meloku, the only difference is that I need to skip/reverse land drops to make the clock pick up with him/her. I like card advantage, but I am not such a card advantage enthusiast that I get excited by the fact that I have seven cards in my hand even though my opponent knows that at least three of them are land. Someone once argued that with me. The only compelling argument I have seen for Meloku is that she feeds my very emotionally attached singleton forbid and that had me hazy for a second and then I snapped back to earth and realized that I probably wouldn't need that singleton forbid as much if a morphling or floppy-tits efreet* was on the table.

Both Oona and Meloku seem strictly inferior to Call of the Skybreaker, so if it works as a third kill card, don't call me a hater! I would even venture to say that I would run call over either of the two mentioned.

*I have about ten years worth of nicknames for efreet

Arne

11-12-2008, 06:41 AM

When you play oona on the sixth turn, you won't be able to put a token out ;)

Julian23

11-12-2008, 08:33 AM

and, remember, if you allow removal to resolve on your win condition in a deck that plays at least 8 hard counters you need to practice more

or just play Morphling / Efreet

4eak

11-12-2008, 08:53 AM

Permanent based MUC is more inclined to play Rainbow Efreet and Morphling, and for good reason--it isn't as capable of controlling the stack.

Meloku is still the best creature in stack-based MUC. It gives you calculable combat knowledge (no guessing) and it gives you the extra-board control you may desire. Additionally, the fundamental turn where you switch from the control to aggro role can be accomplished more effectively through Meloku.

In both cases, the version of MUC you play will dictate which creature is really best. MUC decks with less stack control need creatures that play around that weakness, while versions of MUC with less board control will make the most of creatures that strengthen the state of your board.

Most people in this thread play a permanent-based MUC, and as such, you should be playing Morphling or Rainbow Efreet. Stack-based MUC can viably play Meloku (as well as Morphling and Efreet), so if you are going to dismiss Meloku, then do so in the proper context (permanent-based control lists).

peace,
4eak

DeathwingZERO

11-12-2008, 08:58 AM

I would like to hear the reasoning behind playing Impulse over Ancestral Visions actually.

The list looks identical to my list except for that one change.

To me, Impulse vs. Visions isn't even close. Impulse gives you no actual card advantage. This deck thrives completely off of card advantage.

This isn't the same MUC as we used to have in the days of Forbiddian. Draw-go doesn't work now nearly as much as "draw/answer, draw/answer, threat, threat, threat....etc".

You don't need raw CA to beat a lot of decks anymore, you need reasonably fast threats that can be protected long enough to put your kill out at your leisure. Impulse does a much better job of digging in the early game for your answers/threats, as it's instant speed and gives you the choice of the best of 4 cards you see. Visions gives raw CA, yes, but 4 turns from now I might be dead already, or those 3 cards could be complete garbage.

As far as I'm concerned, I still think Visions is garbage. It requires you to rely heavily on what you've gotten in your opening hand alone, making mulligans even more painful when you see an "average" (power level) hand of 5 or so cards after packing it in a few times. At least things like Ponder, Brainstorm, Impulse, etc allow for more sway in the opening hand, knowing you can dig immediately rather than draw turn 5, when FoF is already being the MVP.

4eak

11-12-2008, 09:16 AM

@ DeathwingZERO

Draw-go doesn't work now nearly as much as "draw/answer, draw/answer, threat, threat, threat....etc".

Draw/go does basically the same thing, it just chooses to play its answers later than permanent-based control lists. Built correctly, draw/go performs quite well.

As to Impulse vs. AVisions, I completely agree with you.

peace,
4eak

Bahamuth

11-12-2008, 01:47 PM

I'd like to see some lists, guys. Could you post a good stack-oriented build 4eak?

Also, I read earlier in this threat you were testing Ponder, DeathwingZERO. How was it? Better than Impulse?

Kadaj

11-12-2008, 02:04 PM

This isn't the same MUC as we used to have in the days of Forbiddian. Draw-go doesn't work now nearly as much as "draw/answer, draw/answer, threat, threat, threat....etc".

You don't need raw CA to beat a lot of decks anymore, you need reasonably fast threats that can be protected long enough to put your kill out at your leisure. Impulse does a much better job of digging in the early game for your answers/threats, as it's instant speed and gives you the choice of the best of 4 cards you see. Visions gives raw CA, yes, but 4 turns from now I might be dead already, or those 3 cards could be complete garbage.

As far as I'm concerned, I still think Visions is garbage. It requires you to rely heavily on what you've gotten in your opening hand alone, making mulligans even more painful when you see an "average" (power level) hand of 5 or so cards after packing it in a few times. At least things like Ponder, Brainstorm, Impulse, etc allow for more sway in the opening hand, knowing you can dig immediately rather than draw turn 5, when FoF is already being the MVP.

The major reason I considered Visions in the first place, way back in the day, is because I found that my deck repeatedly lacked the mid-game punch necessary to succeed against the majority of the format. MUC does not need reasonably fast threats/answers. What it needs is sweeping answers that can provide card advantage, either through 2 for 1s on the board, or by simply drawing more cards than the initial investment cost.

Yes, Back to Basics and Propaganda do not provide CA in the strictest sense, but the board advantage they create is often good enough to replicate massive CA, and as such I consider them untouchable in the overall scheme of the build. Powder Keg and Vedalken Shackles usually provide actual 2 for 1s, and as such they fit the scheme as well.

This deck is loaded with answers, whether it be the aformentioned cards or counterspells themselves. The sheer quantity of answers this deck has at its disposal and the versatility of many of them (Propaganda OR Vedalken Shackles OR Powder Keg can all answer an on board creature, etc) makes card selection noticeably less relevant. Between that and the fact that I rely heavily on mulligans as it is and don't keep marginal hands regardless of whether or not they have a Ponder, Brainstorm, or whatever in them, meant that I didn't miss the card selection I had cut.

The other major reason I still prefer Ancestral Visions over the alternatives is that I want a specific function out of that slot. Namely, Fact or Fiction 5-8. I don't want card selection because I found it to be weak, and I established through lots of testing that this deck had a real habit of running out of gas at around turn 6 if FoF hasn't shown up, and even sometimes with FoF. A control deck that runs out of gas when its supposed to be at its strongest is a serious problem, and one that Vision is very good at rectifying.

Most of the arguments against Visions revolve around its perceived slowness, something I have never really understood or experienced during actual tournament play, and the idea that it isn't necessary to the decks overall gameplan. If you honestly feel that you don't need raw CA in that slot, then by all means cut Visions and find something else. However, if you're like me and find that without it it becomes way too easy to run out of gas in the mid-game, keeping Visions in is your best bet.

Captain Hammer

11-12-2008, 03:43 PM

Imo, the stack based versions of the deck just aren't as good. You said it yourself, stack based versions need to win fast, because all they do is trade with your opponent's threats 1:1. They can't shut down multiple threats like Shackles, Keg and Propaganda can. If one of the threats slips through, you're screwed.

If you want a stack based version, you need to run better faster threats. Here, Meloku isn't nearly fast enough. You're better off running Goyfs and at that point you ought to be playing Threshold. But I should say, that's all just my opinion.

The major reason I considered Visions in the first place, way back in the day, is because I found that my deck repeatedly lacked the mid-game punch necessary to succeed against the majority of the format. MUC does not need reasonably fast threats/answers. What it needs is sweeping answers that can provide card advantage, either through 2 for 1s on the board, or by simply drawing more cards than the initial investment cost.

Yes, Back to Basics and Propaganda do not provide CA in the strictest sense, but the board advantage they create is often good enough to replicate massive CA, and as such I consider them untouchable in the overall scheme of the build. Powder Keg and Vedalken Shackles usually provide actual 2 for 1s, and as such they fit the scheme as well.

This deck is loaded with answers, whether it be the aformentioned cards or counterspells themselves. The sheer quantity of answers this deck has at its disposal and the versatility of many of them (Propaganda OR Vedalken Shackles OR Powder Keg can all answer an on board creature, etc) makes card selection noticeably less relevant. Between that and the fact that I rely heavily on mulligans as it is and don't keep marginal hands regardless of whether or not they have a Ponder, Brainstorm, or whatever in them, meant that I didn't miss the card selection I had cut.

The other major reason I still prefer Ancestral Visions over the alternatives is that I want a specific function out of that slot. Namely, Fact or Fiction 5-8. I don't want card selection because I found it to be weak, and I established through lots of testing that this deck had a real habit of running out of gas at around turn 6 if FoF hasn't shown up, and even sometimes with FoF. A control deck that runs out of gas when its supposed to be at its strongest is a serious problem, and one that Vision is very good at rectifying.

Most of the arguments against Visions revolve around its perceived slowness, something I have never really understood or experienced during actual tournament play, and the idea that it isn't necessary to the decks overall gameplan. If you honestly feel that you don't need raw CA in that slot, then by all means cut Visions and find something else. However, if you're like me and find that without it it becomes way too easy to run out of gas in the mid-game, keeping Visions in is your best bet.

I found everything you said to be completely true. This deck has a serious problem of running out of gas midgame if it doesn't see a Fact or Fiction. Visions does act as Fact of Fiction 5-8. I honestly found Visions to be more powerful than Fact a lot of times and I've never once been unhappy to see the card.

You almost never win before turn 13 or so, it's a war of attrition till that point. So Visons draws me plenty of cards and keeps me well supplied till that point. And if there is a Visions in my hand that I anticipate not needing, I can always pitch it to Force.

Soulles

11-12-2008, 04:19 PM

I found everything you said to be completely true. This deck has a serious problem of running out of gas midgame if it doesn't see a Fact or Fiction. Visions does act as Fact of Fiction 5-8. I honestly found Visions to be more powerful than Fact a lot of times and I've never once been unhappy to see the card.
You almost never win before turn 13 or so, it's a war of attrition till that point. So Visons draws me plenty of cards and keeps me well supplied till that point. And if there is a Visions in my hand that I anticipate not needing, I can always pitch it to Force.

Could you elaborate on the highlighted part? I don't see how Visions is anywhere usefull as Fact or Fiction mid/late game. It is a card that does nothing for 4 turns. This unlike Fact of Fiction which can find answers on EOT phase of the opponent.

Also i do have a question for the people who play Visions with Force Spike.

Your opening hand consist of an Ancestral vision, Force spike and 5x cards. Do you play it on turn 1 or on turn 2? Keeping in mind you don't know what the opponent is playing.

Captain Hammer

11-12-2008, 04:47 PM

Who plays Visions with Force Spike? I certainly don't.

I like Visions more than Fact for the first several turns. It only costs me one mana. Sure you won't get the cards for a few turns, but early on, you have a pretty full hand already. Playing Visions turn one to get a bunch of cards before you would even be able to cast Fact is money. Playing both Visions and Propaganda/Shackles/Keg is money. Fact eats up all the mana on the turn that you play it. And if those weren't enough reasons, an early Visions gets me land to make sure I don't miss a land drop. Fact isn't even playable if you run into a glut of landless cards.

And with Fact, you often only get one good card out of it.

Hoojo

11-12-2008, 04:47 PM

Also i do have a question for the people who play Visions with Force Spike.

Your opening hand consist of an Ancestral vision, Force spike and 5x cards. Do you play it on turn 1 or on turn 2? Keeping in mind you don't know what the opponent is playing.

I don't think a lot of versions run both of those cards. In this situation, being the opponent's deck is unknown, I would hold Force Spike mana open and play visions turn two. If I was holding a Force of Will as well, I'd play visions and use the Spike as Force fodder.

I personally don't run Force Spike, and always love opening with a turn one suspended Ancestral Visions.

Mordel

11-12-2008, 05:15 PM

Soulles,

A rule I play by with draw-go style decks that I picked up the first time I got duressed(the asshole took my whispers too!) is when in doubt, play conservatively.

Jason

11-12-2008, 08:11 PM

Also i do have a question for the people who play Visions with Force Spike.

Your opening hand consist of an Ancestral vision, Force spike and 5x cards. Do you play it on turn 1 or on turn 2? Keeping in mind you don't know what the opponent is playing.

It depends on the other 5 cards, but I would probably suspend the Visions turn 1 of game 1. I think the worst thing my opponent could play on the next turn would be Lackey. Mongoose would be annoying, but that can be dealt with eventually. I guess Thoughtseize or Dark Ritual into dumbness would also suck, so it would completely depend on the rest of my hand.

Plus, playing blue means you always have the illusion of Force of Will and suspending Visions means 1 of 2 things:
1) you have nothing better to do
2) you have an answer to anything your opponent does turn 1 (aka Force of Will)

4eak

11-13-2008, 06:36 AM

Just as I see a difference between the sorts of creatures that should be run in the two variants of MUC (permanent and stack oriented control), I think your choice of draw spells will vary.

Ancestral Visions is clearly more acceptable in a deck that is more willing to tap out. Permanent-based control lists tap during the main phase a lot. Tapping out in the main is not a cardinal sin in permanent-MUC. Most importantly, permanent-MUC can sustain a longer-term softlock, which allows AV to be a more reasonable card in the deck. Permanent-MUC is a more tempo-oriented control deck than its brother, and as such, it has more difficulty acquiring card advantage. It has a much greater need for strict, raw CA spells.

In contrast to permanent-MUC, decks built to control the stack rely more heavily upon sweeping the board (as opposed to mana-denial). Stack-MUC softlocks the stack instead of the ground, choosing carefully what is to resolve, and cleans up through more effective use of artifact board control, which are CA engines in themselves. Card advantage is rarely the problem for the deck, but rather tempo is the problem it must attempt to solve. It is a different strategy, and it has different needs.

Tapping out to play spells during your main is something you do a lot more conservatively with stack-MUC, and so as your deck progresses towards that strategy, you have more and more disincentive to run Ancestral Visions, and more incentive to play instant draw.

If AV belongs anywhere, it belongs in permanent-MUC lists. Disk, Shackles, and FoF are still the best CA tools for stack-MUC.

peace,
4eak

DeathwingZERO

11-13-2008, 07:15 AM

I like Visions more than Fact for the first several turns. It only costs me one mana.

So does Brainstorm, Ponder, and multitudes of other cards, and they allow for the ability to sculpt your next few turns without 100% reliance on topdeck and hand.

Sure you won't get the cards for a few turns, but early on, you have a pretty full hand already.

Unfortunately this deck still has to mulligan, especially games two and three if you need to see a specific card ASAP. AV also does not help in this aspect, as turn five is sometimes not nearly fast enough.

Playing Visions turn one to get a bunch of cards before you would even be able to cast Fact is money.

This is just wrong. Fact goes online on your turn four (assuming 100% land drops, which is quite common with twenty five or so lands), and can be cast on your opponent's turn. AV comes online on your turn five upkeep, THEN still has to resolve (a terrible dilemma in control mirrors). It's a full turn slower.

Playing both Visions and Propaganda/Shackles/Keg is money.

I play Propaganda, Shackles, and Keg. Those are all minimum three of, and will never go below that in the main deck. None of those cards cast any real relevance on AV vs any other cantrip/draw, however. I'm just as likely to draw into any of them by turn five as AV is to get them in my hand after that.

Fact eats up all the mana on the turn that you play it.

Only if you are sitting on four lands forever (which you shouldn't be, and it'll be VERY useful to hit that FoF asap if you are), or if you specifically cast it on turn four. Most of the time, it can wait until five or six, leaving mana open for counters and still have FoW to fall back on.

And if those weren't enough reasons, an early Visions gets me land to make sure I don't miss a land drop. Fact isn't even playable if you run into a glut of landless cards.

Again, this view is very wrong. An early (meaning first turn) AV = a turn five draw. This does nothing to help you in between, when it's absolutely critical you hit every land drop, so you can play any of your answers. Again, anything allowing draw or topdeck manipulation serves a better purpose than AV here.

And with Fact, you often only get one good card out of it.

If this is the case, that means with AV chances are you probably whiffed on that one good card in five, and now have waited 4 turns for nothing, and still are stuck in topdeck mode. While this is very uncommon (the deck is almost like Aggro Loam in a sense that it's very close to 50/50 on lands/answers&threats), that Fact also could have been played in response to something, and you needed to see that one card.

I'm also curious why you are resorting to arguing AV vs Fact. Fact is simply the MVP of this deck, it fuels the mid and late game far better than anything else. AV has been argued by many to be very lackluster at times, and very useful at times. Nobody is arguing these things with Fact, and it's pretty much a staple four of. And chain-Facts are just SICK. I can't say how often enough in testing I've dropped those five cards, only to realize next turn I'm more than likely doing it again.

I actually did a number of games running Whispers of the Muse. I know, I was just saying this isn't "Draw-go" MUC like it used to be, so why am I playing the MVP of 1997? Simply put, it's got insane late game, and it's got usefulness early game as a cantrip just to get a little deeper. Yes it's a blind draw, and yes it's only a cantrip. But it's a quick early play, and RAW CA late game, all with you at total control of when to use it.

I would honestly suggest giving it a try, especially as a four of. In a number of the lists I've seen, it'd fit right in. But again, it's really down to preference. Explosive potential mid to late game, or versatility at the (possible) cost of that CA.