[Deck] Mono-Blue Control (MUC)

[Mordel]

That list may be unpolished, but it looks interesting. Sort of reminds me of a mono blue landstill deck that I played around with for a bit that I never really did anything with.

I miss the days of running ophidian. Even a finkel would do. With the dominance of goyf decks though, Ophidian creatures seem like they will be a distant memory if not because of goyfs, but all the cheap removal that is being run to prevent them from dominating one side of the table.

Does anyone ever wish they could step into a time machine and go back to a big old school 1.x tourney just so they play their old stasis deck that packed gushes and two morphlings 4tw or forbidian deck with two masticores and a morphling?

[ebbitten]

Accelerated blue, TFK MUC whatever you want to call it really needs a thread for itself. Every 5 pages or less someone posts some "ingenious but unpolished" list with tfk and artifacts. Personally they're not my type but i think that if theyre going to be developed they need a thread of their own.

[Mordel]

Accelerated blue, TFK MUC whatever you want to call it really needs a thread for itself. Every 5 pages or less someone posts some "ingenious but unpolished" list with tfk and artifacts. Personally they're not my type but i think that if theyre going to be developed they need a thread of their own.

No, the reason is that permanent-based and draw-go manage to share this thread fine and an artifact-based version should be able to as well.
Also, you are exaggerating with the five pages remark.

MUC builds are subject to a unifying theme which is permission, entirely blue(besides artifacts obviously), a few cards that have a mass removal-type effect and a very small number of creatures that end the game in a few turns. In my very small, but frequently voiced opinion: pretty much any deck that matches this criteria fits in this thread.

Largely untested lists being posted is irritating at times, but even I do it from time to time. So, kindly shut up.

@CG if I get a hankerin' to screw around with a blue deck, I'll play around with a variation of the blue w/more artifacts than usual muc deck I have and post thoughts and a list.

[Magnus]

I see some of you are interested in my top 8 performance at the resent source tournament with prison blue.

I play this as a prison/control deck that locks out the opponents attack phase with lock pieces (Shackles, Keg, Propaganda, B2B) protects the lock with control elements and deploys the kill.

Impulse vs. Ancestral Visions: I really wanted to drop a lock piece turn three against a lot of decks, and Impulse really helped me dig for needed answers and stabilize. The deck plays like prison against many of decks, and I just wanted my lock pieces fast, and deploy the kill. Impulse lets you stabilize the early game and finds the win condition late game.

The idea behind the sideboard was that I wanted to have the option of transforming back into a more traditional control build in certain matches. The deck has at least seven dedicated creature control cards main. So against any combo or control decks not relying heavily on creatures to control the game I wanted to transform to a control build. Negate seemed stronger than Mana Leak in that role against combo and control because I was not looking to counter creatures so Negate was a hard counter.

This is the field I played through:
Ichorid
Dreadstill
Eva Green
Affinity
Thresh
Goblins
Landstill
Dreadstill

[Soulles]

Well, it is Sunday now in Holland.

10 hours from now, i will be going to Zwolle and participate with the Dutch Nationals.

And this is what i will take with me

23 Island

4 Force Spike
4 Spell Snare
4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
4 Fact or Fiction
4 Back to Basics
2 Powder Keg
2 Vedalken Shackles

4 Sower of Temptation
3 Kira, Great-Glass Spinner
2 Morphling

Sideboard:
2 Divert
4 Hydroblast
3 Stifle
3 Tormod's Crypt
3 Chalice of the Void


I just hope i won't face many Chokes ;) . Not sure what to expect in a 100 men tournament. Not sure if Goblins will be heavly present or Affinity. The choice of Hydroblast is risky, because sometimes you just don't face those heavy red decks. But will see.

[raharu]

I personally would take Propagandas instead of Hyrdoblast if you're expecting to see agro.

[holkenborg]

Last report you said you were going to play 3 Vedalken Shackles, but again you're going to play 2. Why?

Good luck! And I'll see you within two hours ;)

[Captain Hammer]

Force Spike! Why?

Why do people insist on playing 4 copies of this crappy card. I mean seriously, Force Spike is less than worthless past turn 3, and the avg game with this deck lasts till turn 13. Half the time that you draw a force spike, it will be completly unplayable.


Why not play some actual card draw instead (Visions). Or more board control ala. Propaganda/Keg/Shackles.

[darkalucard]

Force Spike! Why?
Why do people insist on playing 4 copies of this crappy card. I mean seriously, Force Spike is less than worthless past turn 3, and the avg game with this deck lasts till turn 13. Half the time that you draw a force spike, it will be completly unplayable.


I agree. If one of the main reasons to play it would be to stop something like a Mogg Fanatic or Goblin Lackey might i suggest Piracy Charm? Although it may just be that whatever fills the slot will be a necessary evil that you just have to live with. :rolleyes:

[4eak]

@ Captain Hammer


Why do people insist on playing 4 copies of this crappy card. I mean seriously, Force Spike is less than worthless past turn 3, and the avg game with this deck lasts till turn 13. Half the time that you draw a force spike, it will be completly unplayable.

Why not play some actual card draw instead (Visions). Or more board control ala. Propaganda/Keg/Shackles.


Force Spike has been debated several times in the two MUC threads. If you need to know why, then go read up.

The card isn't worthless past turn 3, especially not against a number of breathtakingly low land-count tempo decks. To your point, while the average game might last to turn 13, you still have to find a way to get there, and Force Spike is a viable choice for helping you live to see the end game.

You clearly play permanent-MUC, so I doubt you've seen the card operate as effectively as it can in other builds, such as Draw/go. Shuffle up Draw/go, and you'll find the card is actually very good.



peace,
4eak

[Barsoom]

According to this (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11902) report, a Fahad MUC aka MUC with Kira/Sower take the 2° place out of 140 people at the Dutch Nationals; i hope that guy is you Soulles...

Now maybe, after the 1° place at Mol out of 58 people, the 5° place at Utrecht out of 31 and this wonderful result of 2/140°, people will stop to play shitty cards like Ancestral Vision, that bring this archetipe to nothing, while Fahad MUC is currently the MUC deck that's performing better.

Kira+Sower seems the future of MUC on Legacy, isn't it?

[electrolyze]

@samsunait

soulles=fahad:laugh:

But the player who became 2th wasnt him, his name was Leon. I lost to him in the semi's and i can tell the people here, it is a really strong muc build, especially in a meta like this one(i mean the dutch meta here, lots of 3c aggro-control decks and like).

[Adan]

According to this (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11902) report, a Fahad MUC aka MUC with Kira/Sower take the 2° place out of 140 people at the Dutch Nationals; i hope that guy is you Soulles...

Now maybe, after the 1° place at Mol out of 58 people, the 5° place at Utrecht out of 31 and this wonderful result of 2/140°, people will stop to play shitty cards like Ancestral Vision, that bring this archetipe to nothing, while Fahad MUC is currently the MUC deck that's performing better.

Kira+Sower seems the future of MUC on Legacy, isn't it?

Actually Ancestral Visions is a great card. It is like your insurance to not go out-of-gas in the mid-/lategame.

Kira+Sower ist actually crap as Kira itself is not really able to apply pressure by itself and Sower of Temptation needs to be backed up with Kira or counterbackup. Control Magic would actually be the safer way.

I also don't have any clue why there are Force Spikes in the maindeck, that is by far the most terrible card you could play.

[Kadaj]

If my testing and experience with the deck was anything but immensely negative I would be more inclined to believe the Kira/Sower build has some potential. Except, there's the slight problem of me being completely unable to make the deck the work. Maybe I'm just unlucky with it or something, but I always seemed to draw Sowers in the wrong the spot, or Kira without Sower, or anything of that sort, over and over again.

Between that and the fact that my metagame is loaded with control, Thresh, and Goblins I really don't find the Kira/Sower build attractive at all.

And, as an aside, the idea that 3 results make Kira/Sower the future of MUC is laughable. Sure it's great that it's been successful, but please don't act like the deck has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that it's the best build of MUC, because I assure you, it hasn't. Every other variant of MUC has had major successes of equal or greater magnitude than the Kira/Sower build, and I'm sure they will continue to do so.

[electrolyze]

Actually, that muc build has t8'ed almost on every dutch tourney in the past half/full year. I think its really strong, especially in a meta with many aggro-control decks like thresh and that kind of decks.

[Barsoom]

I think we should be happy if MUC of any kind shows result on big tournaments like this one.

Atm imho MUC archetipe is split among 3 builds: Permanent MUC (Kadaj), Kira/Sower MUC (Fahad) and the old one (and still my personal favorite) Stack MUC.

It's always the MUC we love on all 3 builds; the important fact is that MUC is strong in Legacy right now, whatever version you can play; as a long MonoBlue player back from when i started with Magic on '99 i'm very happy to see where this archetipe is right now.

Maybe it deserves DTW (or ATW) status?

[Illissius]

I'm quite prepared to believe that Sower of Temptation is a good card. Sure, they can remove it, but they basically have to remove it (sort of like Dreadnought). And it might even be easier to protect against Swords to Plowshares than Krosan Grip. Again, not saying it is good -- I haven't tested it -- but I can see the logic.

Kira, though. I can't. As far as I can tell, the card does two things: swings for two, and protects Sower. Wouldn't you be much better off running either more ways to steal things (Shackles, Threads, Control Magic, Dominate, whatever), or ways to protect Sower which suck considerably less?

[Jason]

I'm still confused when people claim they are running stack-based mono-blue. What does that mean? Are you not running Back to Basics, Vedalken Shackles, and other permanents? Do you honestly have enough firepower to counter everything if you aren't running these cards?

I run B2B, Shackles and Powder Keg as my permanents. Propaganda is in the sideboard only. I run permanent-based mono-blue because I am winning with my permanents - B2B and Shackles especially. Yes I counter scary cards like Humility and I will Force of Will a Lackey or even sometimes a Dark Ritual, but I don't counter everything my opponent plays. I'm under the impression if you run B2B and Shackles and (you know...) permanents (I've seen some with Disk which is also a permanent for those who may be confused), then you are running permanent-based mono-blue, not stack-based / draw-go.

Do you have a decklist of a stack-based or draw-go style deck that is viable without permanents like Shackles, Back to Basics and some sort of board sweeper? How do you win if they do hit a creature and just keep poking you with it? Do you Disk for one creature?

[4eak]

@ Jason


I'm still confused when people claim they are running stack-based mono-blue. What does that mean?

The opening post talks a bit about this distinction, but I'll elaborate.

All versions of MUC have to run some permanents. Land, Shackles, Artifact Board clearing, and at least 1 (if not 2 or 3) creatures are guaranteed to be found in pretty much any variation. Running these cards doesn't dictate much of anything really.

We all expect to see at least:

+23x Land
+2x Shackles
+2x Artifact Board Clearing
+1x Creatures
4x Counterspell
4x Force of Will
4x Fact or Fiction
+4x Draw/Cantrip/CA/CQ

That is the basic shell of Legacy MUC. Some may wish to add or subtract to that list, but I'd argue that this the the bare minimum I expect of any MUC deck.

How you fill out that shell and the remaining 16 free slots is what defines your MUC deck. Everybody is going to win the game with a creature (a permanent) and everyone will use at least some permanent to help control the board. The question of what is the difference between permanent-MUC and stack-MUC is answered by the strategy and proportion of spells used. Permanent-MUC lists will exercise control more through the use of permanents than by controlling the stack, and the opposite is true for draw/go. Both variants will use both instants and permanents to control the game, but each variant will emphasize one over the other.


Characteristics of Permanent-MUC:

Preference for zero splash, lower quantity of permission spells, card quantity spells over card quality, and maximal redundancy to spend less mana filtering. I expect to see these card used in addition to the above shell:

4x Ancestral Vision (in the CQ/CA slot)
+4x Powder Keg
+4x Propaganda
+4x Back to Basics

It has a permanent-based mana-denial theme, and taps out in the main phase a great deal. Permanent-MUC is well-tuned against the DtB forum.


Characteristics of Kira/Sower MUC

Creature-based card advantage engines, higher permission count than most permanent-MUC builds, tempo-oriented, and wins games earlier than other variants. Cards in question:

+4x Sower of Temptation
+2x Kira, Great-Glass Spinner

It is uncommonly played, but it has some results. It is closer in strategy to permanent-MUC lists than the draw/go strategy of stack-MUC.


Characteristics of Stack-MUC:

High quantity of permission spells, plays mostly instants, requires the least amount of redundancy. Cards in question:

+6-8x Permission spells (in addition to the shell)
4-6x instant cantrips, usually Brainstorm and Impulse (including the 4x in shell)
3-4x Artifact Board Sweepers, able to use EE and Disk where others variations are less able

It is uncommonly played, and few here would advocate it (although I do). This is probably the oldest version of the deck, which we call: Draw/go. It draws a land, plays it, and it passes the turn. Most spells are played during your opponent's turn, often on the end step. Stack-MUC is less committed to any particular card because it plays most of its spell as a direct response to the opponent.

It 1 for 1's relevant spells, but not all of them (because not all spells are relevant), and generates CA through artifact board spells (shackles+disk) and FoF more effectively because of its cantrip and permission base. It is also most likely to play bounce and man-lands to improve tempo.




peace,
4eak

[Sae~]

@ Jason
Characteristics of Kira/Sower MUC

Creature-based card advantage engines, higher permission count than most permanent-MUC builds, tempo-oriented, and wins games earlier than other variants. Cards in question:

+4x Sower of Temptation
+2x Kira, Great-Glass Spinner


Looking at this description, wouldn't Ophidian fit into this particular MUC build? He doesn't perform very well as beater, nor does he have evasion, but he is a very powerful (creature-based) card advantage engine.

On another note, I used to play a stack-based MUC for several years, I'm not 100% sure on the decklist, but I think the list was something along the lines of;

24x Island

4x Force of Will
4x Counterspell
4x Mana Leak
4x Memory Lapse
4x Dissipate

4x Fact or Fiction
4x Impulse

2x Morphling
2x Shackles

2x Powder Keg
2x Nevinyrral's Disk

I know there's some awkward card choices in there. The lack of early-game control killed me every now and then (a resolved Lackey was often GG), but people in my area mostly played Landstill and Thresh so that didn't matter that much. I'm not sure a similar list is viable at this point though.

Eventually I swapped some Memory Lapses for B2B, and by now my MUC list has evolved into one very similar to Kadaj's.

Sae~

[Mayk0l]

I think we should be happy if MUC of any kind shows result on big tournaments like this one.


MUC made Top8 at the Source tournament. Last Sunday, it made Top2 at the Dutch Legacy Championships (141-man-tournament)

[Skeggi]

As said before, the guy who took F-MUC to the second place in this tournament wasn't Soulles (Fahad). He went 5-2-1, which still is pretty good.


Looking at this description, wouldn't Ophidian fit into this particular MUC build? He doesn't perform very well as beater, nor does he have evasion, but he is a very powerful (creature-based) card advantage engine.
Probably not, Thieving Magpie would be better, but still doesn't cut it as far as I know.

[4eak]

@ Sae


Looking at this description, wouldn't Ophidian fit into this particular MUC build? He doesn't perform very well as beater, nor does he have evasion, but he is a very powerful (creature-based) card advantage engine.

Yes. Ophidian is similar in nature. I think Sower and Kira are the new Ophidians, especially as this is a creature and creature removal heavy format.

@ Skeggi


Thieving Magpie would be better, but still doesn't cut it as far as I know.

I agree. If we wanted raw CA creatures, Shadowmage Infiltrator would be the best. How one would make Finkel MUC without turning into Baseruption, which in large part is replaced by ITF, is a good question though.

I'm still not in favor of creature-based card engines in MUC. My testing with Kira/Sower MUC has not produced nearly as positive the results as I have produced with the other variants. If it has anything in its favor, it would be that it is a surprising build. The fact that it is unexpected can make it temporarily viable, but mainstream use of the deck does not seem possible.



peace,
4eak

[Nihil Credo]

Just dropping by to point out that Augury Adept is pretty much strictly better than Ophidian.

[Soulles]

As the designer of this build, i'd like to say the following. It is not an easy deck to play.

I never designed the deck to be the better version. I designed it because i experienced, felt and understood that Vedalkan shackles was becoming a weak card. Each new set that appears, artifacts gain more hate.

Purpose of me playing mono-blue is maybe different than the rest. I like to control the creature base of the opponent. But in the end, my deck does not differ that much from the original. I still play Back to basics, i still play Fact or Fiction (I love this card!!), Powder Keg and i think more counters than most permanent MUC builds.

If you are going to play permanents your job becomes defending those permanents. If you can't, you lose. So this begs the question. What is so bad about a card that has evasion and automatically protects your creature control and can swing for 2 damage? This unlike to shackles.

Also it is to bad to see that people narrow Kira's power to Sower only. Not one person said here that Kira allows you to play Morphling turn 5 and heck even creatures that can't protect their self (like Oona, Meloku and screw it, i might try Overbeing of Myth)

In the end it is a matter of preferences. But you can laugh, spit and whatever you do to get your boat floating about my list.

In the end, i probably placed a better prestation than the rest that plays this deck in one year.

Till the day i stop with Magic. I'll stick with my lovely pimped Mono Blue Control.

Have a nice day.

[Nightmare]

In my experience with Shackles, it's still retarded good. I'm surprised you guys are finding different results.

[Arsenal]

Uh, yeah, I haven't felt, seen, or experienced any drop-off in Shackles. Also, I don't understand the logic of running creatures over artifacts due to "hate". I'd wager there is three times as much creature hate floating out there than artifact hate. I'm not saying one build is better than another, but some people's reasoning behind card choices is rather odd and I think needs more explanation.

[Adan]

As the designer of this build, i'd like to say the following. It is not an easy deck to play.

I never designed the deck to be the better version. I designed it because i experienced, felt and understood that Vedalkan shackles was becoming a weak card. Each new set that appears, artifacts gain more hate.

This sound slike a weak argument. Sure, creatures like Tarmogoyf grow very fast in the current meta, but MUC is capable of surviving long enough to make Shackles a bomb, especially because you should have consistent landdrops. In decks like Baseruption or Threshold which operate on low mana, Shackles are bad, but in MUC it is just soo powerful.

And your argument that artifact hate is coming up, why are you then playing Powder Keg? I mean, it's slow and all. But more important: Why did you choose SOWER as the alternative? I mean, take a look at the format: creature removal everywhere. Thus Sower ist like thousand times more fragile than Vedalken Shackles and you need to back it up with Kira. And Kira sucks when alone.

Purpose of me playing mono-blue is maybe different than the rest. I like to control the creature base of the opponent. But in the end, my deck does not differ that much from the original. I still play Back to basics, i still play Fact or Fiction (I love this card!!), Powder Keg and i think more counters than most permanent MUC builds.


If you are going to play permanents your job becomes defending those permanents. If you can't, you lose. So this begs the question. What is so bad about a card that has evasion and automatically protects your creature control and can swing for 2 damage? This unlike to shackles.

Back to Basics and Propaganda are Enchantments which usually don't face any hate preboard. Same is true for Shackles. And even IF there should be something, you are still running 10-12 counters to prevent that.

To protect Sower, you need way more counters or Kira. If you draw them in a bad timing, it pretty much blows.


Also it is to bad to see that people narrow Kira's power to Sower only. Not one person said here that Kira allows you to play Morphling turn 5 and heck even creatures that can't protect their self (like Oona, Meloku and screw it, i might try Overbeing of Myth)

Which is the reason why we only play creatures which CAN protect themselves. Like, Morphling or Rainbow Efreet. Maybe even Call the Skybreaker for undying 5/5 Flyers.


In the end it is a matter of preferences. But you can laugh, spit and whatever you do to get your boat floating about my list.

Then why are you posting in internet forums anyway? In here, it's about to archieve an optimal build through rational thinking. Playing crappy cards out of personal preference is like... stupid.

Kadaj has invested like a lot of time to test come to certain conclusions and has elaborated in various things for like infinite times.
Thus it should be obvious why not to play stuff like Sower. And well, Control Magic would still be better than Sower (coz it doesn't need to be protected by another card). Or Treachery... Meh.

[Barsoom]

If you win with those cards, why not? would be stupid instead not to play with them.

On DeckCheck, out of 46 Mono Blue Control decklists, only 2 plays Ancestral Vision; this mean something i think.

At the end is really a matter of preference, if you don't like Kira+Sower, don't play it, it's quite simple; and calling Kira or Sower crappy cards is really, well, crappy...

[Kadaj]

If you win with those cards, why not? would be stupid instead not to play with them.

On DeckCheck, out of 46 Mono Blue Control decklists, only 2 plays Ancestral Vision; this mean something i think.

At the end is really a matter of preference, if you don't like Kira+Sower, don't play it, it's quite simple.

Results do not tell the whole story, and they never will. Sub-Optimal decks can succeed, and stronger builds can scrub out. Does that make the sub-optimal deck any better? Not necessarily.

As I said previously, I would be much more inclined to listen to the arguments in favor of Kira/Sower and against AV if my testing didn't completely contradict most of the points made in those arguments. However, as of yet, my testing has produced largely the same results it always has in the past. I plan on taking this deck to The Mana Leak Open towards the end of November, so perhaps there I will learn more.

[Jason]

I personally don't have a problem with Soulles' deck list:



23 Island

4 Force Spike
4 Spell Snare
4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
4 Fact or Fiction
4 Back to Basics
2 Powder Keg
2 Vedalken Shackles

4 Sower of Temptation
3 Kira, Great-Glass Spinner
2 Morphling

Sideboard:
2 Divert
4 Hydroblast
3 Stifle
3 Tormod's Crypt
3 Chalice of the Void


If you look at this, what is it playing:
4x Back to Basics
4x Counterspell
4x Force of Will
4x Fact or Fiction
4x Spell Snare
2x Morphling

Those cards all seem pretty standard to me. The only difference in the deck and other decks is only 2x Powder Keg and 2x Vedalken Shackles with 0x Propaganda. Now that could be terrible, but the deck is running 4x Sower which is a different form of creature control than Shackles or Propaganda, but a form of control nonetheless. Some say it is worse than Shackles (I personally agree, but that is neither here nor there). What it is ok is that it doesn't die to a fairly common card...you may know of it...Krosan Grip. I can say Krosan Grip is going to be seen a lot. (And by a lot, I mean, has anyone played in a real tournament? There are a lot of decks with Tarmogoyf aka Green aka Krosan Grip).

Everyone is saying it dies to creature removal without Kira and Kira sucks alone. First, Sower isn't auto-dead to spot removal with all the counterspells. And second, while Kira is not great, it is a 2/2 flier that is pretty difficult to kill in itself. It does fly - it has evasion - not that terrible. It will get annoying to the point where the opponent will be forced to get rid of it one way or another and then you can play FAT (Morphling) and win.

I will say the deck will not work for me because I run 4x Impulse and 24x land and I still have trouble hitting my fourth consecutive land drop (even without mulliganing and seeing three land and an Impulse in my opening hand). I suck at drawing land apparently. This deck cannot be played by someone whom the laws of probability constantly laughs at (read: me). It is only running 23 land and it's only refuel is 4x Fact or Fiction. Plus, if it gets behind, it will be hard to catch up with only 2x Powder Keg.

However, I think the biggest argument against the deck is that it does not play as many Vedalken Shackles or Powder Kegs. If you have Shackles, will the opponent waste a Krosan Grip knowing a Back to Basics could come down (or vice versa depending on the situation)? Under the Kira build, it looks to be the target for a Krosan Grip will be obvious in nearly every situation. Under other builds, the Grip could target Shackles, Propaganda, Powder Keg (maybe), or Back to Basics - the wrong one could cost the player casting Krosan Grip dearly.

Obviously, though, this deck has proven to be playable. The right pilot can definitely take this deck to decent, if not great, results. It really does seem like a matter of preference by the pilot of the deck, and like always, it also heavily relies on the metagame. I say Kira is not terrible, but everyone certainly will not agree.

[Mayk0l]

Results do not tell the whole story, and they never will. Sub-Optimal decks can succeed, and stronger builds can scrub out. Does that make the sub-optimal deck any better? Not necessarily.


As far as I know a deck is defined as good if it performs. You don't define a deck as good when it looks good on paper. Fahad MUC (or FUC/FMUC) has done very well in the past months, and it's a viable strategy in these here Eastern lands.

The argument that Fahad is inconsistent in cutting Shackles for Sower because of artifact hate, but keeping in Powder Keg is a bad one.
First of, MUC really doesn't have anything besides Keg (except for Disk, which is even slower and dies to the same hate). EE, Deed, the usual sweepers in control decks, cannot be played. So Keg becomes the obvious choice. Secondly, by adding Sower, the deck as a whole becomes less susceptable to artifact hate: with both Keg and Shackles, an opponent playing Pithing Needle just has to pick the one that's bothering him the most at that time and he'll always have the option of naming either one of them. By changing Shackles to Sower your opponent now has to side in Needles for Keg, but still has to have another answer to Sower. The same is true for Shattering Spree, which becomes less of a Xfor1, and the Krosan Grips that seem to be in any sideboard of decks running green.
In my opinion, the idea of spreading out the weaknesses like Fahad has done seems like a logical thought process to me.
Besides that, Sower is faster than Shackles too.

I'm not saying FMUC is better than traditional MUC, but it shouldn't be disregarded in spite of the results and thoughts that have gone into it, simply because it "looks bad on paper" or because "Kadaj has a list that he's been tweaking for two years", so what?

[4eak]

@ Mayk0l


As far as I know a deck is defined as good if it performs. You don't define a deck as good when it looks good on paper. Fahad MUC (or FUC/FMUC) has done very well in the past months, and it's a viable strategy in these here Eastern lands.

I think we have good reasons to doubt the viability of Kira/Sower MUC. I'm not saying that Fahad even made claims that it was the best deck, but I want to carefully explain how I approach this issue of deck viability--we need common terminology and methods of deducing the value of a deck.

I don't define a deck as good because it has a nice looking decklist or looks good on paper (and I doubt Kadaj does either). Additionally, a deck can be good, but that doesn't make it optimal or the best. And, in any specific metagame, unless you have a mathematical tie (something astronomically unlikely), there will only be one best deck to play. I don't doubt that this is a good deck; I doubt whether this is an optimal or viable deck; I doubt whether this deck is a better choice than the other variants of MUC (or other decks in general). I don't ask whether it is a good deck; I ask whether it is the best deck.

My questions concerning the optimality of the Kira/Sower variant, as opposed to other variants, is based upon testing.

Testing is not the same thing as "looking good on paper". From testing, I can tell you that I still have better match percentages with the other two variants. Regardless of the combination of decks that define a specific metagame, Kira/Sower has not been able to produce higher total win percentages than our permanent-MUC and Draw/go decks. This testing is the reason I don't call Kira/Sower as strong a choice as the other two variants. If I could produce realistic metagames in which Kira/Sower MUC was the stronger, then I would be able to say there are metagames where it is viable.

(Viability meaning it has the highest win percentage of any deck we could choose)

Now, you might question the validity of testing, opting to believe that somehow Tournament data gives a more complete representation of the value of any deck. I think that would be a mistake though.

I'm going to say the same thing I said to ParkerLewis nearly ten pages ago:


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.

Testing gives you larger samples and the ability to isolate variables. An objective and sanitary testing process is simply the best method to deduce the viability of a deck. Tournament data comes second to testing.

Kira/Sower is a good deck, but I don't think it is the best or optimal choice. I think Fahad is a very talented player with a deck that is less than optimal (even if it is still a good one) and not as good as some of the other options available to him. Congratz to Fahad for being a skilled player with a unique deck. I think we all appreciate his accomplishments. We can't, however, deduce from a handful of tournament samples (which must be taken with a grain of salt) that his deck is optimal.

Test, test, test.



peace,
4eak

[Arsenal]

Again, I do not understand, nor have seen a rational explanation, as to why Sower is played over Shackles. The only "reason" I've heard so far is because of artifact hate. Artifact hate. REALLY? That's the best you got? Because last time I checked, hardly any decks pack maindeck artifact hate, and if you're adjusting your maindeck because of someone else's hypothetical sideboard, you've got fundamental problems.

Seriously, people pack lots of maindeck creature hate because (a.) Legacy is a creature-dominant format, and (b.) Tarmogoyf. Saying you want to play more creatures maindeck because it will lessen the effect of an opponent's sideboard cards (Grip, Spree, etc) is okay I guess, but what of the fact that you've now made your opponent's maindeck creature removal spells relevant again, while still having the same sideboard hate problems in g2?

Again, I don't think one build is clearly better than another, but unconventional card choices need more explanation.

[Silverdragon]

Again, I do not understand, nor have seen a rational explanation, as to why Sower is played over Shackles. The only "reason" I've heard so far is because of artifact hate. Artifact hate. REALLY? That's the best you got? Because last time I checked, hardly any decks pack maindeck artifact hate, and if you're adjusting your maindeck because of someone else's hypothetical sideboard, you've got fundamental problems.

Seriously, people pack lots of maindeck creature hate because (a.) Legacy is a creature-dominant format, and (b.) Tarmogoyf. Saying you want to play more creatures maindeck because it will lessen the effect of an opponent's sideboard cards (Grip, Spree, etc) is okay I guess, but what of the fact that you've now made your opponent's maindeck creature removal spells relevant again, while still having the same sideboard hate problems in g2?

Again, I don't think one build is clearly better than another, but unconventional card choices need more explanation.

My guess is that Sower can steal any creature once you get to 4 mana whereas Shackles will have problems stealing stuff like Countryside Crusher, Terravore, Tombstalker or even Tarmogoyf right away. Also Sower is a 2/2 flying beater who can shorten tight matches by simply flying over for some more damage.

[Arsenal]

That's all assuming Sower lives, which largely hinges on having Kira out; otherwise, you're going to be using your hard counters protecting your Sower. Again, many decks pack lots of maindeck creature removal, whereas with artifact hate, if it's even available to them, is relegated to their sideboard. I do not understand the rationale of modifying your maindeck because of someone else's sideboard.

[Soulles]

Nightmare: Shackles is still indeed an awesome card. However on its own, it's not a reliable win condition anymore. Mono blue control. The world control says it all, right? But we can't control Split second. And Krosan Grip is just a heavy played card right now. Infact when i was watching Leon in the top 8. He played vs StifleNaught with 2x Krosan Grip mainboard. And most green decks, pack in 4x Grip Sideboard in their sideboard. So in other words. Shackles becomes more a liability than an asset. Does that make Shackles worse than sower/kira combination? No. But depending on shackles only is not the right strategy anymore. And for me that is just a fact.

Kadaj: If you are planning to take the exact list to the tournament. I would reduce the Spell Snare amount by 1. I think 4 is a bit overkill and sometimes i drew them to many times late game. With Back to Basics active, i prefer Spike over Snare. I guess if you do, this gives you an extra slot. I guess an extra Powder Keg or Shackles might be worth a try. (Maybe Powder Keg, if the meta is infested with Naught and Ichorid decks)


That's all assuming Sower lives, which largely hinges on having Kira out; otherwise, you're going to be using your hard counters protecting your Sower. Again, many decks pack lots of maindeck creature removal, whereas with artifact hate, if it's even available to them, is relegated to their sideboard. I do not understand the rationale of modifying your maindeck because of someone else's sideboard.

From my experience, Sower lived far more than Shackles. Also, i can at least counter creature removal. I can't counter Krosan Grip. I am not sure how your meta is. But here, a heavy creature removal deck, has max 8 creature removal spells. This means if Kira is active, an opponent has to cast 2 spells just to get rid of my Sower to get his creature back. And you think i let that happen?

Also, most of the times, people sideboard out their creature hate versus me. Because it is REALLY useless. You won't get Morphling with it and Kira and Sower are just to hard to deal with.



The argument that Fahad is inconsistent in cutting Shackles for Sower because of artifact hate, but keeping in Powder Keg is a bad one
Not a valid argument mate. If you ask anyone; What do you fear most playing versus MUC? The answers are Back to Basics and Shackles. Unless it's an Ichorid player, i don't think that people that sideboard Artifact hate are saying in their mind; damn we must deal with Keg.

Also, give me an blue alternative for Keg, and i will gladly replace it.


Again, I don't think one build is clearly better than another, but unconventional card choices need more explanation.
Since you are not god, but just a forum member. You don't any any right to call anything unconventional and explaination isn't always necessary, results speak for them self. Especially if they are achieved in a very short period of time.

Magic isn't always decklists. It's also the pilot, the matchup and luck.

I hope i havn't offended anyone.

Fahad

[4eak]

@Soulles


You don't any any right to call anything unconventional and explaination isn't always necessary, results speak for them self.

Kira/Sower is currently unconventional, and it needs more explanation. Yes, it is necessary, and no, tournament results do not speak for themselves. Suboptimal decks can still have tournament results--Go check the flurry of ANT variants that are top8'ing everywhere.

Anyways, these are strengths of Kira/Sower over other variants. You listed some of the reasons Fahad, but I think there is more to explain.

While I don't think Kira/Sower is optimal, I can give you four reasons why it works:


1.) Creature-based card advantage engines aren't as susceptible to Disenchant (DE) effects.

Krosan Grip is extremely powerful, and if run by the majority of players, has serious implications for MUC. I'm less concerned about any other card because I can at least answer those cards. KGrip, however, does fundamentally change how MUC can operate. Few decks revolve so heavily around using only a handful of Artifacts and Enchantments to control the game to the extent we do in MUC.

MUC 1 for 1's, drops an Artifact/Enchantment bomb to generate massive CA and stabilize the tempo race, and then it can switch from the control to aggro role. Krosan Grip is a serious problem that prevents MUC from stabilizing, and unfortunately, there isn't much more we can do about it.

Don't get me wrong, you can still win through KGrip, but the truth is: MUC, which generates a good deal of its CA through Artifact/Enchantment board control, has fundamental problems against a format that widely uses the unanswerable KGrip.

Kira/Sower has fewer problems in this respect. I don't think anyone would argue that Sower is a stronger card than Vedalken Shackles in a vacuum, but, in KGrip heavy metagames, Sower's immunity to an unanswerable (uncontrollable) card has merit.


2.) Targeted Removal is almost completely useless against the deck.

While one might argue that there is a good deal more creature hate than artifact hate in Legacy, we can't argue that there is more unanswerable/uncontrollable creature hate than artifact hate in Legacy.

Targeted creature removal does exists, but few decks pack targeted removal in any large quantity. This means that even reaching the 2-minimum targeting spells to kill a creature protected by Kira is unlikely, especially when we have so much permission.

If Split Second Creature hate was commonly played in Legacy, then the strength of permission and Kira would diminish to the point we wouldn't have a removal-based incentive to play Sower instead of Shackles. As the format stands now, removal is at least easy to answer, and KGrip is not so easy to answer or build around.


3.) Kira/Sower has a much quicker fundamental turn.

This is a tempo-version of MUC, and so while it can't sustain the control role as effectively as other variants, it is capable of switching to the aggro role under the brief windows of time that its control/disruption offers. In a 50-minute match, and in a highly tempo-oriented aggro-control heavy format, it is only natural that some variants of MUC would evolve to become creature-based tempo-versions of MUC.

Kira/Sower is a very heavy-control version of Blue Skies or MU-Threshold. It is still willing to sacrifice card advantage and control over the long haul for tempo and earlier threats.


4.) This is a rogue deck. (i.e. even more than unconventional)

Or, at the very least, I consider this a rogue variant, one that is less likely to be playable as a mainstream version of the deck.

Few people have prepared for this variant of MUC (if they prepare for MUC at all), few people can pilot it, and few people expect it.

The informational and experience advantages of playing a rogue deck has major impact on how games play out. When someone plays Sower in Legacy, I straight up look at them and think, 'wtf, wow, I did not see that one coming'.

While the "rogue factor" is less important in decks that don't rely so much on information advantage, MUC is the undisputed master of leveraging information advantages. The rogue factor is very beneficial to an MUC player.




peace,
4eak

[Fuego]

I like to comment several things here regarding the Fahad build, I was the one who became runner-up last Sunday at the Dutch Championships, playing the build Fahad posted the previous page if i remember correctly.

What opposing players think about Kira, is in my opinion not correct. Adan for example keeps claiming Kira sucks on her own. Did you ever tried the card on a tournament? Most opponents haven't ever seen the card, read the ability and see it as a threat. They WILL waste a counterspell, or even better, 2 creature removal cards on it. If not, Kira becomes a evasion-packed clock. Put another creature aside and you WILL win. Even Kira alone has won me about 5 games (in 11 matches, not that bad), along with Sower or Morphling even more.

About Sower: nowdays more players are playing Dreadnought (at least here in the Netherlands). If you have the bad luck it hits the table, you have 2 turns left to find a answer. Shackles won't do that trick, Sower does. (It also did that for me in the quarter finals, topdeck FTW ^^).
But let's take another example which occured last Sunday: my opponent has 2 Goyfs in play (yeah, I know, my own fault... I had Chalice on 1 shutting down my Snares, but doesn't matter now), I have no creature. I had enough lands to either play Shackles or Sower. In this case, Sower will win you the game, because with Shackles you would have 2 Goyfs staring to eachother and both players wouldn't attack.


In the end, it all comes down to personal preferences, I understand that. In my opinion, some keep flaming card choices, but they have proven themselves to Fahad and me. If you don't like Kira and Sower, fine, don't play with them then. But please don't shove it off as junk, because they aren't.

[Arsenal]

Since you are not god, but just a forum member. You don't any any right to call anything unconventional and explaination isn't always necessary, results speak for them self. Especially if they are achieved in a very short period of time.

It's nice to know that I cannot ask for explanations on unconventional card choices because I'm not God, but simply a member of an Internet forum. It's ironic however, due to the fact that Internet forums were designed with the sharing of information, opinions, and thoughts, in mind. However, because I'm not the almighty creator, I'm not allowed to participate in discussion. Awesome.

Also, results achieved in a short period of time, all grouped together, means far less than a decklist that has put up results over long stretches of time (see Threshold, Goblins, and Storm combo).

But then again, I'm not the giver of life, so who am I to have an opinion?

[P-AiR]

Hey guys, ain't Fact or Fiction banned in Legacy? Yet I see it in so many decklists in these threads.

Hell I have 4 too but yesterday someone informed me it was banned.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

It's restricted in Vintage, it's legal in Legacy.

[Captain Hammer]

Yeah during multiplayer games, I've had several nonlegacy players tell me Fact or Fiction is restricted as well.

When I tell them that it's only restricted in Vintage, but is perfectly legal as a 4x of in Legacy, they usually don't believe me until I find another legacy player that can confirm this fact.

People still think vintage and legacy are the same for some reason.

[Soulles]

I don't see how i can live without Fact or Fiction.

Best blue uncommon behind Force of Will.

[Mantis]

Hey guys, ain't Fact or Fiction banned in Legacy? Yet I see it in so many decklists in these threads.

Hell I have 4 too but yesterday someone informed me it was banned.

Since when became google.com old fashioned. Seriously.

And no, FoF is not the second best blue uncommon: Counterbalance and Ponder are better. And maybe even Thirst for Knowledge, at least that is my opinion.

[Captain Hammer]

That list may be unpolished, but it looks interesting. Sort of reminds me of a mono blue landstill deck that I played around with for a bit that I never really did anything with.

Do you perchance have a list or anything you could share. I would very interested in building a variant to this deck that's basically Monoblue Dreadstill and plays Dreadnought + Stifle, and may 2 Sowers along with the usual suspects.

[Soulles]

I just came back from Mol. 58 people attended.

I went 4-0-2 in the Swiss and lost to it's the fear in quarter finals.
Was the funniest match i ever did (most boring too).

I won the first round so hard.

Then went to the second round. After 1 hour playing that, he nearly milled (and more than 60% of his deck crypted), he managed to topdeck a deed and blow away my morphling :(

1-1 and having the flu and knowing i had to drive 200km back through the snow, i couldn't really take it anymore and gave the game away.

But meh was fun and am kind off pleased with the deck, just not witht he sideboard yet.

[Arsenal]

Kadaj -

What are your thoughts on trimming the counter suite down to 8 (4 Counterspell, 4 Force of Will)? Maybe upping the Shackle count, and then throwing in some other maindeck permanent control or draw mechanism?

I was thinking something like this (for a slower meta)

24 Island

1 Morphling
1 Rainbow Efreet
2 Jace Beleren

4 Ancestral Vision
4 Fact or Fiction

4 Back to Basics
4 Powder Keg
4 Vedalken Shackles
4 Propaganda

4 Counterspell
4 Force of Will

[Kadaj]

For a slower meta I would lose the Propagandas as well (unless you expect at least some Goblins and/or Goyf Sligh), but that's beside the point. I've been toying with the idea of removing the undefined "extra counterspell" slot for a while now, whether for more Shackles or Sower of Temptation. Something to that effect at least. I think Jace could certainly be interesting in a slower metagame, and I definitely think removing those extra counterspells is a valid way to look at this build of the deck.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

So, I've been testing this deck a little bit lately.

I notice a lack of kill conditions that are both resilient and capable of ending the game quickly.

You'll laugh, but has anyone tested Call the Skybreaker? It's big, it's evasive, and you can cast it again and again. It's expensive, but not realistically that much more expensive than Morphling, and you don't have to worry about counters and Wrath effects the same way. And you don't have to pump mana into it turn after turn to make it efficient.

My preliminary testing also reveals that you're tremendously dependent on Shackles and should play 4 because what the fuck do you do against creature decks if you don't draw that? Die that's what. You fucking roll over and die.

Also, that Disk is good. Functionally, is Keg actually faster against anything other than EtW tokens, for a lot less versatility?

Here's a list I've mucked around with a bit. It plays pretty solid. Some of the card choices may seem eccentric, but I think they interact well with each other. "Sustainability" is a big part of what gives this build a strong late game; almost a third of the deck can be reused late game. More if you counter Capsize + Disk interactions.


// Lands
23 [10E] Island (3)

// Spells
2 [TE] Capsize
4 [U] Nevinyrral's Disk
4 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
4 [IA] Counterspell
2 [TSP] Spell Burst
4 [TSP] Think Twice
4 [TE] Whispers of the Muse
3 [EVE] Call the Skybreaker
3 [FNM] Force Spike
3 [DIS] Spell Snare
4 [AL] Force of Will

// Sideboard
SB: 3 [FD] Razormane Masticore
SB: 4 [US] Back to Basics
SB: 4 [TE] Propaganda
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt

[Mesercus]

I like this list.
I would cut force spikes for one forbid (you can discard and use again many cards) and a couple of echoing truth or repeal help to survive in early game.

[ParkerLewis]

So, I've been testing this deck a little bit lately.

I notice a lack of kill conditions that are both resilient and capable of ending the game quickly.

You'll laugh, but has anyone tested Call the Skybreaker? It's big, it's evasive, and you can cast it again and again. It's expensive, but not realistically that much more expensive than Morphling, and you don't have to worry about counters and Wrath effects the same way. And you don't have to pump mana into it turn after turn to make it efficient.

My preliminary testing also reveals that you're tremendously dependent on Shackles and should play 4 because what the fuck do you do against creature decks if you don't draw that? Die that's what. You fucking roll over and die.

Also, that Disk is good. Functionally, is Keg actually faster against anything other than EtW tokens, for a lot less versatility?

Here's a list I've mucked around with a bit. It plays pretty solid. Some of the card choices may seem eccentric, but I think they interact well with each other. "Sustainability" is a big part of what gives this build a strong late game; almost a third of the deck can be reused late game. More if you counter Capsize + Disk interactions.


// Lands
23 [10E] Island (3)

// Spells
2 [TE] Capsize
4 [U] Nevinyrral's Disk
4 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
4 [IA] Counterspell
2 [TSP] Spell Burst
4 [TSP] Think Twice
4 [TE] Whispers of the Muse
3 [EVE] Call the Skybreaker
3 [FNM] Force Spike
3 [DIS] Spell Snare
4 [AL] Force of Will

// Sideboard
SB: 3 [FD] Razormane Masticore
SB: 4 [US] Back to Basics
SB: 4 [TE] Propaganda
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt

The list is quite unconventional, to say the least (not that it's a bad thing by itself). The main apparent problem is your total lack of early or midgame. You have nothing (nothing) going on for like the first FOUR turns, except hopefully countering and thinking twice. The first time you can actually do something onboard is by turn four, activating Shackles (and that's your only way of impacting the board at that point, you need to wait another turn for Disk activation). That's insane. As you noticed, you have nothing going on against any deck that starts off strongly, except for the counters ("roll over and die"). And to be fair, a lot of your concerns with the deck can be directly related to these card choices.

-Propaganda and B2B are 4x MB. As said numerous times, B2B is the major reason to play this deck in the first place. It's a major pain in the ass for like 80 % decks out there. This is typically a card that you may sometimes want to side out, not the other way around. Same thing for Propaganda. Plus the two cards have good synergy. Finally, those get active a full turn sooner than Shackles (your fastest card until now).

On what to remove from the list to free slots, I'd say get rid of the Capsizes. As a wincon, they cost 6 a turn. And actually they still don't win the game. By comparison, spending a few mana on Morphling doesn't seem that expensive now, heh ?


This should help a lot against everything, and especially aggro decks.

-You might then remove the Disks and replace them with Keg, point of these being that they keep your game-breaking enchantments on the table.

-You lack wincons, as you said. CtS has been talked about, and it probably warrants testing. Still, you need a bit more wincons (and make it diverse). Morphling is a very good friend (the best actually). You should seriously consider adding at least two.

-Finally, you lack an actual draw engine. You might want to go either for the AV/FoF (or Brainstorm/FoF combination, depending on preferences in termes of build). Seriously, WotM/Think Twice are baaaad. How much mana do you have to throw out of the window to get as much CA with those cards as by simply casting FoF ?

[4eak]

// Lands
23 [10E] Island (3)

// Spells
2 [TE] Capsize
4 [u] Nevinyrral's Disk
4 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
4 [IA] Counterspell
2 [TSP] Spell Burst
4 [TSP] Think Twice
4 [TE] Whispers of the Muse
3 [EVE] Call the Skybreaker
3 [FNM] Force Spike
3 [DIS] Spell Snare
4 [AL] Force of Will

// Sideboard
SB: 3 [FD] Razormane Masticore
SB: 4 [US] Back to Basics
SB: 4 [TE] Propaganda
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt


You are playing draw/go, so some of the suggestions you will be receiving from other players will be based upon their experience with permanent-based MUC. As such, their advice may or may not be as meaningful.


1.) Disk rocks. Few here test it enough. I'm glad to see you playing it.

2.) We are dependent on shackles (K-Grip sucks for us), but if you improved your card drawing, then you'll find that 3 is also acceptable.

3.) B2B is a great card, and it belongs as a 4x somewhere in those 75. Despite what I've heard from other players, the archetype is still quite viable even with B2B in the sideboard. Several would disagree, but then again, few here have actually sat down and played with Disk.

4.) Capsize should never be more than a 1x in the deck. I'm one of the few who plays bounce, and the other bounce slots should be Echoing Truth if you play bounce.

5.) 4x FoF is a must. Whispers is far too mana intensive, and Think Twice should be brainstorm or impulse in your deck.


For reference, here is my list of draw/go:


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



peace,
4eak

[Jason]

So, I've been testing this deck a little bit lately.

I notice a lack of kill conditions that are both resilient and capable of ending the game quickly.

You'll laugh, but has anyone tested Call the Skybreaker? It's big, it's evasive, and you can cast it again and again. It's expensive, but not realistically that much more expensive than Morphling, and you don't have to worry about counters and Wrath effects the same way. And you don't have to pump mana into it turn after turn to make it efficient.

My preliminary testing also reveals that you're tremendously dependent on Shackles and should play 4 because what the fuck do you do against creature decks if you don't draw that? Die that's what. You fucking roll over and die.

Also, that Disk is good. Functionally, is Keg actually faster against anything other than EtW tokens, for a lot less versatility?

Here's a list I've mucked around with a bit. It plays pretty solid. Some of the card choices may seem eccentric, but I think they interact well with each other. "Sustainability" is a big part of what gives this build a strong late game; almost a third of the deck can be reused late game. More if you counter Capsize + Disk interactions.


// Lands
23 [10E] Island (3)

// Spells
2 [TE] Capsize
4 [U] Nevinyrral's Disk
4 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
4 [IA] Counterspell
2 [TSP] Spell Burst
4 [TSP] Think Twice
4 [TE] Whispers of the Muse
3 [EVE] Call the Skybreaker
3 [FNM] Force Spike
3 [DIS] Spell Snare
4 [AL] Force of Will

// Sideboard
SB: 3 [FD] Razormane Masticore
SB: 4 [US] Back to Basics
SB: 4 [TE] Propaganda
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt

Your list seems interesting; I play "permanent-based" (I hate that term) Mono-Blue, so I guess my comments might not make sense to some (?):

I completely agree 4x Shackles is awesome. I'm rarely upset to see one (except in the mirror match, BLAH) and in multiples the card is awesome.

Like 4eak and ParkerLewis said, Fact or Fiction is a must-play. The card is ridiculous and gains you so much, especially in comparison to Whispers of the Muse or Think Twice. I am anti-Brainstorm (for several reasons I listed earlier on this thread) so I would recommend Fact or Fiction and Impulse (Impulse is good here considering you are only running 23 land).

Also, I have tried Call the Skybreaker and it is very good especially against control decks. However, going with my previous point, it is amazingly better with Fact or Fiction. Also, I think it should be played as a 1-of and the other two wins should be Morphling (cause it wins games) and/or Rainbow Efreet (cause it wins games and dances around Disk). Plus, splitting the win conditions like that means you won't cry to a well-targeted Extirpate.

I find Spell Burst intriguing as it will be a late-game powerhouse, but how good is it in the early game? What do you do when you see it in your opening hand? I think I would be very annoyed seeing it any time before turn 6 or 7.

Capsize + Disk is also pretty sweet but it costs 7 mana every other turn for the "combo" to get going. Wouldn't just winning be better? I'm not saying Capsize is bad, but I think Echoing Truth would be better, especially considering you are playing Disk over Powder Keg (bounce those tokens!!). Maybe for your Disk reanimation shenanigans, you could cut a Spell Burst or Force Spike and add 1 Academy Ruins (yes it sucks under Back to Basics, doesn't tap for blue and it goes away to Wasteland but it is still awesome even if it does only get to bring back a Disk or Shackles once).

Finally, I do think Back to Basics should be played in the main deck, but not necessarily Propaganda. Propaganda is great against many decks but those decks also will fold to Shackles. Back to Basics, on the other hand, hits just as many decks (if not more) and either cripples your opponent until you have too big an advantage or redirects the Krosan Grip away from your Shackles. In either case, I truly do feel Back to Basics is the MVP of Mono-Blue. (maybe put in place of Force Spike? or Spell Burst...)

[Jason]

For reference, here is my list of draw/go:



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



peace,
4eak

I was curious; since you are running Factory, what is your reasoning behind not running Standstill? It seems better than Impulse, no?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

My problem with running cards like B2B and Propaganda main, although I concede the power of B2B especially, is that then I have to start justifying running Powder Keg over Disk.

And Powder Keg is terrible against everything but EtW and Raffinity. And in the latter case it still has a narrow application.

Like, yes, you're correct in this; if, despite the presence of Sixteen counterspells, my opponent resolves a really fast, aggressive hand that Disk can't solve coming down turn 4, I'm fucked. I'm also fucked if ball lightning (the phenomenon, not the card) rolls into the tournament hall where I'm playing, jolts me for a few million volts and then leaves my smoking carcass and a round win for my opponent. I don't plan for these eventualities, except to avoid playing outside in thunderstorms with an antenna hat.

Sixteen counters. Some threats are supposed to resolve before Disk comes down; that's the point of Disk. Disk gets blown, then assume control. Shackles is obviously also a huge part of that.

The draw suite is debatable, but my current selection lets me dig early on and then provides a lot of draw late game when I'm swimming in mana and don't really care anymore. FoF sits in my hand early on when I'm trying to dig into Shackles or Disk and don't yet care as much about card advantage.

Capsize in particular might be an indulgence, though. Although I'd rather have Repeal than Echoing Truth in that slot; I haven't noticed EtW to be that prevalent lately.

I guess the best argument for Propaganda maindeck is Ichorid. But that seems to be the only reason.

Spell Burst starts to be reasonably powerful around turn 3-4. Even on turn 3, people are still casting a lot in the 2cc slot. So it's your worst counter early on, but it's not strictly a late game card.

[Jason]

My problem with running cards like B2B and Propaganda main, although I concede the power of B2B especially, is that then I have to start justifying running Powder Keg over Disk.

And Powder Keg is terrible against everything but EtW and Raffinity. And in the latter case it still has a narrow application.


Powder Keg is amazing because it can blow up the tokens (Empty the Warrens or Bridge from Below or in the extremely rare and stupid case Sky Hussar tokens) and Mongoose - I rarely have it set above 1 (there was the one mirror match I was losing and decided to have Keg at 5 for Morphling), but that's not the point I want to make.

What I want to say is you can run B2B and Disk. With B2B down, you blow up Disk on the opponent's turn (which is what I assume you do most of the time anyways unless you are fearing Krosan Grip) and then on your next turn cast B2B again. That will not happen infrequently unless you are really struggling in the early-mid game. I have done this quite often in a similar manner with Powder Keg against Landstill. They get an Engineered Explosives for 3 while I have a Powder Keg for 0 on the table. End of their turn, I force the opponent to use EE by blowing up my Keg. On my turn, play B2B again and win. With Disk, B2B can work, and I suggest it because it is a bomb.

...and I'm pretty sure I said I am not a fan of Propaganda in the main deck, especially with 4x Shackles and 4x Disk to wipe the board. If you run Echoing Truth too, it would bounce all the tokens (Empty the Warrens, Bridge from Below, Sky Hussar, etc.) or even all the Ichorids annoyingly swinging at your face (blasted Ichorid recurring every turn...)

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I was replying to three different people at once, Jason.

B2B might be worth running main. It's certainly a powerhouse in some matchups.

But I certainly can't agree with Keg over Disk. Keg can't deal with 2cc threats effectively, much less 3 or 4. Even leaving aside the Enchantress issue.

[Kadaj]

I was replying to three different people at once, Jason.

B2B might be worth running main. It's certainly a powerhouse in some matchups.

But I certainly can't agree with Keg over Disk. Keg can't deal with 2cc threats effectively, much less 3 or 4. Even leaving aside the Enchantress issue.

B2B IS worth running in the main. As a four of. It's so powerful against just about anything (except other MUC, haha) that the fact that two of them are dead is almost completely irrelevant.

The primary reason I don't like Disk is simply that it's too slow and too vulnerable against decks like Dreadstill and Thresh. Even with 16 counterspells, of which Spell Burst is total garbage because if it ever becomes good you should've either already won or be winning, Dreadstill can still force down a Dreadnaught, and then you essentially lose. Disk is simply too slow in that matchup. Threshold is very good at keeping Disk off the board as well, and its well documented that Disk is too slow against Goblins.

I do agree that Powder Keg is becoming weaker and weaker, but by the same token its effectiveness against Dreadnaughts and Nimble Mongeese has convinced me to keep it in the main for at least a little longer. That and its effectiveness against Man-lands, which was apparent from the start.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

B2B IS worth running in the main. As a four of. It's so powerful against just about anything (except other MUC, haha) that the fact that two of them are dead is almost completely irrelevant.

It's also not great against combo, Ichorid, Dreadstill, Sui-variants, Quinn, and random one-or-two color decks, which one encounters in Legacy tournaments.


The primary reason I don't like Disk is simply that it's too slow and too vulnerable against decks like Dreadstill and Thresh. Even with 16 counterspells, of which Spell Burst is total garbage because if it ever becomes good you should've either already won or be winning,

2cc is the most common CC in Legacy. You can use Spell Burst to counter 2cc turns at turn 3, at turn 6 with buyback.

You're lucky to win with this deck on turn 10.

If you're saying that you should've already won by the time Spell Burst comes online with mono blue control, you're simply not interested in having an honest conversation.


Dreadstill can still force down a Dreadnaught, and then you essentially lose.

If we operate under the assumption that 16 counterspells aren't enough to prevent bad scenarios from happening most of the time, then there's no reason to play mono blue control at all, and you should just play Mighty Quinn or Truffle Shuffle or It's The Fear or Landstill. Every other control deck has better board control elements than you, whether you run Keg or Disk or both. The assumption made in playing MUC is that your counterspells will be good.


Disk is simply too slow in that matchup. Threshold is very good at keeping Disk off the board as well, and its well documented that Disk is too slow against Goblins.

I do agree that Powder Keg is becoming weaker and weaker, but by the same token its effectiveness against Dreadnaughts and Nimble Mongeese has convinced me to keep it in the main for at least a little longer. That and its effectiveness against Man-lands, which was apparent from the start.

"It's well documented"? What does that even mean? Are we still assuming that your counterspells don't work, or what?

Disk is fantastic against Goblins except when they're too fast. This is what counters prevent.

Dreadnought is the only real argument here for Keg, which is a two card combo that's easily counterable.

Conversely, I don't know if you really want sacrifice in the activation cost of your answer to a deck that runs 6+ Stifle effects.

[Shimster]

@ I assume that running Disk implies running Foil as well, doesn't it?

In order to drop it on turn 4 (The earliest, without crappy cards like Chrome Mox - which I don't recommend to use at this point!), you really have to protect it. Every counterspell (even Cryptic Command, a very clunky card outside of Solidarity).

Therefore you have to run Foil again.

A very important point of Powder Keg is that you are able to drop it before the Landstill player is able to cast Standstill.

On a sidenote: Powder Keg and Call the Skybreaker don't work together very well in the Landstill MU. With Nevy's Disk as the only boardsweeper, you really have to run Rainbow Efreet as the third finisher (for obvious reasons).

Since the disk is way more powerful than Powder Keg, you imo don't have to run the full playset.

// NAME: [TMT] Kleiner Hai, by Nils Müller

// Lands
25 [ALA] Island (1)

// Creatures
2 [US] Morphling
1 [VI] Rainbow Efreet

// Spells
4 [B] Counterspell
4 [AL] Force of Will
3 [PY] Foil
4 [US] Back to Basics
4 [TE] Propaganda
3 [5E] Nevinyrral's Disk
2 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
4 [TSP] Ancestral Vision
4 [IN] Fact or Fiction

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [4E] Blue Elemental Blast
SB: 4 [6E] Chill
SB: 4 [SHM] Faerie Macabre
SB: 2 [LRW] Jace Beleren
SB: 1 [FD] Vedalken Shackles

btw: Is TES still using EtW? Do we still have to fight tokens?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Or you could run more Disks because it's really powerful.

I generally prefer to have more powerful cards than less.

This would also mitigate the argument that you should run terrible cards to protect good ones, which I confess I didn't really understand to begin with.

Disk still seems better than Keg against Standstill since it can potentially remove the Standstill + threat and let you cast spells again without handing them massive card advantage.

I'm also not sure why CtS, which is essentially uncounterable, is worse against a counter-based deck than Efreet and Morphling, which aren't, and which are only half Wrath-proof.

[4eak]

@ Jason


I was curious; since you are running Factory, what is your reasoning behind not running Standstill? It seems better than Impulse, no?

1.) I don't have Wasteland for opposing Factories.

2.) Standstill isn't an instant, and draw/go requires that mana to be open.

3.) Standstill doesn't guarantee that I dig right now. Draw/go needs to dig immediately.

4.) Draw/go isn't in the aggro-role early enough to play standstill. It plays card-draw in this slot to go find an answer.


@ Kadaj


The primary reason I don't like Disk is simply that it's too slow and too vulnerable

Disk is viable if you play Draw/go. 16 counters and 2-3 bounce slots generate at least 1 more turn of tempo than your list Kadaj. Living to play and having the resources to protect Disk is not as difficult to accomplish if you play honest to goodness draw/go as opposed to the strategies of other variants.



@ TheInfamousBearAssassin


The draw suite is debatable, but my current selection lets me dig early on and then provides a lot of draw late game when I'm swimming in mana and don't really care anymore. FoF sits in my hand early on when I'm trying to dig into Shackles or Disk and don't yet care as much about card advantage.

Not playing FoF is like not playing FoW in the deck. There is no substitution. I can guarantee it is always a mistake to play less than 4 FoF's in MUC, regardless of the build. Part of stabilizing is having relevant card advantage, and that sometimes can only occur through chaining FoF's.

As I said for digging in the early game, Brainstorm or Impulse are the only options to consider for Draw/go. Both dig deeper than anything other instant available. Additionally, Brainstorm's card quality effects, alongside a shuffle, is at its best in this deck. No other deck in Legacy can generate what is practically raw card advantage from Brainstorm like Draw/go. Test it.


But I certainly can't agree with Keg over Disk....Conversely, I don't know if you really want sacrifice in the activation cost of your answer to a deck that runs 6+ Stifle effects.

Amen.


2cc is the most common CC in Legacy. You can use Spell Burst to counter 2cc turns at turn 3, at turn 6 with buyback.

1.) Run your 4th spell snare if you are that concerned. Also, Consider Forbid or Mana leak instead.

2.) As with most buyback cards, you shouldn't be running more than 1 of each. The 2nd Spell Burst has serious diminishing returns.

3.) Spellburst is weaker in the early game than the alternatives, and while your counters are already very strong in the late game where you are chaining FoF's, you need permission that is more potent and viable in the early game.



I'm also not sure why CtS, which is essentially uncounterable, is worse against a counter-based deck than Efreet and Morphling, which aren't, and which are only half Wrath-proof.

CtS is an interesting card (which I'm still testing). I'll admit, it has some serious strengths. Recursion is powerful. Problems I have with the card:

1.) It is extremely mana intensive, even for a deck that generates tons of mana by living for 20 turns, and it comes down a bit later.

2.) You need that mana even after you resolve your threat because you'll still need to generate card advantage and have plenty of permission available. Continually recasting this card does hinder your role change because you aren't as effectively able to leverage your card advantage.

3.) MUC is on a clock, and with 50-minutes, sometimes you are forced to bum-rush, and this card doesn't do that as effectively as your other options. This is connected with (1) as well.

4.) Efreet, Morphling, and especially Meloku (which I know you didn't include) provide yet another element of board control at a much earlier stage of the game. I know you play 4x Shackles/4x Disks/2x Bounce, but even with that there will be times where a creature-based solution is just as powerful and necessary.

5.) Call the Skybreaker recursion is card disadvantage. This seems ridiculous, but it still matters. This becomes even more important when you play brainstorm.




peace,
4eak

[Tao]

You'll laugh, but has anyone tested Call the Skybreaker? It's big, it's evasive, and you can cast it again and again. It's expensive, but not realistically that much more expensive than Morphling, and you don't have to worry about counters and Wrath effects the same way. And you don't have to pump mana into it turn after turn to make it efficient.

I've heard that before. Where was it.... Ah wait, it was here:

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=291684&postcount=456




*List


Some random thoughts to that:

3 Call the Skybreaker: 3 CTS as your only win condition is not good. UWb Landstill will just have to resolve 1 Cunning Wish through the entire game and you can't win from then on. So maybe you could play 2 CTS / 1 Morphling or vice versa.

No Fact or Fiction: I agree with you. I usually don't run Fact, too. However, Whispers of the Muse's BB cost is so high that you will probably only use it in 1/5 games. So a 4-off is too much. Maybe you could try something like 2 Jace Beleren / 2 Whispers. Jace sounds like a good alternative. He will even survive a disk and be an alternate win condition against Landstill / Slow Control.

Another option is a draw engine I've developed a while ago in my MUC: 3-4 Think Twice, 4 Accumulated Knowledge, 2 Intuition. AK/ TT have a pretty strong late game impact while cycling on turn 2. Intuition on AK is well known as a broken Draw7 and Intuition for 3 Think Twice is uncounterable Draw 4 against other control decks. Intuition could of course always also tutor for solutions and in this deck you can even play Intuition on "Call the Skybreaker, Think Twice, Think Twice" or "CTS, Land, Land" (which will allow you to reduce the number of CTS).

[FlavaSava]

@Tao
Do u have a list? It sounds quite interesting.

Whats about Dominate? I tested a bit and its quite funny the steal opponets dreadnoughts or Tarmos...

[Tao]

@Tao
Do u have a list? It sounds quite interesting.

Whats about Dominate? I tested a bit and its quite funny the steal opponets dreadnoughts or Tarmos...

So this is completely untested in combination. But I think IBA did some testing with his list and the draw engine works, too. Based on IBA's list from last page it could look something like that:

- 4 Whispers of the Muse
- 2 Call the Skybreaker
- 2 Spell Burst
- 1 Think Twice
+ 4 Accumulated Knowledge
+ 2 Intuition
+ 2 Jace Beleren
+ 1 Capsize


Dominate is interesting. Instant Status and pretty sick against LS Manlands. But against Tombstalker or Chalice Stompy Critters I'd prefer Control magic.

[Kadaj]

Jack, either I misrepresented my opinions or you misread them. I'm not saying you should've won by turn 10 with MUC, I'm saying you shouldn't need Spell Burst to put yourself in a position to win at that point in the game. The entire point of playing a control deck (as you have said yourself in the past) is to have a dominating mid to late game. By playing cards like Disk, Shackles, B2B, FoF, and whatnot, you give yourself that strength, removing the need for Spell Burst.

I'm also saying that Spell Burst is garbage in the early game, which it is. You want to pay 3 mana to counter a Tarmogoyf on turn 3, only to have it Dazed? Sounds like a great plan to me. Try the same thing on turn 6 with buyback to the same result. Clearly there's a double standard here, as you're assuming all of your counterspells will be used in a vacuum, when they never are.

If we operate under the assumption that 16 counterspells, 3 of which cannot stop Dreadstill from resolving Dreadnaught (Spell Snare), 6 of which require you to tap out and open yourself to Daze AND Spell Snare (Spell Burst and Counterspell), and 3 more of which that are very easy to play around (Force Spike), are not enough to guarantee that Dreadstill will never manage to resolve an early Dreadnaught than you have clearly never tested the matchup. I really don't care if you have some irrational hatred for the deck, that's fine so do I, but don't malign its potential for quick wins because you don't like it.

Beyond that, the assumption that your counterspells will be good is only correct when you don't play ones that suck, like Spell Burst, are narrow in application, like Force Spike, and aren't relevant to the matchup at hand (Dreadstill), like Spell Snare.

I can tell by your comments that you have either never tested against Goblins with your build, or tested improperly, because literally nothing you've said jives with any of the previous conclusions reached about the Goblins matchup with builds very similar to yours.

As far as it being well documented that Disk is too slow against Goblins, I refer you to the old discussions about Disk in Landstill. Yes, Wasteland isn't applicable against us like it was against Landstill, but Port still is, and 4 mana is a lot when the main Goblins will actually beat you is in the midgame. Your deck simply does not have the midgame staying power to actually hold whatever early-game advantage your cavalcade of counterspells managed to gain. You might have a clear board on turn 5, but given that you will likely have had to invest at least a Disk and a counterspell, if not more, how likely is it that you will then have the resources to stop the Goblins player from reloading with a Ringleader or a SCG? I'm speaking from experience with these scenarios, having tested several very similar builds in the past and run into a wall with that matchup.

Frankly, I don't have the patience to argue that you should be including FoF and B2B. The reasons for playing the aforementioned cards have been stated ad nauseum in this thread, and if you don't agree with them than that's your prerogative. Just don't be surprised that I don't lend regurgitated arguments from months ago any credence, no matter who they're coming from.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It is true that I have not tested this build against Goblins. What is true is that I have played hundreds, if not thousands, really, of games against Vial-Goblins, and I have played hundreds of games as Vial Goblins. The deck and I are on intimate turns. I am intimately familiar with both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the deck. I wonder if your limited tested is more warping than mine.

Simply put, succeeding with control at some level requires balls. You will not win with control if your opponents continually get God hands. Your best hands, especially when you're mulliganing blind against an unknown deck, tend to look a lot weaker than the god-hands of aggressive decks. This is the nature of the beast.

If Dreadstill resolves a turn 2 Dreadnaught-Stifle with Force-Daze backup and followed it up with Standstill, you're just probably going to lose. It happens.

It's not about respect or lack thereof for Dreadstill or Goblins in particular, or what have you. It's about respecting the law of averages.

I also find there to be an interesting confluence between your assertion that Spell Burst sucks, your lack of an assertion of the same for Counterspell, and your belief that the format is dominated by 1cc spells thus making Powder Keg better than Disk.

At any rate, Kadaj, I would appreciate it if you could return to actual arguments instead of dismissing them out of hand because you've "played MUC a lot".

The vulnerability of CtS against Wish-Still is a valid point. But the question is if counterable and wrathable creatures really bring much to that matchup. A better alternate kill that Morphling here to consider would be running your own Cunning Wish to fetch Brain Freeze, which is actually quite an excellent kill condition in the control mirror, in my experience. It's not too hard knock 21-24 cards off the top of their deck late game. That would also allow moving the late game spells of Spell Burst and Capsize to the board, and possibly free up room for Repeal or some such maindeck, or fit in the B2Bs easier. The decision to run B2B or not, however, should be metagame based; it's a bit silly to talk about this card or that being bad against Dreadstill and Goblins and then maindecking B2B, which is often little better than Stone Rain in these matchups.

While I don't deny that Fact or Fiction is good, very good, there's again the problem with it's mana curve being terrible when leaning on Disk.

Thirst for Knowledge would be better as a replacement for Whispers of the Muse, although both are certainly better than Brainstorm in this deck. TfK is a thought, though.

[Tao]

IBA and I have quite similar opinions about possible approaches to a different MUC shell: I don't play FoF, I think Call the Skybreaker is great in a hardcore control shell, I moved B2B to the SB in my last list, I like "4 Shackles" and Nevi Disk sounds interesting. So I'll try to defend him (I don't agree with him about Spell Burst, though):

We all know that MUC's matchup against Goblins is horrible but that does not change anything about his statement that Disk is good against Goblins. The matchup may be bad, but if you want to have a chance against them then Disk seems like a good option. Resetting the board with Mana open gives you a solid starting point. And playing one of his 4 Shackles seems like a logical continuation. Of course this only works unless Goblins has not killed you so far but that is exactly what IBA said.



The vulnerability of CtS against Wish-Still is a valid point. But the question is if counterable and wrathable creatures really bring much to that matchup. A better alternate kill that Morphling here to consider would be running your own Cunning Wish to fetch Brain Freeze, which is actually quite an excellent kill condition in the control mirror, in my experience. It's not too hard knock 21-24 cards off the top of their deck late game.

Now you serve me my point on a golden plate: My suggested changes were adding 2 Jace Beleren to your list. He's immune to pretty much everything, too and also easily knocks 20 cards off the top of their deck ;)

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Hmmm. It could easily fit within the 4x slot freed up by Whispers, I suppose. Sorcery speed, though.

Tezzeret is another option as a late game kill that can also grab your control elements, or Crypts post-board. Slow, though.

[Kadaj]

Amusingly enough, I actually think Counterspell is rather weak these days. Especially on the draw. The card looks great on paper, but it tends to be terrible in a format that is, undoubtedly, dominated by things that cost as much or less as CS. To an extent, I think Counterspell is weak by some standards, and were it not the most flexible, and powerful, potential card for that slot, I would've replaced it. Sadly, there is no better option available, and so we are essentially stuck with it.

At any rate, I don't necessarily think Powder Keg is better than Disk. I'm actually open to debate on that point at the moment, at least in terms of an open metagame. The major reasons I do think Keg is at the very least more flexible is because it is faster at dealing with the following: Man-lands, Phyrexian Dreadnaught, and Nimble Mongoose. If you can provide a valid reason why the aformentioned point is either irrelevant or lacking in terms of why one should play Powder Keg over Disk, I'd be glad to hear it (seriously, not sarcastically).

Limited testing against Goblins would be valid were it not for the fact that I have played hundreds of games against Goblins myself. Eldariel can attest to that, considering he was the Goblins player for a large amount of those games during the fledgling stages of my testing (and beyond). I have not, I admit, been on the Goblins side of the equation much, but I do think I have a fair idea of how the deck beats control, largely because I have lost to it quite a bit over the years.

The assertion I was trying to make with the example of early Phyrexian Dreadnaught was simply that it is a problem you are going to deal with at least once, possible more, over the course of a tournament, and not having a strong plan to deal with it is just foolish. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't believe that a Dreadnaught before turn 4 is rare from Dreadstill, at least in my experience. And given their large amount of Stifle-effects, turn 4 Disk just doesn't seem fast enough to me as a plan B if counterspells fail, which they inevitably will sometimes.

And, as you asked, I will return to arguments rather than dismissing them out of hand. You should play Fact or Fiction because, as you put it when you replied to someone arguing you could play less Disks because they were powerful, you should play more powerful cards because they are powerful. You don't have to play FoF on turn 4 every time for it to be good. In fact, I would assert that you will rarely actually play Fact on turn 4, given that you will almost always have a threat to counter, or whatever might arise at that point. That doesn't make the card weaker, it just means you have to be flexible with using it. And what about the times when you don't have a Disk? Fact is much much better than Whispers of the Muse is at digging, and it can provide CA at a much larger, and less expensive, clip.

As far as B2B goes, I simply believe the advantage it affords against decks like Landstill, Threshold, the Rock, Survival, and the like, is so great, that it outweighs whatever weakness it has against combo, Ichorid, etc. Perhaps it belongs in the SB if you expect more decks that are largley immune to B2B than not, but I haven't yet encountered a metagame where more than half of the decks present were vulnerable to the card.

[mackaber]

I played against IBA's list last night on MWS and having really liked it I made some changes to the list as suggested by Tao. Ran smoothly for me. Lemme know what ya'll think. Also repeal fixes a lot of problems: Dreadnought, vial, needle....

/ Lands
24 [10E] Island (3)

// Creatures
2 [US] Morphling

// Spells
1 [EVE] Call the Skybreaker
4 [U] Nevinyrral's Disk
4 [NE] Accumulated Knowledge
3 [TSP] Think Twice
2 [TE] Intuition
4 [AL] Force of Will
3 [DIS] Spell Snare
4 [IA] Counterspell
3 [GP] Repeal
3 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
3 [FNM] Force Spike

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [US] Back to Basics
SB: 4 [TE] Propaganda
SB: 3 [MOR] Negate
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt

[Shawon]

With 24 lands, how do you really make Call the Skybreaker worthwhile, that is, retracing Call? Not to mention, 24 lands is a little short for MUC, considering you run Disk and Shackles, and Call the Skybreaker.


Just curious, for those of you using Call the Skybreaker, how often do you use Retrace? I'm not counting normal-casting Call the Skybreaker.

[Arsenal]

I guess I'm still puzzled as to why you would need CtS if your deck does what it's supposed to do. I mean, are people seriously walking into common situations where Morphling/Rainbow Efreet can't get it done?

[Kadaj]

So, I just got back from The Mana Leak Open, where I finished 14th at 4-2. I was in position to make Top 8 with a win in the last round, but I lost what should've been a fairly positive matchup.

I ended up running the following list:

X4 Force of Will
X4 Counterspell
X2 Chalice of the Void
X4 Back to Basics
X4 Powder Keg
X2 Vedalken Shackles
X4 Sower of Temptation
X4 Fact or Fiction
X4 Think Twice
X2 Morphling
X1 Call The Skybreaker
X25 Islands

SB:
X4 Propaganda
X4 Blue Elemental Blast
X2 Threads of Disloyalty
X2 Chalice of the Void
X2 Jace Beleren
X1 Vedalken Shackles

Basically, I took every idea I thought was good from this thread and shoved it into one deck, with the metagame I expected in consideration. Basically, I figured there'd be a lot of Counterbalance, and a lot of Dreadstill. For the most part, I was right on both counts, and the inclusion of Sower over Propaganda in the main, plus Chalice over whatever random counterspell I might've played there, really helped me in my games against Dreadstill, Painter, and Dragon Stompy. Do I recommend the above list in a general metagame? Not really. Chalice isn't good if you don't expect 9001 Dreadstill lists to show up, and Think Twice is iffy in that slot, but I'll explain why I'm leaning towards it at the end of my post.

A quick rundown of my tournament:

Round 1 against TrialByFire playing Ichorid
I lose 0-2, never had a chance in game 1 and misplayed savagely in game 2.

Round 2 against Tom playing UB Painter's Grindstone
I win 2-1, Sower steals Trinket Mage and counters never let him get into it game 1. Game 2 he combos out with protection and I had a weak hand. Game 3 was essentially a repeat of game 1.

Round 3 against a different Tom playing UGW Dreadstill
I win 2-1. Game 1 I manage to deal with Goyf, but he eventually gets down a Dreadnaught and I can't find an answer in time. Game 2 I steal a Goyf with Sower and get Chalice down for 1, shutting him out of the game. Game 3 I have early B2B and he never had a chance.

Round 4 against Parcher playing Ichorid
I win 2-1. Game 1 Ichorid does what its supposed to and shits on me. Games 2 and 3 Parcher mulls to oblivion and I have Propaganda+Counters to hold on for the unlikely win.

Round 5 against DJ playing Dragon Stompy
I win 2-0. Sower+Shackles steal his creatures in game 1, game 2 BEB comes in and makes a good situation even better for me.

Round 6 against Carl Dilihay playing Team America in a feature match (!!!)
I lose 2-1. Game 1 I do what I should and lock him out with B2B and Chalice. Games 2 and 3 I draw too many lands and not enough gas to hold off his Goyf. Still, Carl played well and deserved to win, so no hard feelings.

Basically, 4-2 seems like the appropriate record given the matchups and my overall play. I almost definitely should've lost to Parcher, but by the same token I felt like I should've beaten Carl in round 6. Poor play on my part cost me a chance in round 1, and I'm sure I didn't play optimally against Carl either.

As far as specific card choices go, Think Twice seems better than Ancestral Vision in a metagame full of Counterbalance and Stifle effects. While AV can be strong even with the aforementioned problems, Think Twice is better off the top and will resolve more consistently, something really important out of that slot. Call the Skybreaker was completely irrelevant over the course of the day, and almost definitely should've been something else. 7 mana is a shitload, and I really don't know if it has a place in this deck given just how ludicrously mana intensive it is.

So yeah, if you expect a lot of Thresh and Dreadstill, I highly recommend this list. The SB was surprisingly strong, I boarded in every card at least once, but I think there needs to be some kind of insurance against decks like Team America, just because of how ubiquitous they are, and how important it is to be able to win against them.

[Arsenal]

Strange decklist, it really is as you said, crammed anything and everything into one deck and rolled with it.

Question re: Think Twice being superior in a Dreadstill/Thresh meta. Wouldn't Impulse be better in that slot? It seems to me you're going to be digging for answers ASAP versus a 12/12 trampler, and Impulse will allow you to do so, whereas Think Twice gives you actual card advantage, albeit over two turns, but it doesn't really increase your chances of getting the immediate answer in hand.

[Soulles]

The sixth round was vs Thresh Nick. Not Team America. At least that is what i thought, since i saw a Mongoose and not a tombstalker.

I really have no clue why you tried Call of the sky breaker. You expected a fast meta game and that card can't really help i think.

How did you like the Sower?

[FlavaSava]

What would be a list for a "fast" and aggro&aggrocontrol meta? (goblins+some dredge+storm+thresh+random aggro+few control decks)

btw. the list looks a bit strange. why are you run so many islands?

[mackaber]

With 24 lands, how do you really make Call the Skybreaker worthwhile, that is, retracing Call? Not to mention, 24 lands is a little short for MUC, considering you run Disk and Shackles, and Call the Skybreaker.


Just curious, for those of you using Call the Skybreaker, how often do you use Retrace? I'm not counting normal-casting Call the Skybreaker.

You might have noticed the 11 cantrips. Up until know I've had more trouble getting flooded in the lategame than not drawing enough land.

[Illissius]

Call the Skybreaker was completely irrelevant over the course of the day, and almost definitely should've been something else. 7 mana is a shitload, and I really don't know if it has a place in this deck given just how ludicrously mana intensive it is.

Yeah, I doubt you need CtS when you also have Sowers. CtS was always meant as insurance, to make sure you have inevitability and are able to kill them. If they counter it, cast it again. If they kill it, cast it again. It really sucks to make it to the late game and then have to spend all your hard counters on the up-till-then dead removal your opponent had been building up in their hand.

Sowers are going to draw that removal out sooner, end the game earlier, and also serve as functional win conditions even if there's nothing to steal, so they pretty thoroughly obviate the need for that.

[Kadaj]

Yeah, in hindsight Call the Skybreaker was really just a bad decision on my part. I tried it because I figured the 5 power would matter more than Efreet's "speed" in terms of coming down earlier. In the grand scheme of things, Efreet probably would've been equally garbage over the course of the day. I always wished I had a Morphling instead of CtS whenever I drew it, so I'll probably just add the third Phling in that slot.

Sower was unbelievable. Seriously, Kira is totally unnecessary in terms of protecting it when you have Chalice and 8 counterspells to work with. It's crucial when Dreadstill is present, and its very strong against any kind of Midrange or Tomb Stompy. Between that and the fact that it speeds up your clock quite a bit, it was probably one of the strongest cards in the deck.

Think Twice over Impulse was simple. I wanted card advantage, not card quality. But, I wanted quicker and more flexible card advantage than what AV was providing (and a source that wasn't stupidly vulnerable to Counterbalance and Stifle effects), so I went with Think Twice. It was largely good all day, with the exception of the last round against whatever Carl was playing (he played Team America's disruption but Thresh's creatures) when it drew me 6 lands in a row, which obviously had nothing to do with Think Twice itself, but I digress. Basically, I'm sticking with Think Twice for this particular build for now because of the fact that it provides cheap, quick, card advantage and is strong off the top deck.

What I really think hurt me was my own inexperience with the sideboard in this particular build. Because I hadn't tested a lot postboard (major failing on my part, do not repeat that mistake!) I didn't know what needed to be removed and what should stay in. For example, I misboarded in game 2 against Carl by taking out 1 Sower for 1 Shackles. This is stupid because he is definitely going to be bringing in Grips and probably taking out his Stifles, making Sower much stronger than Shackles when essentially the only threat from him that matters is Goyf. Whether that would've mattered, I do not know, but it was still frustrating to realize that when I fixed my board in game 3.

And, while I'm at it, I'll address Disk in this build as well. Simply put, don't run it. Keg allows you to save your own cards, Disk does not. This is really really important when you have Sowers, Shackles, and other board control cards to work with. Keg is also faster, which matters quite a bit when facing down a Dreadnaught. I'm not saying Disk is terrible in general, just that I don't think it fits whatsoever in this build.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Far be it from me to point out the obvious, but if you don't think Counterspell is that good, and you love Chalice and Sower...

Isn't Fairy Stompy just a better deck? It seems like you're just trending to playing Fairy Stompy Lite with the B2B option. But B2B itself doesn't seem like a good reason to forego all the extra speed and cohesiveness Fairy Stompy brings to that gameplan. It's certainly easier on the clock.

[Kadaj]

Far be it for me to point out the obvious, but just because two decks have overlapping cards doesn't mean they have the same gameplan. Just because the decks have 10 cards in common doesn't make them even remotely similar. Also, I don't "love" chalice, as you put it, I simply think it's strong enough to warrant spots where otherwise weak counterspells would go in a metagame that's loaded with Dreadstill and Thresh.

We clearly disagree on how powerful B2B is, but I'll point out again that I do believe B2B to be worth a separate deck on its own. Even if I were trending towards "Faerie Stompy lite", as you so incorrectly put it, I would still stick with B2B.

I'm honestly baffled you actually think the two decks are even remotely similar in gameplan. I may not like Counterspell too much in a faster metagame when I'm on the draw (which is the only specific scenario I pointed out that I find it to be really weak in), but last I checked, I still played 4 of them. Even if I replaced Counterspell, it would be with another counter of some kind, not a threat or more board-control. I would never add Tombs, or remove Fact or Fiction, or any other board control elements from the deck to push it in a Faerie Stompy direction, and just because I find Sower to be stronger than Propaganda (another board control card, go figure) in the metagame I expected doesn't indicate that I'm suddenly pushing for the deck to go in a more aggro-control direction.

Does a 4-Color Landstill build, like the one Alix Hatfield played on Day 1 yesterday, with Goyfs in it automatically indicate that he should just play 4 color Threshold? They have the same number of similar cards that my MUC build and Faerie Stompy do. Yet you'd be a fool to believe his 4-Color Landstill was "Threshold lite". Why? Because it is a control deck. Playing powerful cards that happen to fit into other decks does not mean at all that your list is trending towards whatever deck might share cards with you.

I would appreciate it if you returned to realistic arguments instead of inventing criticisms just for the sake of it.

[Rascal]

...with all respect to most of IBA´s opinions on this site ( I really love Mighty Quinn - Quinn The Eskimo ) ....I´m afraid I didn´t full understand sense of the last IBA´s post....:confused:

To discuss:

I decided to take Fahad version of MUC to the biggest Legacy tourney in my country.
I would like to go with something like this:

creature [9]
3 Kira, Great Glass-Spinner
2 Morphling
4 Sower of Temptation

instant [20]
4 Counterspell
4 Fact or Fiction
4 Force Spike
4 Force of Will
4 Spell Snare

enchantment [4]
4 Back to Basics

artifact [4]
2 Powder Keg
2 Vedalken Shackles

land [23]
23 Island

60 cards

Sideboard:
3 Stifle
2 Hydroblast
2 BEB
2 Declaration of Naught
3 Pithing Needle
3 Tormod's Crypt

15 cards

Some of my misdoubt:
-23 land is a total minimum of lands if you don´t want to be a manascrewed - maybe too low yet. I´ll risk it - in testing I was screwed maybe in 10% of games max, so let´s see. But in case of upping land count - what to cut?
-> -1 Spell Snare?

I thing that SB is a little iffy....I´m little dissapointed with it.
So by card to card:
3 Stifle - combo, maybe good with BtB in some matchups on fetchlands
2 Hydroblast - burn, Dragon Stompy ( more versatile than Chill, if something sneak on the table you have some solution in hand )
2 BEB
2 Declaration of Naught - combo - more controlish role
3 Pithing Needle - mandlands, combo ( e.g. Painter )
3 Tormod's Crypt - Ichorid ( I think about R. of Progenitus, because it is better against Goyfs, but I think we don´t want to be tapped out, and creautres should be covered by Sower, Shackles, eventually Powder Keg. But Relics draws, which is ok ). But against Ichorid we need quick solutions.

Props for me:
Kira shines against Burn, which is a difficult matchup
Sower is awesome - you can steal creatures bigger than with Shackles, sooner and in meta with lots of K.Grip without potential backdraw.
Force Spike in some builds seems efficient - I think this is the right one as well.
I want to squeeze out some place for some bounce - E. Truth, but this decklist is too tight.

Metagame in my county can be see here:
http://www.cmus.cz/dnn/Fórum/tabid/54/forumid/52/scope/threads/Default.aspx

It´s difficult to guess what I can see next week.


So, as I said, my tourney will be on next weekend.
I´ll update this post and write short report.

Suggestions and potencial constructive critism with argument is wellcomed.

[Illissius]

FWIW, Chalice seems like an infinitely better card which happens to protect Sower than Kira does. I endorse it. You do have a lot of one mana spells, unlike Kadaj, though. Shrug. The important bit is -3 Kira, +3 better cards -- say, more Shackles works.

[Resist_Temptation]

I have been trying to test out a MUC and my list runs fairly close to the Fahad list. although i cut down on the morphlings. i used them, but it seemed that whenever i drew them, i already had board control and shackles and sower wrecks people enough. Also something that i know has to have been brought up in this forum is ancestral visions. I see it as needing to be in here. You are playing a control deck, it isn't like there isn't time to spare.

It works good when you take a look at your hand and notice,"hey first turn i can set myself up to draw some cards." In testing i have found that card to be pretty close to my mvp card. Although Kira takes the mvp slot. saving my sowers from certain death.

[kensook]

Kadaj, do you think that the propangas are still necessary in the SB, even with Sower of Temptations?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

@Kadaj:

So do you think that Chalice is better than Counterspell or not? This is a relevant point. Not that one necessarily excludes the other, but it's relevant to ask which you're actually relying on. What's your gameplan?

There are incidental overlaps and there are fundamental overlaps. Some decks do effectively obsolete others; U/GMadness is effectively obsoleted by Thresh, for instance. If you're trending more and more towards relying on cards that Fairy Stompy can use more effectively, it is extremely valid to ask why you're not playing that deck.

Your getting in a huff and acting butthurt over this point doesn't change anything. You may think that B2B is worth building a deck around in and of itself, but it's important to know if that's your sole reason for playing this deck over Fairy Stompy or not.

I didn't say the gameplan of the two decks was the same. I think my point was that if you're finding counterspells aside from Force to be weak, and you're loving the utility beats and Chalice, Fairy Stompy's gameplan is not only different but much, much more effective at the same thing.

I didn't see Alix's new list, but it's probable that, yes, I would tell him to either take out Tarmogoyf or make the deck more aggressive, since I think Tarmogoyf is usually terrible a control creature. I don't like it in Dave's ITF, either. What are you, trying to name drop? Do you know who I am?

Lose the attitude. This isn't your baby. It's helpful to know honestly whether it's ugly or not. What makes this deck better than Fairy Stompy in any scenario? B2B? Okay. Then let's say that it's better for that reason. Counterspell? You don't even seem to like Counterspell.

[Soulles]

Hey Rascal,

Currently now i play 3 spell snares and 3 shackles. I think you can do the same or play a third Powder Keg, if your meta is infested with dreadnaught decks.

Spell snare is such an awesome card, but i felt that 4 was a bit overkill.
So why not reduce the amount of force spikes? Well untill the fourth turn, i love having that card in my opening hand and topdecking it. It makes me safe a Fow or Counterspell and decreases the tempo of the opponent dramatically.

Hope that helps!

[Kadaj]

@IBA:

No, I do not think Chalice is better than Counterspell. Counterspell is clearly better at what its intended to do in MUC than Chalice is. I don't even think they're comparable, as it turns out. I was not using Chalice the way Faerie Stompy does, as a major, early, piece of disruption. I was using Chalice as mid to late game insurance that something like Dreadstill wasn't going to just drop a Dreadnaught and kill me. Consider it the nail in the proverbial coffin, if you would.

I would argue that FS doesn't use Sower of Temptation more effectively than MUC; I would simply say that it uses it differently. Same with Force of Will, and even Chalice to some extent, although its definitely more arguable that Chalice is simply more potent in FS. I'm fine with that, because I don't need Chalice to be a ludicrous game-winning bomb in my list. I need to be a utility card that helps both the Dreadstill and Threshold matchups while retaining flexibility elsewhere. Maybe I'm using Chalice improperly and it should be something else. That's a possibility, but that doesn't automatically mean I should play FS.

To clear this up once and for all, I consider Counterspell to be weakening in terms of overall effectiveness. With Dreadstill becoming more and more popular, Counterspell largely becomes weaker and weaker. Does that make it poor? Not yet, no I don't think so. I merely think it's less powerful than it once was.

B2B is not the only reason I play this deck over Faerie Stompy. It is certainly a factor, but not the only one. I believe MUC to have a more consistent and less vulnerable manabase, that would be a second reason. A third would be that MUC is much more adept at dealing with threats that actually resolve, as well as being able to have a stronger mid to late game. Largely, I play MUC over FS because MUC is a control deck, with all of the strengths (and weaknesses) associated with that. I didn't (and don't) consider FS a relevant point of comparison because the decks relationship is nothing like UG Madness and UGw Threshold.

I picked up an "attitude" as it were, because I had a really hard time understanding where you were coming from, or what your purpose was, other than to simply have something to argue about. While I have absolutely no problem with constructive criticism, arguments for the sake of it don't exactly appeal to me.

I wasn't namedropping when referencing Alix, I was simply using his list as an example. If I cared about names, would I even bother trying to argue with you? I don't care at all who you are, if I think you're wrong I'm going to call you on it, and I think you're wrong here.

And, in terms of Sower, I played it over say, Control Magic, because it can't be hit by Krosan Grip, something that's going to be far more present against MUC in games 2 and 3 than say, StP, which most people board out against me (correctly or otherwise). In a different metagame (one with more red, and/or more removal) Sower would've been very poor. However, because there was a ton of Dreadstill, Threshold, and other control decks, but very little Red, Sower was much stronger than it would've otherwise been. The fact that it happens to swing for two is a total bonus and didn't factor heavily into my decision to play it.

Would I have considered playing Faerie Stompy in this metagame? Probably not. Why? Because it's matchup against control is much worse than MUC's, something I consider extremely important. That is one major instance in which MUC is better than FS, and given that I felt my aggro-control matchup was very positive as well, in addition to a serviceable combo match, I feel quite confident in saying MUC was a stronger choice, given the opponents I played, than FS. Not relying on vulnerable creatures to beat control is a major asset MUC has that FS, frankly, does not.

@kensook:

Yes, because Propaganda is strong against decks like Ichorid and Goblins whereas Sower is either almost completely dead against one, and largely too slow against the other. Propaganda is for added insurance against straight up aggro decks like Goblins and Affinity (with the added bonus of being strong against Ichorid). Sower is more for Aggro-control, even though it can also be strong against straight aggro as well.

[Jason]

And, in terms of Sower, I played it over say, Control Magic, because it can't be hit by Krosan Grip, something that's going to be far more present against MUC in games 2 and 3 than say, StP, which most people board out against me (correctly or otherwise). In a different metagame (one with more red, and/or more removal) Sower would've been very poor. However, because there was a ton of Dreadstill, Threshold, and other control decks, but very little Red, Sower was much stronger than it would've otherwise been. The fact that it happens to swing for two is a total bonus and didn't factor heavily into my decision to play it.


I haven't thoroughly tested any deck with Sowers yet, but I have played a few games against WGU Threshold and my opponent did indeed take out Swords for Grip because Swords is almost always a dead card for him. That usually led me to steal Tarmogoyf for the win or just randomly cast a creature under B2B and win. I can see Chalice being seriously better than Kira in protecting Sower. Plus, it stops Spell Snare (which is annoying against my Counterspell), Brainstorm, all sorts of combo decks and yes, Dreadnought. I like your list and it looks very strong. I am in the boat of leaning toward more Counterspell effects. Saying that, do we still need 3 "win conditions" with 4 Sowers? Maybe cut a land and the Call the Skybreaker for a pair of Mana Leak in this build? Plus, Wrath effects are always annoying. Split the bombs to Morphling/Rainbow Efreet instead?

[Captain Hammer]

Lose the attitude. This isn't your baby. It's helpful to know honestly whether it's ugly or not. What makes this deck better than Fairy Stompy in any scenario? B2B? Okay. Then let's say that it's better for that reason. Counterspell? You don't even seem to like Counterspell.

:confused:

IBA, I've got to say, I usually like your posts, but your last two posts confuse the hell out of me. How can you possibly compare Fairie Stompy to MUC, it's beyond ridiculous.

Considering the amount of time that Kadaj has spent with the deck, I think it's more than fair to say that he has a significant understanding of how it functions. Atleast enough to know that you shouldn't be comparing a largely aggro deck to a pure control deck just because they share a few cards in common.

[Resist_Temptation]

i do not see how theycan be compared...Faerie stompy and MUC everyone has made their arguments for how they dont understand this. just because a deck runs blue and has chalice doesnt mean it is faerie stompy. can i get a refresher on why this argument started. chalice is good, at stopping most threats and it also stops many utility cards.

[Soulles]

I haven't thoroughly tested any deck with Sowers yet, but I have played a few games against WGU Threshold and my opponent did indeed take out Swords for Grip because Swords is almost always a dead card for him. That usually led me to steal Tarmogoyf for the win or just randomly cast a creature under B2B and win. I can see Chalice being seriously better than Kira in protecting Sower. Plus, it stops Spell Snare (which is annoying against my Counterspell), Brainstorm, all sorts of combo decks and yes, Dreadnought. I like your list and it looks very strong. I am in the boat of leaning toward more Counterspell effects. Saying that, do we still need 3 "win conditions" with 4 Sowers? Maybe cut a land and the Call the Skybreaker for a pair of Mana Leak in this build? Plus, Wrath effects are always annoying. Split the bombs to Morphling/Rainbow Efreet instead?

I get it that people still don't see the use in Kira. But if you never tried it, you wil never know. But i can't play chalice mainboard, because i am playing 7 1 mana spells. Which i really like and consider necessary in mine deck to compete with the turn 1 and turn 2 decks.

Anyway, i saw that my variant got mentioned again on Starcitygames. \o/

I don't get the comparasion either btw. There are so many cards that Faerie Stompy play that MUC do does not play or just can't play.

Chalice is a multi utility card and it can be played in every deck. Heck, i run 4of them sideboard just to make my combo matchups a bit easier.

What MUC can't do
Play turn 1 a 4/3 flying

What MUC doesn't do
Playing equipments

What MUC always does
screwing the opponent's manabase, stealing creatures, many solid counters and board control.

[Arsenal]

Lol at the Faerie Stompy/MUC comparisons because they're both blue, and both play CotV. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
________________

Anyway, I've been sticking to my counter-lite MUC build, and it's done pretty well in my meta (slower, lots of mid-range stuff). Jace has been an absolute beating so far; although I haven't been able to use it's mega ability yet (I've technically had the chances, but haven't been in a good position to just lose 10 loyalty counters in one swoop). There have been times when I really, really, really need a counter, and I haven't had one in hand, and my FoF/AV haven't popped yet. Basically, living past turn 4 is manageable, but I really feel WotC needs to print another 2-3cc bomb for MUC (wishful thinking, I know), akin to Shackles or B2B.

[FlavaSava]

I tested the list since a few days:


//NAME: muc

// Lands
23 Island

// Creatures
2 Jace Beleren
2 Morphling
4 Sower of Temptation

// Spells
4 Accumulated Knowledge
3 Back to Basics
4 Counterspell
4 Force of Will
2 Intuition
4 Powder Keg
3 Think Twice
2 Vedalken Shackles
3 Chalice of the Void

// Sideboard
SB: 1 Chalice of the Void
SB: 4 Hydroblast
SB: 4 Propaganda
SB: 4 Relic of Progenitus
2 Slots free, maybe 2 Shackles?

I think it is a really good list, i played a lot of matches with lot of sucess i lost only the match against Deadguy, after being screwed(only 3 lands, all of them destroyed). I combined Tao's Draw-engine and Soulles' Muc, the finally touch was the involement of CotV. The sower are just amazing, the Chalice also but i dont know whether 3 are too much. Jace was also awesome, especially against other control decks.
me - goyfsligh 5 colored 2-1 first game only 1 b2b and only islands(10!)
me - worse MUC 1-0
me - strange mono red goblins 1-0
me - UGBW LS 2-0
me - NGQw 1-1(disconnected) see above
me - elves 2-0
me - Dragon Stompy 2-0
me - AggroLoam 2-0
me - AggroLoam with Chalice 2-0
me - deadguy 0-2

Some of the wins was a bit lucky. Some questions:
2 or 3 Chalice(main), maybe one Shalkes more?
Jace or not?

[Arsenal]

Jace is beyond insane if you're playing in a slower meta, or against other control decks. Jace, AV, and FoF is just too much raw card advantage for most decks to handle. If you don't play in a slower meta, then I wouldn't consider him for maindeck, maybe in the sideboard, but even then, probably not.

[Resist_Temptation]

until recently i have been against jace in control, but recently i have been boarding them in against another control deck and the raw card advantage you gain is uncomparable to any other cards. I have been taking Fact or Fiction out of my lists, just beacause jace can get me more cards in the long run.

[Illissius]

Yeah, Jace against other control decks is like an Ophidian that can't be blocked or Swordsed (or Shackled or Deeded or Gripped). It's pretty cool. Factory can be awkward, though, at times.

[Arsenal]

until recently i have been against jace in control, but recently i have been boarding them in against another control deck and the raw card advantage you gain is uncomparable to any other cards. I have been taking Fact or Fiction out of my lists, just beacause jace can get me more cards in the long run.

Although we are on the same page about how great Jace is when facing control, I do not agree that boarding out FoF for Jace is the right move. In the control matchup, every card counts, and a resolved FoF is almost an "I win" card. I'd keep in AV, FoF, and Jace, and probably board out Shackles. I mean, what exactly will you be Shackling? Their Morphling/Efreet when facing the mirror? Their Factory that should be useless once you resolve 1 of your 4 B2B? Decree tokens (that your Kegs should be popping) ? I don't really see a whole lot of use for Shackles when facing the mirror or the Landstill matchup.

EDIT: I suppose if you anticipate/know that your control opponent is playing Sower and/or some other unconventional stuff (Platinum Angel? idk), then you should leave Shackles in, but most cases, I would take them out; they'll be dead more often than not.

[Tao]

I played against IBA's list last night on MWS and having really liked it I made some changes to the list as suggested by Tao. Ran smoothly for me. Lemme know what ya'll think. Also repeal fixes a lot of problems: Dreadnought, vial, needle....

/ Lands
24 [10E] Island (3)

// Creatures
2 [US] Morphling

// Spells
1 [EVE] Call the Skybreaker
4 [U] Nevinyrral's Disk
4 [NE] Accumulated Knowledge
3 [TSP] Think Twice
2 [TE] Intuition
4 [AL] Force of Will
3 [DIS] Spell Snare
4 [IA] Counterspell
3 [GP] Repeal
3 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
3 [FNM] Force Spike

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [US] Back to Basics
SB: 4 [TE] Propaganda
SB: 3 [MOR] Negate
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt

That seems like a good list. Repeal is strong and I love the card. But on the other hand Capsize handles named problems too and it is a late game bomb and with Capsize you can re-use Disk easier. Have you done some more testing with the deck? What were your results? What was your reason for cutting the 4th Shackles? I think Shackles is a key card in every non combo matchup from Goblins to Landstill.

And what are the Negates doing in the SB? I'd rather see Blue Blast in that slot. Or Stifle if Combo is a big factor in your Meta.


Call the Skybreaker was completely irrelevant over the course of the day, and almost definitely should've been something else. 7 mana is a shitload, and I really don't know if it has a place in this deck given just how ludicrously mana intensive it is.

I think your deck was the wrong deck for CtS. CtS rather fits into a hardcore control shell like IBA's version without Sowers that is strictly build to dominate the late game.

[Arsenal]

I think your deck was the wrong deck for CtS. CtS rather fits into a hardcore control shell like IBA's version without Sowers that is strictly build to dominate the late game.

I still haven't gotten a decent response as to why CtS is needed at all. How often do you pro-CtS players find yourself losing with 2 Morphling and 1 Rainbow Efreet? If your deck does what it's supposed to do, I don't understand how you can't be winning. And if your deck didn't do what it was supposed to do (manascrew, manaflood, opponent just flatout smashes/combos your face before you can stabilize, etc.), how does running CtS help in that situation?

[socialite]

I still haven't gotten a decent response as to why CtS is needed at all. How often do you pro-CtS players find yourself losing with 2 Morphling and 1 Rainbow Efreet? If your deck does what it's supposed to do, I don't understand how you can't be winning. And if your deck didn't do what it was supposed to do (manascrew, manaflood, opponent just flatout smashes/combos your face before you can stabilize, etc.), how does running CtS help in that situation?

But it is really really good late game!!!



Not really sure how one reaches late game with trash cards like Call the Skybreaker in the deck.

[Arne]

that's plain rubbish... I'm not a fan of CtS either but an efreet, phling or whatever kill you use in your opening hand is also not good...

What I'm trying to say is that with a conservative MUC build you'll reach the late game... and whether you use an efreet or a CtS as your kill doesn't matter... I like phling and efreet better because they're faster and more versatile, and not prone to be removed from my yard.

[Arsenal]

that's plain rubbish... I'm not a fan of CtS either but an efreet, phling or whatever kill you use in your opening hand is also not good...

What I'm trying to say is that with a conservative MUC build you'll reach the late game... and whether you use an efreet or a CtS as your kill doesn't matter... I like phling and efreet better because they're faster and more versatile, and not prone to be removed from my yard.

Who said anything about it being in your opening hand? Also, if I had to have one of my win conditions in my opening hand, you really think Rainbow Efreet is just as bad as CtS? Are you kidding me?

Although I agree with you that once your deck does what it's supposed to do, your win condition is largely irrelevant, that doesn't necessarily mean you should play any old card just because. I mean, once Stax hardlocks the game, they beat with Factory & Magus (sometimes Angel). Why? Because those are the win conditions that have the most organic, synergistic fit. Could Stax throw in Hoofprints of the Stag, and win that way? Sure. Would it make sense though, even when the hardlock is achieved? Not really. It's the same situation with CtS. Once I achieve board control and massive card advantage, could I win with Masticore? Absolutely. But WHY would I want to run Masticore when I could run better win conditions? I still don't understand the rationale behind CtS. The only "reason" I've heard thus far is "CtS is good late game (but how is Morphling/Efreet not good late game?)".

EDIT: Using the logic of you pro-CtS players, we should also be running Darksteel Colossus. I mean, he's awesome late game (just like CtS), and is always going to be there (just like CtS). NEATO!!!!

[Arne]

Who said anything about it being in your opening hand? Also, if I had to have one of my win conditions in my opening hand, you really think Rainbow Efreet is just as bad as CtS? Are you kidding me?

Although I agree with you that once your deck does what it's supposed to do, your win condition is largely irrelevant, that doesn't necessarily mean you should play any old card just because. I mean, once Stax hardlocks the game, they beat with Factory & Magus (sometimes Angel). Why? Because those are the win conditions that have the most organic, synergistic fit. Could Stax throw in Hoofprints of the Stag, and win that way? Sure. Would it make sense though, even when the hardlock is achieved? Not really. It's the same situation with CtS. Once I achieve board control and massive card advantage, could I win with Masticore? Absolutely. But WHY would I want to run Masticore when I could run better win conditions? I still don't understand the rationale behind CtS. The only "reason" I've heard thus far is "CtS is good late game (but how is Morphling/Efreet not good late game?)".

EDIT: Using the logic of you pro-CtS players, we should also be running Darksteel Colossus. I mean, he's awesome late game (just like CtS), and is always going to be there (just like CtS). NEATO!!!!


Eeeehm, that's what I meant... maybe it just came out wrong.

[mackaber]

That seems like a good list. Repeal is strong and I love the card. But on the other hand Capsize handles named problems too and it is a late game bomb and with Capsize you can re-use Disk easier. Have you done some more testing with the deck? What were your results? What was your reason for cutting the 4th Shackles? I think Shackles is a key card in every non combo matchup from Goblins to Landstill.




I have not tested too much but the limited testing I did conduct has actually been very positive (actually not loosing a single match on MWs altough I prolly would have lost one match to Landstill had the server not crashed). The SB has been drastically remolded and AK seems to be the weakest spell in the dec up until now. I decided agains tthe fourth shakels due to lacking synergie with disk altough I might be wrong on that.

My new SB looks something like this: 4 Chalice, 4 Crypt, 4 b2b, 3 venillion Clique

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Lol at the Faerie Stompy/MUC comparisons because they're both blue, and both play CotV. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


LAWL I TYPE OUT MY LAUGHTER I'm SOE DGY ELALWHAHAHAHAHAHAnyway


I know you lack the cognitive capabilities, but try to follow the bouncing ball anyway.

Similarity has nothing to do with obsoletion.

U/G Madness has few similarities with UGwb Thresh except for relying on green creatures and blue counters. But we can say the latter obsoletes the former pretty readily, whereas, in contrast, there are many variants of Threshold that we can compare there are much more similar, but do not obsolete one another.

Another example was GP Columbus, where there were many variations on Flash that were all very similar but obsoleted a wide variety of decks that were completely different. Vial Goblins and Slivers and Landstill looked very different from one another, but were all inferior to Flash.

As for your inanities about CtS:

CtS does not have to be forced through or protected. CtS also, for two more mana than Morphling, costs 7 less mana a turn to be a 5/5 Flyer, with uncounterability thrown in.

Morphling isn't good anymore. He was good back before good creatures over two mana had been printed. Open your eyes to the invisible costs. For two less mana you have a counterable, wrathable win condition with perpetual Echo costs.

CtS is good because you really can just cast it and forget about it. You can lose it and forget it. It doesn't matter; it's there again next turn. Morphling is a high maintainence girlfriend. You had some good times, sure, but how long are you going to keep supporting the bitch? Tell Superman to get a fucking job.


But it is really really good late game!!!



Not really sure how one reaches late game with trash cards like Call the Skybreaker in the deck.

What a useful addition to the conversation. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, which are just as useful and meaningful as anyone else's, even the people that thought before posting or added something productive.

@Kadaj: That aside, I'll give you the manabase. I'm not so sure about the permanent thing; there are generally two types of permanents in Legacy

1) Threats. I still think Powder Keg is terrible for all of these that aren't Mongoose or Jrednot.

2) Cards that stop you from playing stuff; CB, Chalice, Trinisphere, Magus of the Moon, B2B, etc...

Fairy Stompy can deal with the first with bigger threats and creature-grabs surprisingly effectively; Shackles is really your main edge here.

On the second, I think you're half and half; CB and Chalice and Trinisphere are much better against you than against FS, although FS does have a vulnerable manabase.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue that there's no reason to play MUC. If I thought that, I wouldn't be interested in the deck. But I think you're pursuing a weaker strategy, and I think the dissatisfaction with Counterspell speaks to that, because Counterspell is insane and half the reason to play the deck. I would play at least 8 Counterspells if I could get away with it.

What are the strategies that work for MUC? Why play MUC? Why play it over any deck with 24 basic lands?

The answer we have to come back to, if we come to anything is;

Countering spells.

All the other features are gimmicks that other decks can do better. MUC is good for countering spells. Bamf! Target spell doesn't resolve.

If you're finding that counterspells suck and that utility creatures and board control elements are doing it much better, then it might just be time to work on a different deck.

[Kadaj]

IBA, once again, I never said I thought Counterspell was awful, nor did I say I was dissatisfied with it in general. I said I was dissatisfied with it on the draw in a format where threats like Tarmogoyf and Phyrexian Dreadnaught can come down on turn 2. Counterspell sits in your hand and laughs at you when this happens, which is more than slightly frustrating. I readily admit that Counterspell is the most powerful, flexible, and overall strong counterspell this side of Force of Will (I said as much in one of my previous posts) I just find it weaker when you're on the draw.

I've had the argument about moving MUC away from a pure instant based control build before, and while I can't prove it to you, I can site nearly a thousand overall games of testing with various builds of MUC that indicate numerous problems with relying on counterspells to win matches against aggro and aggro-control.

Historically, decks like Countersliver and Madness (read Threshold) were designed to beat counter based control by slipping a threat through the initial wall of counters and then protecting it. By running less actual answers to a resolved threat, and more expensive answers at that, you open yourself up to this strategy. Literally your only answer to a Thresh player going turn 1 Mongoose go is to play Disk and sweep it away, which seems incredibly vulnerable and foolish to me. Similar problems exist with Dreadnaught, which is out of your Shackles range and will kill you before Capsize becomes a viable answer. That leaves you, once again, with Disk. A card that is admittedly powerful, but also slow and vulnerable to a whole host of disruption.

I firmly believe that Draw-Go in the style you're advocating is simply too vulnerable and slow in the current metagame to be viable. If you can test it and prove otherwise, I'd be delighted to hear it. However, I'd also be extremely surprised given that my own experiences with very similar builds were nothing but disastrous.

[raharu]

Historically, decks like Countersliver and Madness (read Threshold) were designed to beat counter based control by slipping a threat through the initial wall of counters and then protecting it. By running less actual answers to a resolved threat, and more expensive answers at that, you open yourself up to this strategy. Literally your only answer to a Thresh player going turn 1 Mongoose go is to play Disk and sweep it away, which seems incredibly vulnerable and foolish to me. Similar problems exist with Dreadnaught, which is out of your Shackles range and will kill you before Capsize becomes a viable answer. That leaves you, once again, with Disk. A card that is admittedly powerful, but also slow and vulnerable to a whole host of disruption.

I firmly believe that Draw-Go in the style you're advocating is simply too vulnerable and slow in the current metagame to be viable. If you can test it and prove otherwise, I'd be delighted to hear it. However, I'd also be extremely surprised given that my own experiences with very similar builds were nothing but disastrous.

On a side note, isn't that a pretty good reason to splash another color for spot removal, or something? White, perhaps? Also, UW Landstill isn't where MMUC/w ends up going. It ends up going to MUC with a few white sources and fetchlands for StP, keeping Back to Basics, with Meddling Mage as a board card for combo.

[4eak]

I said I was dissatisfied with it on the draw in a format where threats like Tarmogoyf and Phyrexian Dreadnaught can come down on turn 2.

This is a reasonable argument. The faster a format becomes, the less powerful Counterspell will be. Counterspell is no longer an early game card, it is a mid to late game counter. Clearly, as a control deck, we need the permissive power Counterspell brings to MUC in the mid/late game, but we can all recognize that it isn't nearly as useful in the early game because the early game isn't the first 2-3 turns, it is the first and second turn.

Legacy continues to speed up, and this is the real issue all control decks are attempting to address. This is probably the reason I see 3 distinct versions of MUC in this thread.




peace,
4eak

[Jason]

I get it that people still don't see the use in Kira. But if you never tried it, you wil never know. But i can't play chalice mainboard, because i am playing 7 1 mana spells. Which i really like and consider necessary in mine deck to compete with the turn 1 and turn 2 decks.

I did try the deck with Kira; I haven't thoroughly tried it...there's a difference. And I didn't say it was horrible; I didn't even say I didn't like it. In fact, I thought it was very good against WGU Threshold. But I just said I thought Chalice was an interesting way of protecting the Sower outside the Kira-box. Sorry I didn't get that across more clearly.

Now, on to why I really posted:




What are the strategies that work for MUC? Why play MUC? Why play it over any deck with 24 basic lands?

The answer we have to come back to, if we come to anything is;

Countering spells.

All the other features are gimmicks that other decks can do better. MUC is good for countering spells. Bamf! Target spell doesn't resolve.

If you're finding that counterspells suck and that utility creatures and board control elements are doing it much better, then it might just be time to work on a different deck.

First, I don't know why, but I was laughing my ass off on "Bamf! Target spell doesn't resolve." I should start saying that while slapping down a Counterspell against my opponent. I imagine a hilariously puzzled look on his face. Glorious choice of words...seriously!

But...I'm going to have to disagree with what you say. Back to Basics is the reason to play Mono Blue Control. Yes, countering spells is a huge piece of this deck. But the deck would not be nearly as viable without the card that tells your opponent he or she wasted $200+ on a 8 or so dual lands. This card will destroy the majority of decks faced in a tournament. Not only does it hose Threshold and Landstill which make up a huge number of the decks faced, but even random poop ends up playing a significant amount of non-basics to make this card more than good. Why do you think Dragon Stompy runs 8 Blood Moons? And several high-tempo decks play Wasteland? Answer: to rape your opponent's mana base.

Counterspell is important, don't get me wrong. But I'm not going to want to counter every spell. I want to counter a couple important ones and either wait for my opponent to make a mistake or to out-card advantage them with Ancestral Visions or Fact or Fiction and drop some broken form of board control (Back to Basics or Vedalken Shackles) or something to smash face with (Morphling, Rainbow Efreet, or even Call the Skybreaker). Saying this, I don't think 8 counterspell effects is enough. In addition to Force of Will and Counterspell, I am a huge fan of Mana Leak because it is nearly always a hard counter and just as much of a threat with the possibility of Back to Basics. 4x FoW; 4x Counterspell; 3x Mana Leak seems like a fair number. I also found Spell Snare good in the Mana Leak slot, but with the Chalice (which I know TheInfamousBearAssassin is not a fan of) it seems less than good in this situation. I'm not sure if Chalice is worth playing in the main deck or not, but it is something I am going to try.

Because I don't want to (and can't) counter everything, that also makes Powder Keg a great card; it can hit the 1-drops much quicker than Disk. I understand Disk is good, but it is just too slow unless you run more counterspell effects.

I have come to the conclusion that Kadaj has came to. Countering spells is great and everything but having control over the board seems better than trying to counter everything. I don't think this means I should be playing some other kind of deck like Landstill - they like to counter some stuff and keep control of the board; the reason I'm playing mono-blue is because I don't want to play another deck that can successfully get this board control but have a vulnerable manabase and get destroyed by Blood Moons or Wastelands or Back to Basics or even Stifles for my fetch lands. Am I wrong?

[Tao]

@IBA: Just an idea. What do you think about Tezzeret the Seeker? He could fetch Shackles and give Disks haste (and survive). In an emergency situation he is a Nevi Disk for 5 Mana. And as long the opponent is not hitting you for 5/turn, which should be avoided anyway, he is pretty hard to kill. Plus he could fetch some kind of Tool Box like Painterstone or a Relic of Progenitus.

[Arne]

@IBA: Just an idea. What do you think about Tezzeret the Seeker? He could fetch Shackles and give Disks haste (and survive). In an emergency situation he is a Nevi Disk for 5 Mana. And as long the opponent is not hitting you for 5/turn, which should be avoided anyway, he is pretty hard to kill. Plus he could fetch some kind of Tool Box like Painterstone or a Relic of Progenitus.

imho, in the conservative permanent-based build, you don't have the right artifacts to use it's +1 power... so, he'd only be good for fetching one shackles.

when you do play with disks, I don't see how it would give the disk haste... since it still comes into play tapped. combined with a dandy toolbox, it could be handy... but I don't think MUC has slots open for it.

[4eak]

Back to Basics is the reason to play Mono Blue Control.

Let me correct that:

"Back to Basics is the reason to play [permanent-based] Mono Blue Control."

Back to Basics is not the reason to play Draw/Go Mono Blue Control.

In Draw/Go, B2B isn't as necessary in the main at all. Actually, it doesn't deserve a slot in the main unless you have an overwhelming amount of Thresh/Landstill in your metagame (like +70%). While I definitely think B2B (whether in the side or main) makes any version of MUC stronger, it isn't the archetype defining card.

MUC does exist in virtue of its permission. I can remove B2B (from side and/or main) and still have an amazing deck. Try removing FoW and Counterspell, and you won't have a deck anymore.




peace,
4eak

[Tao]

I don't know if Tezzeret would be any good, he is just an idea. The fetched disks won't have haste, but with Tezzeret in play you can untap the new played. He would be some kind of mediocre Tutor and mediocre win condition. But still, both in one card, so he might be worth testing.

[mackaber]

I don't know if Tezzeret would be any good, he is just an idea. The fetched disks won't have haste, but with Tezzeret in play you can untap the new played. He would be some kind of mediocre Tutor and mediocre win condition. But still, both in one card, so he might be worth testing.

Somehow I think intuition fills that slot way better.

[Kadaj]

Let me correct that:

"Back to Basics is the reason to play [permanent-based] Mono Blue Control."

Back to Basics is not the reason to play Draw/Go Mono Blue Control.

In Draw/Go, B2B isn't as necessary in the main at all. Actually, it doesn't deserve a slot in the main unless you have an overwhelming amount of Thresh/Landstill in your metagame (like +70%). While I definitely think B2B (whether in the side or main) makes any version of MUC stronger, it isn't the archetype defining card.

MUC does exist in virtue of its permission. I can remove B2B (from side and/or main) and still have an amazing deck. Try removing FoW and Counterspell, and you won't have a deck anymore.




peace,
4eak

I must admit I find your argument puzzling given that even in Draw/Go esque builds, I've still found B2B to be by far the strongest card. Between that and the fact that every legitimate tournament metagame will have a minimum of 50% of decks that are extremely vulnerable to B2B, I consider it an immense mistake not to play it in the main, regardless of the version of MUC you're playing.

Honestly, what legitimate reason is there to play B2Bless MUC over Landstill? They can play a similar number of counterspells to you if they so wish, whilst still retaining stronger removal and board-control. I have asked myself multiple times why I decided to fixate on MUC as opposed to any number of poly-chromatic control decks. Initially, the answer was budget. I didn't have the money to buy duals, so I had to find an alternative. However, now that I have a consistent income I could easily build Landstill, or whatever, if I so wished. And yet I don't, because I believe MUC is stronger. Why? Because it tends to be equally strong in the matchups Landstill is successful, while actually being able to beat Landstill when matched up with it. A huge part of that is B2B.

Without B2B, the aggro plan suddenly becomes a viable option for the Landstill player. They can afford to throw Factories and Monasteries at you because you're only real answer to them is Powder Keg, something they can counter or otherwise force you to expend resources to protect. Maybe, maybe, in a metagame where there is next to no Landstill, Threshold, Dreadstill, or anything really with duals, I can understand playing B2B in the sideboard. But at a larger tournament? I believe there to be no excuse for not playing the card.

[Soulles]

I got curious now, after reading the last 3 pages with comments about this deck.

Who ACTUALLY plays this deck in tournaments? And with play, i do mean consistent. Not like once every 3-6 months.

Sometimes i feel people base their opnion just on their mws experience or by looking at deck lists or just because they think every deck should run sensei, top and goyf.

[Kadaj]

I got curious now, after reading the last 3 pages with comments about this deck.

Who ACTUALLY plays this deck in tournaments? And with play, i do mean consistent. Not like once every 3-6 months.

Sometimes i feel people base their opnion just on their mws experience or by looking at deck lists or just because they think every deck should run sensei, top and goyf.

I totally disagree with your insinuation that if you don't play this deck in tournaments that your opinion doesn't matter, or is somehow less valid than someone who has weekly tournaments to attend. I don't play in major tournaments that often due to lack of opportunities, does that somehow reduce the amount of times I've played this deck in general? Testing is extremely important in improving a deck, and the lion's share of testing will take place outside of a tournament setting.

True, playing randoms on MWS is essentially anecdotal evidence and is not at all a reliable method of testing, but how is testing with a friend suddenly irrelevant? Just because you happen to have the opportunity to play in a lot more tournaments than the rest of us doesn't mean that your opinion is more valid than anyone else that plays in a similar amount but not necessarily in tournaments.

However, posting without any actual testing behind it is essentially useless, that much I agree with. While it is true that some ideas can be dismissed out of hand because they are simply terrible (something stupid like... Jump in MUC or what have you) once you start getting into the more complex arguments, you really need actual testing behind your conclusions for the rest of us to take you seriously.

Yet, I must reiterate that I completely disagree with the notion that playing in tournament settings is the only thing that matters, or is somehow more important than real testing that takes place outside of a tournament.

[4eak]

@ Kadaj

Just so you aren't puzzled:

I know B2B is amazing. I love the card.

1.) I have not said that Draw/Go should never play B2B in the Main. There are many metagames where I do play it in the main.
2.) I have said that MUC, even Draw/Go, must play 4x B2B in the full 75.
3.) I have said that Draw/Go -can- viably (correctly, as in: it would be the best choice) play with B2B in the side.

There are legitimate, competitive metagames where Draw/Go MUC should play B2B in the side instead of the main. That doesn't mean every metagame would call for it. But, B2B is hardly set in stone as an auto 4x in the main, especially not for Draw/go. B2B will always be a metagame call for draw/go. Is this so hard to believe? Back to Basics is what I consider to be a fine example of a sideboard card. It hoses some decks, and is lackluster against others. Play cards in the main that are decent or good against everything, and side in hate specific to your opponent.



I must admit I find your argument puzzling given that even in Draw/Go esque builds, I've still found B2B to be by far the strongest card.

What can I say to you Kadaj? You often make an appeal to raw experience with this deck. That isn't a bad argument at all, but the problem is that my experience shows very different conclusions from yours.

I have just as many (if not more) games recorded in our tables with MUC, including all the variants (although, I have fewer games played with Sower/Kira MUC). I'm drawing these conclusions from just as much testing and playtime as you. I say B2B isn't necessary in Draw/go, and you say it is the strongest card in Draw/go. An appeal to experience is probably not going to lead either one of us away from the conclusions we've drawn from our long-time testing of the deck.



the fact that every legitimate tournament metagame will have a minimum of 50% of decks that are extremely vulnerable to B2B, I consider it an immense mistake not to play it in the main, regardless of the version of MUC you're playing.

1.) It is not the case that 'every legitimate tournament metagame will have a minimum of 50% of decks that are extremely vulnerable to B2B.'

Either you arbitrarily define the word legitimate or you need to use a different word here. I'll definitely agree that for many players it is the case that 50%+ of the decks will be extremely vulnerable. But, it would be foolish to assume that it would be the case for all legitimate tournaments. The choice of B2B in the main of MUC will always be a metagame call.

2.) You and I clearly disagree about the degree of vulnerability to B2B of legitimate tournament decks. Just because you can hit non-basics doesn't make it worth playing in draw/go.



Honestly, what legitimate reason is there to play B2Bless MUC over Landstill?

Do you mean "why play MUC without B2B in the main instead of Landstill?" or "why play MUC without B2B in the full 75 instead of Landstill?"

It would seem uncharitable to assume the second option because I believe you've taken the 20 seconds required to read what I've said several times, which is roughly "you must play 4x B2B in the 75 of any MUC deck."

The answers to the first option seems too obvious though (I don't wish to insult your intelligence). I'll clarify the question further for the sake of this discussion: "How could Draw/Go with B2B in the side be a better choice than Landstill?"

1.) Draw/Go's mana base is the most dependable in the game. It avoids a large portion of mana disruption, plays a good number of lands, rarely mulligans, and plays cantrips to boot. In a format that has a ton of mana disruption, playing MUC provides nearly immune tempo with virtual card advantage from some dead or less useful cards that otherwise would have been useful against Landstill.

2.) Straight blue will always have more control over the stack. Permission is the most important reason to play MUC, and Draw/Go has that in spades (another card game I supposed, hehe). We can play more of it, more often, and with greater consistency than other decks, including Landstill.

3.) Lastly, because Landstill can't play B2B at all? Draw/Go can choose to play it main or side, and frankly, it can still benefit from it when the game calls for it. This doesn't necessitate running it in the main, and it is a clear advantage over Landstill when Draw/Go w/B2B in the side goes to game 2 against certain decks.


As for the Landstill vs. Draw/Go matchup:

There are many answers available to Draw/go against "Landstill's aggro-plan" besides Powder Keg (which doesn't even belong in Draw/go); you can afford to play man-lands yourself even.

The aggro-plan is hardly a major clock either. I couldn't be happier if they were stupid enough to tap out to swing at me. The aggro-plan isn't nearly as promising against Draw/Go because it has the easiest time of all the variants of gaining raw card advantage and winning counter wars.

When we goto game 2, and I board in 4x B2B's, they are in deep shit.

Landstill is not what I consider to be a bad matchup at all, even without Back to Basics. This is a favorable matchup, and Landstill players everywhere should shake in their boots against a competent Draw/Go player. Sure, this is a match that takes skill to play, but at equal skill, Draw/Go will be winning.


I think part of the problem is that you show a continual failure to consider the relevant role differences between Draw/go and other variations. Draw/go is the closest thing to a universal control deck that exists. It belongs in a different metagame than permanent-MUC and Sower/Kira MUC. It is stronger than other variants where stack control matters the most, where Disk is insane or made insane by the turns bought with your permission (a card you appear to undervalue in Draw/go), and is a stronger choice for diverse or unknown metagames. B2B is not a necessary card in the main, and it is not the reason to play Draw/Go.







peace,
4eak

[Arsenal]

I got curious now, after reading the last 3 pages with comments about this deck.

Who ACTUALLY plays this deck in tournaments? And with play, i do mean consistent. Not like once every 3-6 months.

Sometimes i feel people base their opnion just on their mws experience or by looking at deck lists or just because they think every deck should run sensei, top and goyf.

Unfortunately, I do not have the opportunities to go to many tournaments; WI doesn't have many Legacy tournaments (I think 2 total in the last 5 months), and the ones in IL are too far away to accomodate my life schedule. The majority of the testing I do is in real life (not on MWS/online), but it's with the local players from the area. Local meta is semi slow (lots of mid-range aggro-control stuff, Rock-ish stuff, etc). Don't see too much fast aggro (Goblins) or fast combo (Storm AdN). Lots of aggro-control, but mostly mid-range stuff, and a few other slow, control decks.

[Kadaj]

@ Kadaj

Just so you aren't puzzled:

I know B2B is amazing. I love the card.

1.) I have not said that Draw/Go should never play B2B in the Main. There are many metagames where I do play it in the main.
2.) I have said that MUC, even Draw/Go, must play 4x B2B in the full 75.
3.) I have said that Draw/Go -can- viably (correctly, as in: it would be the best choice) play with B2B in the side.

There are legitimate, competitive metagames where Draw/Go MUC should play B2B in the side instead of the main. That doesn't mean every metagame would call for it. But, B2B is hardly set in stone as an auto 4x in the main, especially not for Draw/go. B2B will always be a metagame call for draw/go. Is this so hard to believe? Back to Basics is what I consider to be a fine example of a sideboard card. It hoses some decks, and is lackluster against others. Play cards in the main that are decent or good against everything, and side in hate specific to your opponent.

In short, yes, it is that hard to believe. Why? Because I have never, ever, seen or heard of a larger tournament that did not have a large amount of Threshold, Landstill, and other poly-chromatic decks being played. Yes, it's fully true that you can beat Thresh, Landstill, etc without B2B in the main. I would also that it's equally as true that your matchup is better with B2B in the main. Why wouldn't you want a stronger matchup against the decks that you will almost without a doubt have to face throughout a tournament, even if you have 4 weaker cards in the main in a few other matchups? Especially considering mono colored decks tend to fall into two matchup categories for MUC:

1. Opposing mono colored control decks. These are usually easy matchups because they tend to be focused on beating creatures and have an assload of dead cards against us (MBC, Rabid Wombat). After board they can side-out some of their creature removal for relevant cards, but by the same token we can lose B2B for anti-control stuff at that point as well, so you still have +EV.

2. Opposing mono colored aggro decks. These are usually poor matchups for draw/go. Suicide Black is a tough one, although you can still beat them with Shackles and Disk if you can resolve them, and the various Tomb Stompy decks can often prove too fast for the aforementioned answers. B2B isn't particularly great against Tomb based decks, but it can still be strong in limiting their ability to continue to churn out threats on a turn by turn basis (that's how I won game 2 against Dragon Stompy in TMLO).

Just about everything else that isn't a combo deck, which theoretically (although I must admit I haven't tested this much with draw/go) you should have a solid matchup against anyway, will be very vulnerable to B2B. I see no reason not to trade 4 weaker cards against the two previous categories of decks for a huge bomb against the best deck in the format (Threshold) and a variety of other builds you will almost definitely face over the course of a tournament.





What can I say to you Kadaj? You often make an appeal to raw experience with this deck. That isn't a bad argument at all, but the problem is that my experience shows very different conclusions from yours.

I have just as many (if not more) games recorded in our tables with MUC, including all the variants (although, I have fewer games played with Sower/Kira MUC). I'm drawing these conclusions from just as much testing and playtime as you. I say B2B isn't necessary in Draw/go, and you say it is the strongest card in Draw/go. An appeal to experience is probably not going to lead either one of us away from the conclusions we've drawn from our long-time testing of the deck.

I have no doubt you've played the deck a lot, perhaps even more than myself, I just find it weird that our experiences have been so diverging.





1.) It is not the case that 'every legitimate tournament metagame will have a minimum of 50% of decks that are extremely vulnerable to B2B.'

Either you arbitrarily define the word legitimate or you need to use a different word here. I'll definitely agree that for many players it is the case that 50%+ of the decks will be extremely vulnerable. But, it would be foolish to assume that it would be the case for all legitimate tournaments. The choice of B2B in the main of MUC will always be a metagame call.

2.) You and I clearly disagree about the degree of vulnerability to B2B of legitimate tournament decks. Just because you can hit non-basics doesn't make it worth playing in draw/go.

I'm slightly confused as to what you meant by point 2. Did you mean that just because you can hit non-basics, or something else?

Anyway, by legitimate I meant larger than say... 50 people. Or hell, even 30 people. Tournaments smaller than that have much more predictable, and perhaps unusual by overall standards, metagames. Larger sample sizes will almost invariably have more decks that are vulnerable to B2B. It's more or less a given fact due to the simple presence of duals and fetchlands in Legacy.





Do you mean "why play MUC without B2B in the main instead of Landstill?" or "why play MUC without B2B in the full 75 instead of Landstill?"

It would seem uncharitable to assume the second option because I believe you've taken the 20 seconds required to read what I've said several times, which is roughly "you must play 4x B2B in the 75 of any MUC deck."

The answers to the first option seems too obvious though (I don't wish to insult your intelligence). I'll clarify the question further for the sake of this discussion: "How could Draw/Go with B2B in the side be a better choice than Landstill?"

1.) Draw/Go's mana base is the most dependable in the game. It avoids a large portion of mana disruption, plays a good number of lands, rarely mulligans, and plays cantrips to boot. In a format that has a ton of mana disruption, playing MUC provides nearly immune tempo with virtual card advantage from some dead or less useful cards that otherwise would have been useful against Landstill.

2.) Straight blue will always have more control over the stack. Permission is the most important reason to play MUC, and Draw/Go has that in spades (another card game I supposed, hehe). We can play more of it, more often, and with greater consistency than other decks, including Landstill.

3.) Lastly, because Landstill can't play B2B at all? Draw/Go can choose to play it main or side, and frankly, it can still benefit from it when the game calls for it. This doesn't necessitate running it in the main, and it is a clear advantage over Landstill when Draw/Go w/B2B in the side goes to game 2 against certain decks.

I meant in the main, not overall. Sorry, I was unclear on that point.

Point 1 is the consistency versus power argument. In my case, I find that the power of draw/go without B2B is so weakened that its consistency doesn't make up for its overall deficiencies in dealing with a wide-variety of decks. For example, Dreadstill, which is extremely tough to beat even with B2B (I'm referring to the 3 color versions, the 2 color ones are a whole different animal), so I find it hard to believe that your larger amount of counterspells will be enough to beat a deck that is designed to beat control by simply forcing through a single threat and killing you with it.

Point 2 I disagree with because I've seen Landstill lists with as many as 12 or more counterspells, and/or other kinds of disruption like Thoughtseize of Counter/Top. I don't know if your specific list places Force Spike, but that's hardly a relevant mid to late game counterspell, and frankly even if it were, I'd trade 4 counterspells for 4 Deed any day of the week (in a vacuum, mind you, not if one deck had B2B and the other didn't, for example).

Point 3 I agree with totally, I just think it's an even larger advantage to be able to play it in the main, something I find it hard to believe you wouldn't want to take advantage of.



As for the Landstill vs. Draw/Go matchup:

There are many answers available to Draw/go against "Landstill's aggro-plan" besides Powder Keg (which doesn't even belong in Draw/go); you can afford to play man-lands yourself even.

The aggro-plan is hardly a major clock either. I couldn't be happier if they were stupid enough to tap out to swing at me. The aggro-plan isn't nearly as promising against Draw/Go because it has the easiest time of all the variants of gaining raw card advantage and winning counter wars.

When we goto game 2, and I board in 4x B2B's, they are in deep shit.

Landstill is not what I consider to be a bad matchup at all, even without Back to Basics. This is a favorable matchup, and Landstill players everywhere should shake in their boots against a competent Draw/Go player. Sure, this is a match that takes skill to play, but at equal skill, Draw/Go will be winning.

I think part of the problem is that you show a continual failure to consider the relevant role differences between Draw/go and other variations. Draw/go is the closest thing to a universal control deck that exists. It belongs in a different metagame than permanent-MUC and Sower/Kira MUC. It is stronger than other variants where stack control matters the most, where Disk is insane (a card you appear to undervalue in Draw/go), and is a stronger choice for diverse metagames. B2B is not a necessary card in the main, and it is not the reason to play Draw/Go.

peace,
4eak

I will pose the following argument: How relevant is it that you can control the stack when your opponent's threats are uncounterable? Seriously, your 14+ counterspells don't mean shit when your opponent can just repeatedly swing through with Mishra's factory and force you to answer it with your own limited answers, of which you have yet to name a specific one, while being in advantageous position because the defender is usually in a stronger position in a counter war.

I'm not saying that draw/go's Landstill matchup is poor. I'm saying it could be, and should be, better, and that playing B2B in the main would make it better.

And I'm well aware of the role differences between Draw/go and permanent based MUC. I'm also aware of the fact that certain metagames are far more conducive to specific types of MUC than others. Heck, that's why we have so many variants that can be successful in the first place. What I do not agree with is the idea that such a metagame would also be conducive to moving B2B to the side.

I also completely and totally disagree with the notion that draw/go is stronger in diverse metagames. Diverse metagames include aggro (i.e. Goblins) a poor matchup for draw/go, aggro-control decks like Dreadstill and Thresh that aren't exactly walks in the park, and other control decks that you should be able to handle fairly well, but that B2B is a huge help against. In specific instances where more control decks are expected, I completely agree that draw/go is the best option out of the MUC variants; I disagree that such a metagame would allow you to correctly move B2B to the sideboard.

[Doks]

I also completely and totally disagree with the notion that draw/go is stronger in diverse metagames. Diverse metagames include aggro (i.e. Goblins) a poor matchup for draw/go, aggro-control decks like Dreadstill and Thresh that aren't exactly walks in the park, and other control decks that you should be able to handle fairly well, but that B2B is a huge help against. In specific instances where more control decks are expected, I completely agree that draw/go is the best option out of the MUC variants; I disagree that such a metagame would allow you to correctly move B2B to the sideboard.


Are Goblins that much easier for the perm-based MUC? Sure, it has Propaganda, but besides that, all MUCs run the same solutions just like Powder Keg / EE / Shackles / B2B (relevant against the multicolour variants).
In addition, more a general note than specific for this MU, are Goblins still a really relevant metagame factor anymore? You often say we got to expect Goblins here and Goblins there. I don't know how exaclty the American metagame looks like (if there really is a significant number of Goblins still out there at average tournaments of 35+ people, ignore this part of my post), but everybody - including you - is pointing at the rising number of Landstills, new Thresh and mainly Dreadstill. With the exception of Landstill - which you say both MUCs have a good game against - these decks aren't that easy to handle, too, for perm-based MUC.



You say Thresh / Dreadstill doesn't lose to persmission after a threat resolves.

I claim that Thresh / Dreadstill doesn't die from having a clunky CC3 board control permanent thrown at their head from T3 on, either.



If the MUCs manage to reach the late game, they will probably win; they just differ in the ways how they reach it.


In short:

1. I haven't seen Goblins for ages.
2. I don't think that one or the other MUC is better in unknown metagames.
3. To quote 4eak:


I have just as many (if not more) games recorded in our tables with MUC, including all the variants (although, I have fewer games played with Sower/Kira MUC). I'm drawing these conclusions from just as much testing and playtime as you. I say B2B isn't necessary in Draw/go, and you say it is the strongest card in Draw/go. An appeal to experience is probably not going to lead either one of us away from the conclusions we've drawn from our long-time testing of the deck.



Have a nice day,

Doks

[Arsenal]

One resolved Propaganda is a major pain for Thresh. True, they can usually push through one Goyf, but that's it, and it disables them from playing their numerous mainphase cantrips (Predict, Ponder) or leaving mana open for eot tricks (Top, Brainstorm). Just wanted to throw that out there.

[Kadaj]

Are Goblins that much easier for the perm-based MUC? Sure, it has Propaganda, but besides that, all MUCs run the same solutions just like Powder Keg / EE / Shackles / B2B (relevant against the multicolour variants).
In addition, more a general note than specific for this MU, are Goblins still a really relevant metagame factor anymore? You often say we got to expect Goblins here and Goblins there. I don't know how exaclty the American metagame looks like (if there really is a significant number of Goblins still out there at average tournaments of 35+ people, ignore this part of my post), but everybody - including you - is pointing at the rising number of Landstills, new Thresh and mainly Dreadstill. With the exception of Landstill - which you say both MUCs have a good game against - these decks aren't that easy to handle, too, for perm-based MUC.

When using the word diverse metagame, I assume that to mean all sorts of decks will be common there. I was not referring to any specific metagame.

The major reason we're even having this argument is because recently posted draw/go builds have not been running the cards you cited. I believe this to be a mistake, hence the current debate.

Also, it is false to claim that perm-based MUC does not have a positive matchup against Thresh and Dreadstill. It does have a positive matchup thereof. Dominant? No, but better than 50/50. To be frank, well-built draw/go builds have similar strength against the aforementioned decks. I'm simply arguing that the recently posted builds lack the answers to the commonly seen threats in this format to be truly successful. Shackles is still very strong against Goyf and the like, but it is essentially useless against Dreadnaught. Disk is great against swarms of creatures, but once again, too slow against Dreadnaught and often Goyf as well.




You say Thresh / Dreadstill doesn't lose to persmission after a threat resolves.

I claim that Thresh / Dreadstill doesn't die from having a clunky CC3 board control permanent thrown at their head from T3 on, either.



If the MUCs manage to reach the late game, they will probably win; they just differ in the ways how they reach it.


In short:

1. I haven't seen Goblins for ages.
2. I don't think that one or the other MUC is better in unknown metagames.
3. To quote 4eak:




Have a nice day,

Doks

Ignorance does not make the truth go away, it only hides it.

Dreadstill does lose to stuff like Powder Keg, B2B, and Sower being thrown at it turn after turn. How do I know? Because I've played it numerous times and beaten it that way repeatedly. Thresh has the same problem; namely that the permission they expend just resolving a threat means that they tend to have no answer to the follow up board control. Especially when the board control cards usually end up being out of Counterbalance range (this is an advantage for all builds, not just my own).

Look, I'm not saying that draw/go is awful and totally inviable. Quite the opposite, I actually think it's going to get better and better as the metagame moves towards more controlling decks (i.e. stuff like Team America, Dreadstill, and Landstill). My only qualm with the current lists is that they fail to run the cards that give them crucial advantages in the aforementioned matchups.

Why not compromise between the two general ideas of MUC? Draw/go clearly has more controlling cards that are capable of making the list very hard to beat when playing against control, and my builds have more flexibility when facing creatures.

For example, what's wrong with this list, in the eyes of anyone who feels like commenting:

X24 Islands
X3 Back to Basics
X4 Force of Will
X4 Counterspell
X4 Force Spike
X3 Spell Snare
X3 Powder Keg
X1 Morphling
X1 Call the Sky Breaker
X4 Fact or Fiction
X2 Vedalken Shackles
X4 Think Twice
X3 Sower of Temptation

I readily admit I have not significantly tested this list, I simply feel it to be stronger than some of the other builds posted here. Feel free to refute me, diss me, or whatever you like. I merely think it stupid to not play some of the strongest cards available to the archtype.

[Soulles]

Looking at the list, few things didn't make sense to me.

Only 1 Moprhling and you replace the second one with Call of the Sky breaker?

Call of the skybreaker is a type 2 card or maybe worse.. A limited card (which is a huge bomb there). Do people realize that at turn 7, a Goyf is most likely being 5/6 or 6/7 ??

So what will a 5/5 do? Nothing.. Morphling can easyly untap > and be 0/8 to block with 7 or more lands.

Then you are vurnable to recurring EE. Even Back to basics won't stop 2 basics from tapping for an EE for 0.

Also, why would you run Think Twice? The way i see it, running 4 of them, forces you to reduce the business spells. Cutting down Think twice and increasing the number of Powder Keg, Shackles, Sower and Back to Basics is much better. It gives you a better chance of having them in hands and increasing the chance of top decking them.

. I used to do the same thing. Creating a deck and had to auto include, Brainstorms or Ponders or Impulse or whatever. Then i realize, hey wait a second. I can dig, but in order to do that, i have to reduce the amount of quality cards in my deck. Which sometimes is a major blow mid and late game.

I was first sceptic when i decided just to play FoF as draw engine. But in the tournaments i noticed it was just enough to do what i need. And that is sometimes refilling my hand or digging up the needed card in certain situations. Of cource it didn't always happen like that, but Magic is also a luck game.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Only 1 Moprhling and you replace the second one with Call of the Sky breaker?

Call of the skybreaker is a type 2 card or maybe worse.. A limited card (which is a huge bomb there). Do people realize that at turn 7, a Goyf is most likely being 5/6 or 6/7 ??

So what will a 5/5 do? Nothing.. Morphling can easyly untap > and be 0/8 to block with 7 or more lands.

You're expending seven, eight mana a turn to deal with a two mana threat? Are you seeing where maybe this is a bad argument?

Here's one. Cast one CtS. Take a hit from Tarmogoyf that you'd have to take with Morphling anyway because you don't have enough mana open to block. Next turn, instead of investing that mana in making a 0/8 wall, cast another CtS. Tarmogoyf attacks again.

Doubleblock.

ZOMG!

That's if you don't have any of the cards actually designed to deal with Tarmogoyf.

CtS is good because instead of spending seven mana the turn after you cast it to make it threatening, keeping one mana open to prevent losing your kill condition to removal, you can just ditch a land and make another threat. You don't have to worry about it being countered because who really cares? Cast it again later.

It's like you haven't even thought this one through, much less tested it.


Also, why would you run Think Twice? The way i see it, running 4 of them, forces you to reduce the business spells. Cutting down Think twice and increasing the number of Powder Keg, Shackles, Sower and Back to Basics is much better. It gives you a better chance of having them in hands and increasing the chance of top decking them.

Card advantage. The only way that he can run more Back to Basics, for instance, if you were familiar with the rules of deck construction in this Magical card game.


. I used to do the same thing. Creating a deck and had to auto include, Brainstorms or Ponders or Impulse or whatever. Then i realize, hey wait a second. I can dig, but in order to do that, i have to reduce the amount of quality cards in my deck. Which sometimes is a major blow mid and late game.

Your findings that card manipulation/advantage is bad is completely at odds with the consensus of every tournament winning magic player ever.


I was first sceptic when i decided just to play FoF as draw engine. But in the tournaments i noticed it was just enough to do what i need. And that is sometimes refilling my hand or digging up the needed card in certain situations. Of cource it didn't always happen like that, but Magic is also a luck game.

Which is why ancedata is of limited value, and deductive and inductive logic are both necessary for analyzing card choices.

Which goes to the argument you were making, Kadaj; Simply put, while testing may show that not being able to handle turn 2 Jrednot-Stifle with FoW backup on the draw is a huge liability, I know for a factually factual fact that it's not. God-hands happen. Especially in control, especially in this deck, I feel you need to take the long view. An inability to handle busted starts is better than vulnerability in the late game, where you want to dominate, not fumble around for a kill condition or a relevant answer to recurring threats.

[Kadaj]

Which goes to the argument you were making, Kadaj; Simply put, while testing may show that not being able to handle turn 2 Jrednot-Stifle with FoW backup on the draw is a huge liability, I know for a factually factual fact that it's not. God-hands happen. Especially in control, especially in this deck, I feel you need to take the long view. An inability to handle busted starts is better than vulnerability in the late game, where you want to dominate, not fumble around for a kill condition or a relevant answer to recurring threats.

IBA, I essentially agree with everything you said that was addressed to Soulles, so I won't bother repeating them.

I would like to point out that the main reason I was arguing about turn 2 Dreadnaught was because I found that I was able to not only deal with their god-hands, but I was also able to maintain my dominance of the late game. If I had to sacrifice one for the other, I would completely and utterly agree that scooping up to god-hands and beating anything short of them is the correct decision (if not largely the only possible decision in most cases). However, I saw no reason not to do both when it became clear that it was possible to do so.

I used to have a quote by you about control decks that couldn't dominate the late-game being failures as my signature, and I still completely agree with that statement.

At any rate, I am curious about what you think of the list I posted. Assuming you didn't want to completely change the idea, what do you think should be adjusted with it?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The draw engine seems fine; I'm still leaning towards trying out Whispers some more, but I'm also aware that I'm very nostalgic about that card. I think 3/3 is the right combination for Spell Snare and Force Spike, though. Maindeck B2B is meh, in my opinion, but we've been over that point and it's at least somewhat metagame dependent.

I don't think it makes sense to run Sower before you're running 4x Shackles. Shackles is far and away the best permanent that MUC can run, in my opinion. B2B is far more hit and miss and often less game breaking. But then most of the people I play with make themselves less Wasteland vulnerable as a rule.

I don't like the 1x Morphling, because, really, you should have something else to do with all that mana. I see the value in running multiple kill conditions, but I'd rather... I don't know... a one of Guile, to be honest, which you don't have to worry about dying or being countered quite as much, and which doesn't require a million mana a turn to be an evasive threat. Jace or even Tezzeret if you're not going to worry as much about blocking with it. Morphling is so massively high maintenance. It's a fantastic blocker, but at that stage in the game you shouldn't be worrying about weenies. Shackles fulfills that role much better. Being vulnerable to other control or aggro-control decks is a larger liability, in my experience. Cunning Wish is another interesting choice, especially if you maindeck B2B, that also gives you access to Brain Freeze, another FoF, Capsize and Spell Burst.

I think you do need Disk, though. It's just a much better Wrath than Keg is. Maybe you can fit in both somehow, but Disk's ability to nuke varied CC creatures and their Equipement or supporting permanents is pretty highly desirable.

[Anusien]

How often does Call the Skybreaker double-blocking Tarmogoyf get wrecked by Swords to Plowshares?

Since you're running 3 and possibly 4 Force Spike, was Gemstone Caverns ever considered?

[Kadaj]

I agree for the most part, with the exception of the fact that I'm obviously adamant about MDing B2B and Disk isn't exactly synergetic with that idea. However, for the purpose of this exercise, I'm going to go along with your suggestions.

At any rate, I would make the following changes based on your suggestions:

-1 Spell Snare
-3 Sower of Temptation
-1 Morphling
-3 Back To Basics
-3 Powder Keg
+4 Nevinyrral's Disk
+2 Vedalken Shackles
+2 Cunning Wish
+1 Tezzeret The Seeker/Jace Beleren
+1 Call The Skybreaker
+1 Guile


Why the Guile? Because I don't want to scoop to single Extirpate on CtS. That and it recurs itself. Cunning Wish... well honestly, I don't know how good it is, but having access to late game bombs and utility spells seems extremely important without B2B, especially against opposing aggro.

Tezzeret and Jace I'm obviously not sure about. Tezzeret is much more flexible in terms of being able to tutor for Shackles, Disk, or whatever else you might have in the SB. It also has the added benefit of actually being able to make Disk reusable through a Stifle effect, which might be a narrow effect but could still be relevant. Jace, on the other hand, obviously creates much rawer card advantage and is cheaper. I'm leaning towards Jace due to the cheapness factor, but perhaps Tezzeret's tutoring ability is more relevant?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I might cut the Planeswalker slot entirely for another Guile or Wish. Then you have to figure out the sideboard. 4x B2B is mandatory, and I think 4x Crypt should be there as well, so that leaves 7 slots for Wish targets. My thoughts are;

1x Brain Freeze
1x Capsize
1x Spell Burst
1x Echoing Truth
1x Stroke of Genius

And here I'm running out of ideas. Spelljack for a late game bomb? Evacuate? Cryptic Command? Force Spike just to have the option of a counter of sorts fetchable on turn 4? Misdirection?

[Shawon]

If you're not running 4 MD Whispers, maybe one Whisper in the Wishboard.

Wouldn't Commandeer be better than Spelljack, since you can pull some crazy tactics by freecasting COmmandeer?

This might be unnecessary, but I'm just going to throw Dominate there as well.

[4eak]

@ Kadaj


I have never, ever, seen or heard of a larger tournament that did not have a large amount of Threshold, Landstill, and other poly-chromatic decks being played.

Your problem here is two-fold:

1.) Just because you haven't seen tournaments without "large amounts" of Thresh/Landstill doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't legit. Large amounts, of course, is not very specific either. Metagames vary, and the use of B2B should vary too.

2.) Poly-Chromatic decks are affected by B2B differently. Many of them are barely affected by B2B. Just because they play non-basics does not mean B2B merits play. Threshold and Landstill must untap over and over, and this is why B2B is particularly effective against them. Other Poly-Chromatic decks aren't as devastated.



Opposing mono colored control decks

Opposing control decks have to be beaten quickly, and that is easier said than done. You only have 50 minutes, and so every advantage you have matters. This includes running useful cards in the main instead of B2B, especially since you may not get to game 3. For example, I run up against the MUC mirror often enough (a delicious match too!). Mono-Color control decks are easy to mirror-ish if you have no time limits, but with time limits you need to be changing the tide earlier. Playing B2B in the side is very relevant in a control-heavy metagame.


Opposing mono colored aggro decks.

Sui, elves, check Establish Deck Forum, etc. These aren't necessarily easy matches. I consider Landstill to be much more favorable than some of these matches, and in metagames where I expect both, I want to build decks that can compete against both. Landstill will always be a positive matchup whether B2B is in side or main, but many of the Established Decks require B2B in the side to make sure I have a good game 1.

Combo:

I must run up against combo more than you. B2B does not do much to combo and aggro-combo decks regardless of the chromaticity. Playing Draw/go with B2B in the side, as opposed to the main or just playing other variants, gives me stronger matchups in this regard as well.


You and I clearly disagree about the degree of vulnerability to B2B of legitimate tournament decks. Just because you can hit non-basics doesn't make it worth playing in draw/go.

I'll clarify:

How effective will B2B be against each legitimate tournament deck? You seem to think it is much higher than I do. You've explained that against poly-chromatic decks B2B is a stronger choice than any other card that it would replace. You assume that the sum of all tournament decks have an exceptionally high degree of vulnerability to B2B. I disagree.

Threshold and Landstill are perfect examples of decks that are destroyed by B2B. But, there are many tournament decks, even those with non-basics, that aren't effected to the same degree by B2B. In many cases I'd much rather play other cards than B2B. This is my point: We disagree of the strength of B2B against the format.

Just because a deck plays non-basics doesn't mean we should play B2B against it. Take Affinity or TES or Stompy.dec, etc. none of these would merit B2B in the main. In fact, they all suggest running a stronger permission and cantrip base.


Point 1 is the consistency versus power argument.

Consistency is the power of MUC. MUC is a true control deck, and control decks win through inevitability, not flashy answers to God hands of T2 Stifle=>Nought.

A solid mana base is a very strong reason to play MUC instead of Landstill in a format with tons of mana disruption.


Point 2 I disagree with because I've seen Landstill lists with as many as 12 or more counterspells

This is a terrible argument. Draw/go always has way more control over the stack than a deck like Landstill. Landstill averages 7-8 counters (3 of which are usually Spell Snare).


How relevant is it that you can control the stack when your opponent's threats are uncounterable? Seriously, your 14+ counterspells don't mean shit when your opponent can just repeatedly swing through with Mishra's factory and force you to answer it with your own limited answers, of which you have yet to name a specific one, while being in advantageous position because the defender is usually in a stronger position in a counter war.

How often do you actually test the Draw/Go vs. Landstill matchup? Control of the stack is the reason Draw/go is so much better against Landstill than permanent-MUC lists. Don't you realize this?

How do you not understand that when Landstill mistakenly taps out in the main phase to swing at me that I have the advantage? It means I resolve FoF/Shackles/Disk. If Landstill tries to put up early pressure, then I resolve bombs and win Card advantage wars. If they wait, then I will muscle them out with my permission.

You continue to bring up Mishra's Factory as both unanswerable and as some sort of devastating clock that somehow obsoletes the card advantage race (which is the real war in any control matchup). Draw/Go can push the card advantage game much harder than other variants, and Landstill cannot keep up with our permission. By the time Mishra's becomes lethal we have already put ourselves in the game winning card advantage position.

In addition, if you've taken the time to read my posts, then you'd know I run Mishra's in my main (and the arguments concerning the card has already been stated in both MUC threads). The game is much harder for Landstill to win against a properly built version of Draw/go.


I'm not saying that draw/go's Landstill matchup is poor. I'm saying it could be, and should be, better, and that playing B2B in the main would make it better.

Well, 'here's your problem':

It doesn't have to be a better match, and it shouldn't be made better with B2B in the main if the rest of the metagame would dictate that we shouldn't.

B2B is not necessary in the main to have a strong Landstill matchup. Conversely, there are many decks in which it is necessary for B2B to be in the side, as opposed to the main, so that I can run cards that give me a good shot against them.


I also completely and totally disagree with the notion that draw/go is stronger in diverse metagames.

Again, anecdotal arguments from both us. I think permanent-MUC and Kira/Sower MUC have much stricter metagame requirements to attain viability.

For the record:

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/Efreet/Morphling

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

I'll be happy to answer questions, especially if I haven't already answered them in previous posts. It doesn't play with immunity, but it plays with flexibility and consistency.





peace,
4eak

[Jason]

I don't think it makes sense to run Sower before you're running 4x Shackles. Shackles is far and away the best permanent that MUC can run, in my opinion. B2B is far more hit and miss and often less game breaking. But then most of the people I play with make themselves less Wasteland vulnerable as a rule.

I don't like the 1x Morphling, because, really, you should have something else to do with all that mana. I see the value in running multiple kill conditions, but I'd rather... I don't know... a one of Guile, to be honest, which you don't have to worry about dying or being countered quite as much, and which doesn't require a million mana a turn to be an evasive threat. Jace or even Tezzeret if you're not going to worry as much about blocking with it. Morphling is so massively high maintenance. It's a fantastic blocker, but at that stage in the game you shouldn't be worrying about weenies. Shackles fulfills that role much better. Being vulnerable to other control or aggro-control decks is a larger liability, in my experience. Cunning Wish is another interesting choice, especially if you maindeck B2B, that also gives you access to Brain Freeze, another FoF, Capsize and Spell Burst.


I agree Shackles is greater than Sower. Shackles is a bomb. Game 1, it is more likely to be better than Sower. Sower is open for creature hate which almost every deck has - Snuff Out, Swords to Plowshares, etc.; whereas, Shackles is a powerhouse until Krosan Grip is boarded in. (and let's face it, unless you are playing the mirror, Krosan Grip will probably be boarded in) Why not play 2 Sower with the 4 Shackles, either main deck or sideboard?

Your comment about being less-Wasteland vulnerable is a valid point. The first tournament I played at with Mono-Blue had players who didn't care about Wasteland and had decks packed with non-basics, but they certainly were annoyed by Back to Basics. I think it's because Wasteland only hits one land (which is annoying - don't get me wrong), but it is just a 1 for 1. Back to Basics was at least a 3 or 4 to 1 every time I played it. Now, people I play against tend to try and run more and more basic lands just to get around this card. I believe it hurts the quality of their decks (and thus improves my matchup), but it is an interesting point you make nonetheless.

I agree Morphling is high maintenace, but along with Guile, Rainbow Efreet could be viable...they both are immune to wrath effects. The only difference is with Guile you don't have to worry about it being countered, but with Rainbow Efreet, you can keep the beating on after a Wrath of God / blown up Deed and not give your opponent any chance to recover. I'm not sure, but I think Guile is a solid choice and worthy of testing by my part.

[Kadaj]

@4eak:

I'm about to go to school, so I have to make this brief. Basically, I'm starting to doubt whether you've ever actually tested one of my lists against Landstill. It's harder to lose than it is to win against the average Landstill build with my most recent build, and claiming that draw/go's matchup is "so much better" seems a bit ludicrous when I've consistently managed to claim 8 to 9 out of 10 games in my more recent testing sets.

Also, I don't know what kind of Landstill lists show up in your meta, but the ones I run into usually play 10 counters at minimum, 8 of which are always Force and Counterspell. Some even have Counter/top on top of 8 counterspells.

The reason I kept harping on Mishra's Factory was two-fold:

A. I was not aware that you play Factory yourself. This seems extremely... Odd. Not necessarily bad. Just odd. Why not just play mono blue landstill then?

B. Because you don't have to tap out to swing with Factory. Usually quite the opposite towards the later part of the game, and the card advantage war becomes largely irrelevant when your cards are all dead in attempting to deal with the threat at hand. However, because I wasn't aware of the specifics of your list, this argument is less valid in general considering you run Factory yourself.

I will respond further when I get back from class.

[4eak]

@ Kadaj


Basically, I'm starting to doubt whether you've ever actually tested one of my lists against Landstill. It's harder to lose than it is to win against the average Landstill build with my most recent build, and claiming that draw/go's matchup is "so much better" seems a bit ludicrous when I've consistently managed to claim 8 to 9 out of 10 games in my more recent testing sets.

I didn't say that permanent-MUC had a bad game against Landstill. I hope you don't think I implied it. What I meant to say was that Draw/Go variants have a better game against Landstill in virtue of their dominance over the stack.

Both of us know that Draw/Go has a better match against Landstill than permanent-MUC. You've said it yourself twice in this thread (including your opening post). It is a match I expect to win with both variants (and so do you), but the highest percentage of wins still belongs to Draw/go.

B2B isn't necessary in the main to win the Landstill match. Our database shows only a handful of losses against Landstill when I'm piloting MUC. I don't need a sledgehammer (B2B) to win this match. Draw/Go's game is strong enough that it can even forego the use of B2B in the main and still have overwhelming odds to win against Landstill.


Also, I don't know what kind of Landstill lists show up in your meta, but the ones I run into usually play 10 counters at minimum, 8 of which are always Force and Counterspell. Some even have Counter/top on top of 8 counterspells.

While I'm not so concerned with tournament data as some, I do study it and use many in our gauntlet. Deckcheck.net shows closer to average of 8. I play Landstill with FoW/Counter, but not everyone else does. Landstill is notorious for its many variants and diversity. I would not be surprised to see 12 counters in Landstill, but I know the average is much more like 8.


A. I was not aware that you play Factory yourself. This seems extremely... Odd. Not necessarily bad. Just odd. Why not just play mono blue landstill then?

I don't think Man-Lands are odd in MUC. They might be forgotten and less played, but they are still a very reasonable choice (not "extremely odd" by any stretch).

As to the MULandstill question, what I take your question to be is: why not play Standstill? Here are the serious reasons:

1.) Standstill isn't an instant, and draw/go requires that mana to be open.
2.) Standstill doesn't guarantee that I dig right now. Draw/go needs to dig immediately.
3.) Draw/go isn't in the aggro-role early enough to play standstill. It plays card-draw in this slot to go find an answer.


B. Because you don't have to tap out to swing with Factory. Usually quite the opposite towards the later part of the game, and the card advantage war becomes largely irrelevant when your cards are all dead in attempting to deal with the threat at hand. However, because I wasn't aware of the specifics of your list, this argument is less valid in general considering you run Factory yourself.

I think you continue to do a disservice to the value of card advantage in the Draw/Go vs. Landstill matchup. Even without B2B or Mishra's in the main, I still go 50/50 with the most popular builds of Landstill. I will often have more cards, more permission, and more land to tap to play spells than my Landstill opponent. This translates into resolving a Disk or Shackles, which is a serious problem for Landstill. After you establish control because you've negated the value of board control cards in their hands, then you can leverage your card advantage safely to push through and protect your win conditions. I don't expect to win quickly, but it is a match that is very winnable.



peace,
4eak

[Hoojo]

And here I'm running out of ideas. Spelljack for a late game bomb? Evacuate? Cryptic Command? Force Spike just to have the option of a counter of sorts fetchable on turn 4? Misdirection?

What about Time Stop? It's expensive, but versatile. It can function as a Time Walk, a counterwar winner, and stops combo dead, though that last point is probably meaningless.

[mans0011]

What about Time Stop? It's expensive, but versatile. It can function as a Time Walk, a counterwar winner, and stops combo dead, though that last point is probably meaningless.

Yeah... I thought that tradition holds (in the rock<-paper<-scissors analogy) that Control > Combo > Aggro.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I'd rather have a counter that Wishable + castable; the late game bombs to grab are already Spell Burst and Capsize and either 1-of FoF or Stroke of Genius. Maybe Cryptic Command, which is also versatile but slightly cheaper.

Also, Stifle needs to go there, I don't know how I missed that. So I'm thinking;

- Capsize
- Spell Burst
- Some big draw
- Echoing Truth
- Commandeer
- Stifle
- Force Spike
- Brain Freeze

(8th target means cutting Crypt or B2B to a 3-of. Or I could cut Force Spike)

[Kadaj]

For big draw I'm tempted to say I would run Opportunity. Largely because I've been looking for an opportunity to play that card somewhere for approximately over nine-thousand years.

I'm thinking:

X4 B2B
X3 Tormod's Crypt
X1 Stifle
X1 Opportunity
X1 Commandeer
X1 Echoing Truth
X1 Brain Freeze
X1 Spell Burst
X1 Capsize
X1 Force Spike

For the board, which leaves us something like this for a maindeck:

X24 Islands
X4 Nevinrryal's Disk
X4 Vedalken Shackles
X4 Force of Will
X4 Counterspell
X3 Force Spike
X3 Spell Snare
X4 Fact or Fiction
X4 Think Twice
X3 Cunning Wish
X1 Call The Skybreaker
X1 Guile
X1 Morphling (Consider my concession to myself, you can run whatever you prefer here)

The one thing I don't like is the 24 lands, but I can also see how with Think Twice and plenty of counterspells that the 25th might not be necessary. I still hate the fact that this deck really wants to run 24.5 lands; Ah the laws of MtG deck construction, how you haunt me so.

At any rate, it seems like an interesting list in a variety of ways, and I look forward to testing it, especially against Thresh and Dreadstill. Any further suggestions would be welcome; I'm essentially treating this list as a community 'project' as it were, so all input would be nice.

@4eak

My major bone was that you seemed to be implying that perm-based MUC's landstill matchup is weak. Since this was clearly an error on my part, a large degree of my confusion is gone. At any rate, the only reason I used the word odd was becuase I hadn't thought to use Mishra's Factory myself at any point when I was building draw/go, nor had I seen it used in the past. They might not seem odd to you, but without any precedent with which to have considered them, it seemed odd to me.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This is basically the list I'm testing, with -1 maindeck FoF for the fourth in the Wish card-draw slot, - Guile/Morphling, and +1 CtS and +2 Jace. I'm not sure if that's better or not, I'm just trying out Jace to provide earlyish card draw and to supplement Wish-Brain Freeze as an alternate win. Although that might end up being too clunky; some testing is necessary here.

[Jason]

I'm thinking:

X4 B2B
X3 Tormod's Crypt
X1 Stifle
X1 Opportunity
X1 Commandeer
X1 Echoing Truth
X1 Brain Freeze
X1 Spell Burst
X1 Capsize
X1 Force Spike

For the board, which leaves us something like this for a maindeck:

X24 Islands
X4 Nevinrryal's Disk
X4 Vedalken Shackles
X4 Force of Will
X4 Counterspell
X3 Force Spike
X3 Spell Snare
X4 Fact or Fiction
X4 Think Twice
X3 Cunning Wish
X1 Call The Skybreaker
X1 Guile
X1 Morphling (Consider my concession to myself, you can run whatever you prefer here)


In particular, let me know how you find Force Spike. Every time I run it, it is less than optimal. I rarely see it in my opening hand; when I do, my opponent passes the turn and I am usually playing against a control deck. It feels that I always draw it late game, so I'd rather just see Mana Leak.

[Tao]

What I don't like:

I still don't see what's the problem with Morphling. I only suggested CtS as a possible alternative second win condition for the control matchup. I would still play 2 Morphling as the main win condition. I especially see no, absolutely no, reason to play Guile over Morphling.

Another problem with your list is that it just loses against any kind of graveyard recursion. IBA, your list has no plan against Academy Ruins/ Explosives and Genesis or Stronghold also seem to be a problem.

I am strictly against Cunning Wish. Cunning Wish gives the deck some more lategame power but the price paid for it is too high. The deck gets even slower with it which will be a problem when paired against Goyf Sligh, Gobs or Aggro Loam. The next problem is that you have to remove important SB slots for the Wish targets. Propagandas are essential in G2 to stand a chance against Goblins or Ichorid, Blue Blasts are the same for the Goyf Sligh/ Burn / Goblin matchup. No boarding against Goblins? No Boarding against Goyf Sligh? Just 3 Crypt against Ichorid? To me it looks like you accept to just sign the 0-2 slip if you get paired against them.


What I like:

24 Island
4 Shackles
4 Disk
4 Counterspell
4 FoW
3 Spell Snare
3 Force Spike
2 Morphling
3-4 Think Twice

These 52 cards I like. This base was extremely solid in testing and while experimenting with the deck I will not touch any of these numbers. I never felt like I wanted less of any of these cards and they feel right. The last 8 slots should include a)some Bounce (C Command, Repeal or Capsize), b) a 3rd Win Condition (CtS, Tezzeret) and c) another draw spell.

Currently I try this configuration:
1 Tezzeret
2-3 Relic of Progenitus
3 Thirst for Knowledge
2 Repeal

Relic fits really nicely into the deck. You can't play CtS with it anymore but it serves multiple functions: Discard to TfK, Recursion Control, Cycling, Keeping Goyfs and Geese really small and beating with Tezzeret.
My SB looks like this:
4 Propaganda
4 B2B
2 Jace
3 Blue Blast
2 Tormod's Crypt



In particular, let me know how you find Force Spike. Every time I run it, it is less than optimal. I rarely see it in my opening hand; when I do, my opponent passes the turn and I am usually playing against a control deck. It feels that I always draw it late game, so I'd rather just see Mana Leak.

Force Spike was great for me. MUC needs something to do on Turn 1, especially when on the draw or when on the play against Vial. And from time time you can even cast it in the control mirror in a counter war.

[Jason]

What I don't like:

I still don't see what's the problem with Morphling. I only suggested CtS as a possible alternative second win condition for the control matchup. I would still play 2 Morphling as the main win condition. I especially see no, absolutely no, reason to play Guile over Morphling.


The problem I always have with Morphling is when playing a control deck, they are going to keep in Wrath of God for 2x Morphling and the control deck is also going to attempt to counter Morphling. Now I have to waste a counter to force through Superman, only to have it Wrath'ed away. That counter could have been used for good (like countering Humility). With Guile, shenanigans like that cannot happen. Guile doesn't go away to Wrath of God or Pernicious Deed; you also don't have to worry about Guile being countered because it will be back later. That is only a problem when you are on the defensive and attempting to cast Morphling as a last ditch effort. If your last hope is countered, you probably lose the game either way - Guile or Morphling.

By splitting the wins 1 Morphling / 1 Guile, you have now forced your opponent to make a decision as to what is more important to be able to kill and stay dead: Morphling with Wrath of God or Guile with Swords to Plowshares. Granted the Call the Skybreaker token dies to both, but that one keeps coming back regardless.

I'm basically saying the only reason Guile would be less than good would be if your opponent keeps in Swords to Plowshares. And if your opponent is keeping in Swords to Plowshares for 1 card and not keeping Wrath for Superman, then I think you should be winning this game.

[Kadaj]

Tao, I'm sure you've answered this before, but why is it that you're so dead set against Fact or Fiction? As far as I'm aware, you're the only person adamantly against it who regularly posted in this thread, and I'd like to know why. For me, the card is completely irreplaceable. For you, it seems like you go to great pains not to play it. I understand that 4 mana isn't cheap, but I've never once had trouble playing the card, and if you can't get to 4 mana consistently then you weren't winning anyway. Nothing provides card advantage like Fact, and being able to chain them together makes it completely untouchable in my eyes. I really think if your reason is curve than you should just try it anyway; You'll be surprised how little it's 4cc actually matters.

Repeal at least I can understand given that it gives you some flexibility in actually dealing with troublesome permanents, whereas Relic just sort of handles recursion, something that you should more or less be able to either plow through or ignore. Sure the list has no direct answer to Life from the Loam, but you can more or less just let Loam resolve and deal with the threats they attempt to play, like Seismic Assault or Goyf. Loam itself is often a red-herring in that matchup.

I will readily admit that the board is not designed to prepare for matchups like Goblins or Ichorid, and for the most part Goyf Sligh as well. You probably won't be winning against Goyf Sligh or Ichorid much anyway, even if you do actually SB for them, so I tend to just ignore those matchups. Not enough people play them in my metagame to be relevant (although I have a curse upon me that I inevitably get paired with the one schmuck playing Ichorid at every tournament I attend but don't have a SB aimed at it), so I'd rather have the flexibility of Cunning Wish, at least in that particular list. I usually don't like Wish, but without B2B main I think having readily available answers to a variety of problems is going to be crucial, considering you can't just shut them out of the game on turn 3 in some cases.

[KillemallCFH]

This is basically the list I'm testing, with -1 maindeck FoF for the fourth in the Wish card-draw slot, - Guile/Morphling, and +1 CtS and +2 Jace. I'm not sure if that's better or not, I'm just trying out Jace to provide earlyish card draw and to supplement Wish-Brain Freeze as an alternate win. Although that might end up being too clunky; some testing is necessary here.I've tested Jace before (albiet in a much different build), and am pretty ambivalent on it. It is pretty damn hard to lose the control mirror if Jace lands. On the other hand, he's pretty awful against Aggro without StP or Deed to back him up. Then again, the combination of 1cc counters and Shackles/Nevvy's Disk might be enough to protect him to a reasonable degree, at which point he is a fantastic draw engine.

Also, I don't quite understand why Rainbow Efreet isn't being played as a wincon anymore. Whenever I tested MUC I found his ability to dodge mass removal more relevant than Morphling's ability to end the game (on average) 2 turns faster. Especially in a list with 4 Disks, Efreet seems preferred. (Yeah, I know, there shouldn't be a situation in which you have a Morphling on the board and have to Disk, but shit happens and sometimes you need a reset button. It's nice to have your wincon live through that.)

[Arsenal]

I've tested Jace before (albiet in a much different build), and am pretty ambivalent on it. It is pretty damn hard to lose the control mirror if Jace lands. On the other hand, he's pretty awful against Aggro without StP or Deed to back him up. Then again, the combination of 1cc counters and Shackles/Nevvy's Disk might be enough to protect him to a reasonable degree, at which point he is a fantastic draw engine.

Also, I don't quite understand why Rainbow Efreet isn't being played as a wincon anymore. Whenever I tested MUC I found his ability to dodge mass removal more relevant than Morphling's ability to end the game (on average) 2 turns faster. Especially in a list with 4 Disks, Efreet seems preferred. (Yeah, I know, there shouldn't be a situation in which you have a Morphling on the board and have to Disk, but shit happens and sometimes you need a reset button. It's nice to have your wincon live through that.)

I play 1 Morphling, 1 Rainbow Efreet, and 2 Jace Beleren in my permanent-based build. I've been quite happy with this win condition config (although, I have yet to use Jace's mega ability, so I guess I can't count him) in my meta.

[Tao]

I will readily admit that the board is not designed to prepare for matchups like Goblins or Ichorid, and for the most part Goyf Sligh as well. You probably won't be winning against Goyf Sligh or Ichorid much anyway, even if you do actually SB for them, so I tend to just ignore those matchups.

Of course you can beat these decks with a proper SB. With any 2/3 combination of Crypt, Propaganda and FoW you have solid chances to beat Ichorid. With many fast counters plus U Blasts you have a good chance to blow a Disk against Goblins followed by Shackles. And if you can stabilize against Goyf Sligh on ~7 life you should be able to win by countering their drawn burn spells.



something that you should more or less be able to either plow through or ignore. Sure the list has no direct answer to Life from the Loam, but you can more or less just let Loam resolve and deal with the threats they attempt to play, like Seismic Assault or Goyf. Loam itself is often a red-herring in that matchup.

Against Landstill or TheFear you cannot win G1 without either yard hate or B2B because of Academy Ruins (and Volrath's Stronghold). They can recur Explosives or Witnesses until you are out of cards. It would be no good idea to ignore the 3 most popular aggro decks and then autoloss G1 against the 2 most popular control decks.



Tao, I'm sure you've answered this before, but why is it that you're so dead set against Fact or Fiction?

I juts don't think it is that good in a deck without real bombs. While UW/Landstill can Fact for the game saving Moat Mono U does not run such cards. MonoU wants pure card advantage and imo TfK does that as well and cheaper. But I admit that I am a bit biased against FoF and it very well may be the right choice.
So another option for the last 9 cards (with 3 Think Twice) could be 3 Fact, 1 Call the Skybreaker, 2 Repeal and 3 Back to Basics (I see nothing I could cut for the 4th Fact, I think two bounce spells are a minimum to fight Needle and things against which Disk is too slow).

[kensook]

I feel like Force Spike in the Sideboard for a wishboard isn't really useful. Can we maybe try Annul?

[Illissius]

Sower: I like 4 Shackles maindeck, 4 Sowers in the side. Your opponent takes out StPs for Grips, you bring in Sowers, they cry. (This said, it could be worth maindecking nonetheless (in addition to Shackles), because oftentimes if you can counter that one Swords, you win the game; so that might be Good Enough.)

Back to Basics: Keep in mind that while a whole lot of decks are multicolor, there are a bunch of multicolor Threshold builds running around which use Back to Basics in the maindeck themselves -- not to mention the UGR variants with Moon effects, and all the other versions which could run these cards but don't.

Cunning Wish: This seems cumbersome to me. Why do we want it again? It's not like you can even get Pulse of the Fields, Extirpate, or Swords to Plowshares with it. It sounds to me like Cryptic Command would do much of what you want while being significantly less slow.

Guile: It's only less vulnerable to counterspells in the sense that if it's your last win condition, you don't need to protect it, unlike most other cards. Otherwise, it's still a 1-1 trade, and you still have to wait to draw it again. And on the other hand, it's 100% vulnerable to Swords to Plowshares. It looks to me like this is strictly inferior to Call the Skybreaker for the intended purpose (and it's not invulnerable to graveyard hate either -- the shuffling is a triggered ability, not a replacement effect). Extirpate on CtS seems like a way too narrow case to justify it (and only applies if CtS is your only other win condition). If you're that worried about Extirpate, I'd just put another win condition or two in the sideboard.

Random idea: sideboard Teferi for the control mirror? Again going for the they're-going-to-board-out-removal-so-why-not-screw-them angle.

[mackaber]

Tao, I'm sure you've answered this before, but why is it that you're so dead set against Fact or Fiction?

As far as I'm concerned fact is just too expensive. Nothing wrong with a resolved FoF really but I feel it's cost is prohibitive especially when you're running Disk as well. Against a lot of decs (read all non control decs) a starting hand with 2 four casting cost spells is just gonna be a mulligan. I might be exagerating here but I think FoFs overall accepptance in the format warrants the conclusion that it's too slow for legacy in comparison to other popular CA engines (Standstill, Intuition, Bob, Loam...).

This engine hasn't put me down btw, it's sleek yet powerful, and almost completly non situational, especially shining in the lategame. Kinda like Grow's cantrip suite on steroids:

2 intuition
3 Think Twice
4 AK

And the ability to tutor for bombs with intuition is just gravy.

[Tao]

.... whereas Relic just sort of handles recursion, something that you should more or less be able to either plow through or ignore...

Ok, sry for posting so much, but the more I think about of Relic of Progenitus in MUC the more I like the idea. Relic is an incredible powerful yard hoser. It's drawback is that it removes your own yard, too. MUC does not care about this drawback because MUC is the only control deck that does not abuse the graveyard. In our Goyf times removing the own yard is even a big advantage.

I started to play it as discard for TfK. Then I thought about the advantages of Relic and there were SO many. Here we go:

- AggroLoam: nuts: Terravore, Loam, Goyf
- Threshold: nuts, shrinking all their threats to miniature size
- Ichorid Combo:
- TES / ANT: nullifying IGG while Chanted and Duressed, keeping Cabal Ritual small
- Landstill: removing Academy Ruins engine, removing Mana engine (E. Dragon or Crucible/Fetchland)
- Survival: killing Survival Engine, Witnesses and Therapies, Shrinking Goyfs
- Team America: it is able to delay Tombstalker for several turns, shrinking Goyfs
- TheFear: Removing their engine, shrinking Goyfs

- Shrinking Goyfs in general (Goyfsligh, Dreadstill, Rock, all the matchups above) is so great: they attack for zero and you draw a card.

Plus it cycles in each other matchup for 1 and 1 Mana. So why in the world don't we play 4 of it?

[4eak]

In my testing, Think Twice has been lackluster. While I recognize the spell actually generates card advantage, it does so at the expense of what should normally be a raw digging spell like Brainstorm or Impulse. I understand the card has substance in the mid to late game, but that is only achieved by sacrificing the consistency and strength of early game filtering.

I highly suggest testing Brainstorm and Impulse in Draw/Go again. You need to give substantial justification for not playing these two spells--they are the staple in Draw/go.

If you are hellbent on running a card advantage spell, then please reconsider Think Twice for something like Thirst for Knowledge or even Flash of Insight as both of these spells offer excellent digging power and provide raw card advantage.

Flash of Insight is very interesting in that it can dig VERY deeply, and it costs roughly the same amount of mana as Think Twice. It scales with your mana supply, and it only gets better the longer the game goes.



peace,
4eak

[Shawon]

Isn't Impulse kinda bad in MUC? Putting cards you would've like to draw in the near future on the bottom of the library seems too relevant. Yeah, you could offset this with fetchlands, but either way, you can use a better digger in Ponder. Either way, if you want a digger use Brainstorm, but I don't think IMpulse is a staple in Draw-Go style MUC.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Brainstorm is terrible for the obvious reason that you have no way of shuffling it back, and can't do so without opening yourself up to some of the LD effects that make this manabase so resilient.

I've been quite happy with Think Twice. I don't know what to tell you.

Tao, the thing is you keep complaining about problems that are solved by C. Wish while wanting to remove C. Wish. C. Wish grabs your answers to late game threats that are otherwise recursively annoying, mainly in the form of Spell Burst or Capsize.

[jjjoness']

Brainstorm is terrible for the obvious reason that you have no way of shuffling it back, and can't do so without opening yourself up to some of the LD effects that make this manabase so resilient.

I've been quite happy with Think Twice. I don't know what to tell you.

Tao, the thing is you keep complaining about problems that are solved by C. Wish while wanting to remove C. Wish. C. Wish grabs your answers to late game threats that are otherwise recursively annoying, mainly in the form of Spell Burst or Capsize.

What do you guys think about splashing a color? I'm currently testing a MUC/w list with a manabase of:
16 Island
4 Flooded Strand
2 Polluted Delta
1 Tundra
1 Plains

With those fetches I'm playing Brainstorm and it's really good, but I'd never play it in a monocolored version. Ever.
This has been working out quite good for me, and Stifle hasn't really mattered since. The splash is mainly for Swords to Plowshares, but I also run a wishboard for the 4th Sword, Dismantling Blow and Enlightened Tutor. This has worked out quite good, but I somehow dislike the wishboard so I'll probably try and play without wishes.
I'm really really pleased with StPs, they are so incredibly good against almost all non-Combo decks. Especially in the Zoo/Gooyfsligh matchup it helps a lot. Stealing their creature to chumpblock, then StP the other is really cool and if you keep counters for burn the matchup becomes quite winable.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I dunno. TMLO had an awful lot of 4x Stifle/4x Wasteland/4x Daze. S'why I don't play Truffle Shuffle anymore. Goyf gives tempo-oriented strategies too much of an edge.

[4eak]

Cunning Wish is yet another card which I have tested (in this case very extensively), and I still have problems with it in MUC.

-The card is absolutely awful in the early and even mid-game. We already have a very strong mid and late game, so why not run cards that actually help us get to the mid and late game in the first place?
-Cunning Wish is very expensive to cast. That raw inefficiency is a problem, even for a deck that gets to untap so often.
-Cunning Wish belongs in a deck that needs silver-bullets. MUC is not a deck that needs silver-bullets because it plays a lot more like a universal control deck.
-If you have need for a spell so much that you'll play Cunning Wish for it, then you really need to work that well into the main deck.

I think Cunning Wish is a very powerful card. But, after a metric ton of testing, it is evident that the card does not merit play in MUC (even Draw/go).


@ Shawon


Isn't Impulse kinda bad in MUC? Putting cards you would've like to draw in the near future on the bottom of the library seems too relevant.

This is this equivalent of saying that milling 4 cards of your opponent's library countered those cards. Assuming you have redundancy in your deck, you aren't losing anything unique. Consider that sometimes you are actually digging through cards you didn't want to see in the first place as well. In a deck that is looking for a specific answer to an opponent, some cards will be much more valuable than others throughout the game, and thus cantrip and dig effects remain extremely valuable.

Impulse let's you see 4 cards for 2 mana at instant speed. This is very difficult to replace.


I don't think IMpulse is a staple in Draw-Go style MUC.

It is a staple. Go read on the history of the deck. Kadaj's opening post mentions it a few times too.


@ TheInfamousBearAssassin


Brainstorm is terrible for the obvious reason that you have no way of shuffling it back, and can't do so without opening yourself up to some of the LD effects that make this manabase so resilient.

Stifle is the only LD effect to be concerned about. Brainstorm will win you 10x the games you will ever lose to a Stifle on fetch.

If MUC played a good portion of non-basics, where waste+stifle actually did more, I could understand a reasonable hesitation to play the enormous 6 fetchlands in MUC.

If you fear a stifle, then play around it. There are a few cases where you cannot, but the odds of that occurring are quite rare. Generally speaking, you either crack the fetch when they tap out (because they know better than to wait you out), or 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.

-Brainstorm makes it so you mulligan a lot less (which is a form of card advantage in a stage of the game where we really need it)
-It gives you a higher chance to FoW on Turn 1
-Brainstorm is an effective card in the early game even without a shuffle effect as it stabilizes your hand and helps you make land drops at a critical time. Shuffling only becomes necessary in the mid and late game.
-Brainstorm can generate much stronger card advantage than Think Twice at a fraction of the cost, especially mid to late game.
-It remains stronger from T1 to T20 than any other card besides FoW.

Brainstorm is the glue of Legacy decks. Draw/Go is no exception.

If this was any other card, I'd gladly take weaker responses. I can better understand why permanent-MUC would consider not running the card (although, I'm still not convinced). But, Draw/Go is a different animal, and Brainstorm is nothing short of amazing in this deck.



I've been quite happy with Think Twice. I don't know what to tell you.

Have you thoroughly tested Brainstorm and Impulse? That would be one thing you could talk about.



peace,
4eak

[Tao]

@4eak: All the lists I played 3 month ago had Brainstorm / Explosives in it. But in the current Meta with Team America and Stiflenaughts everywhere I can't justify running them anymore. I don't play Impulse because the deck is already pretty slow and Impulse is slowing it down even further.

@IBA: You are overdoing the lategame thing. Cunning Wish is really horribly slow and basically a mulligan against aggressive strategies. And how is it handling the E. Explosives / A. Ruins problem? You mean you want to cast CtS in your turn for 7 by discarding a land and then cast Spell Burst for 4 (or 5-8 if they use Wasteland/Factory mana to increase the mana cost of E.Ex. for 0) and still be able to counter their counters? That's way too mana intensive imo.
And Wish is not only slow, it is also cramming your SB so that you can't play absolutely needed cards. No Propaganda in the SB? That's the best defence I can think of against decks that are swarming you (Icho, Goblins).


You all should really try Relic of Progenitus. It is doing something quite good nearly every game, and something really good in every 3rd or 4th. And when it is doing nothing (Goblins, Chalice Aggro, MUC - ANY other played deck where it is dead?) it is still cycling. It handles the recursion problem nicely, gives you advantages against decks that abuse the graveyard. But what makes it a must play is it's Goyf shrinking ability: every second or third game you play against Goyf and Relic acts like a cantrip moment's against them.

This is my current test list (had to remove the CtS because of Relic, but Tezzeret is doing the job just as well).

// Lands
24 [P2] Island (3)

// Creatures
2 [US] Morphling
1 [ALA] Tezzeret the Seeker

// Spells
4 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
4 [R] Nevinyrral's Disk
2 [GP] Repeal (Capsize)

4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [B] Counterspell
3 [DIS] Spell Snare
3 [LG] Force Spike

3 [ALA] Relic of Progenitus
3-4 [MR] Thirst for Knowledge
2-3 [IN] Fact or Fiction

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [US] Back to Basics
SB: 4 [TE] Propaganda
SB: 2 [LRW] Jace Beleren
SB: 0-2 Tormod's Crypt
SB: 0-3 Blue Elemental Blast
SB: 0-3 Stifle

[mackaber]

@4eak: Can't quite understand you honestly. Like when I first tried MUC in Legacy about a year ago I thought wtf no Brainstorms u got to be kidding me and so I packed BS and fetches into the dec and relied on FoF for the CA. But alll that ever gave me was a terrible dec that wanted to be treshhold but couldn't. Brainstorm is so good in decs it's good in because it shuffles away excess land. A treshhold dec curses every land beyond the third early game and it almost never wants to have more than 6 in play at the end of the game whereas MUC want's to hit it's landdrops until like land number 7 every turn to operate optimally. Thus a stifled land isn't just a land less it's making a formerly rather poor card in the MU a Timewalk. That's just horrible.

In many ways MUC is like the antithesis of the format and that's what makes it so efficient. It really does not need BS. And honestly Think Twice is nothing short of amazing in the dec.

[4eak]

@ Tao


All the lists I played 3 month ago had Brainstorm / Explosives in it. But in the current Meta with Team America and Stiflenaughts everywhere I can't justify running them anymore.

Well, I'm not advocating EE, just Brainstorm (and Disk). Do you find it difficult to play around Stifle? From my experience, the rewards for running Brainstorm in Draw/Go are fairly large, and even the losses incurred from a Stifle do not outweigh the benefits.

Stifle is amazing against decks with low land counts. It really isn't impressive against MUC because we play at least 24 lands. Combined with powerful digging effects, stifle is actually a wasted spell when used on a Fetch. Stifle should either be used to push out an early Dreadnought or counter a board controller activation.

Stifle just doesn't have the same impact on MUC because of our massive land count, excellent cantrip base (if you play brainstorm/impulse), and our ability to effectively play around Stifle.


I don't play Impulse because the deck is already pretty slow and Impulse is slowing it down even further.

Slow in what way?

Relic isn't even an instant (although, I realize you don't use it for its cantrip effect alone). This is clearly a metagame specific call as well. I wouldn't call it a normal card in the main (even if I play it in my side).

Thirst costs 1 more mana, and it digs one less. It does have the ability to generate raw card advantage, but that isn't so difficult to do in a deck that already has FoF/Shackles/Disk. What is most ironic is that in order to generate raw card advantage from TfK it requires you to pitch your Artifact Board controllers that you were probably digging to find in the first place.

I really only prefer TfK in MUC decks with cards like Chrome Mox and Chalice.


@ mackaber


Can't quite understand you honestly.

What exactly don't you understand?


relied on FoF for the CA

Surely you have considered the other card advantage engines in Draw/Go and didn't just rely upon FoF.

Don't forget Shackles and Disk, which offer board control and card advantage.

Also, played correctly, Brainstorm generates card advantage as well. Not only does it replace less useful cards in your hand and shuffle them away, but it is a vital link in the chain of FoF's for this deck.


But alll that ever gave me was a terrible dec that wanted to be treshhold but couldn't.

Perhaps the rest of your deck wasn't built correctly. Draw/Go isn't at all looking to be like Threshold. I'd argue that Kira/Sower MUC has the tempo-sort of approach that, by a large stretch of the imagination, is similar to Threshold. This shouldn't be the case with Draw/Go at all.


MUC want's to hit it's landdrops until like land number 7 every turn to operate optimally

Brainstorm (and Impulse) is exactly what you need to guarantee those Land drops. Running TWice in place of the dig slot is the problem: you don't get land when you need it, and you don't dig effectively enough to get the specific answer you need in the mid and late game.





peace,
4eak

[Kadaj]

I'm going to make a recommendation to those who are arguing about Brainstorm in here: Read the thread. Seriously, this argument has come up repeatedly over the course of the fifty some odd pages, and my reasons for not playing Brainstorm haven't changed.

The main way you will lose to Tempo-Thresh, Dreadstill, or Team America is if they keep you from ever hitting your cards like Disk or Shackles (Shackles not so much against Dreadstill, but the concept remains the same). All of the decks I just mentioned can afford to spend multiple turns doing nothing but stunting your mana growth while they get beats in with a Mongoose, Goyf, or whatever, and if you can't break out of it you will lose. That is an undeniable threat that Stifle creates, and one that you can largely mitigate by not playing fetchlands.

Second, by using Brainstorm and Impulse to dig for lands, you reduce their effectiveness dramatically. I want the simple fact that I run 25 lands to allow me to dig for actual gas and not have to worry about digging for lands. Otherwise, I'd cut the lands down to 22, play the full 8 cantrips, and run more business spells. And then you'd essentially be running crappy Dreadstill, or Threshold, and have wasted your time. Why do you think we run so many lands in the first place? It isn't because I want to be digging for them with unnecessary cantrips, it's so that I don't have to go looking for them in the first place.

Brainstorm is also much worse in a deck that has a ton of cards that essentially do the same thing. Decks like Threshold and Landstill have a wide-variety of cards that they need to sift through (threats, answers to threats, counters, cantrips, lands, etc) whereas MUC really only has 3 or 4 kinds of cards. Lands, which I've already gone over why you shouldn't need to dig for, Counterspells, which draw/go also shouldn't need to dig for given that you tend to at least 14 of them, board control, which you might want to go looking for, and card advantage, like FoF. Most, if not all, CA spells in MUC have the dual role of also digging deep into the deck. FoF is 5 cards deep. Think Twice is a two-card cantrip over the course of two turns that also provides actual card advantage and can be "stock-piled" for later in the game when you find yourself at 3 cards in hand and looking for something.

Now, Think Twice isn't the strongest card, I understand that, but replacing it with Brainstorm or Impulse is incorrect because they don't fill the same role. Namely, they don't provide card advantage. I could understand trying something like TfK, although I don't think we have the requisite number of artifacts to make it good, or something else that we haven't discussed yet, but that slot has a defined role for me, increasing my hand size quickly and efficiently (and not through hyperbole like most people argue with Brainstorm, I want real card advantage, not virtual). Brainstorm and Impulse cannot do that.

Basically the major problem is that I've yet to see, through literally thousands of games of testing, what's so amazing about Brainstorm in any build of MUC. Because that is anecdotal evidence on my part, and just about any evidence being argued for Brainstorm is equally anecdotal, I have a feeling this argument will remain cyclical for a long time. Our experiences with the card have been so divergent that I doubt there can be reconciliation on the matter. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, lest we waste time twisting each other's words in circles for a few days before deciding what I've already decided, namely that it's a waste of time.

[mackaber]

4eak: Thanks for pointing out the obvious and ignoring the main points of my post. You are my hero. So making stifle timewalk is ok? Shuffling useless cards back in is nice yes, but lands are far more often useless in Thresh than they are in MUC that's why Brainstorm is good there and really doesn't do much here at least not more than the alternatives.

EDIT: Kadaj thank you for making this clear even to someone unable to read!

[Tao]

@ Tao
Well, I'm not advocating EE, just Brainstorm (and Disk). Do you find it difficult to play around Stifle? From my experience, the rewards for running Brainstorm in Draw/Go are fairly large, and even the losses incurred from a Stifle do not outweigh the benefits.

I agree that Brainstorm is good. I can understand anyone who has 4 Brainstorms in his list. But in the current Meta I don't want to open myself to Stifle.



Slow in what way?

Impulse does nothing by itself. It finds a spell and that spell is doing something.




Relic isn't even an instant (although, I realize you don't use it for its cantrip effect alone). This is clearly a metagame specific call as well.

I never thought it would be so good until I tried it in the main. It is somehow no more Meta specific in Legacy because the overwhelming majority of competitive decks is somehow yard based (atm I think the whole field except for us, Chalice Stompy and Goblins). So if 4 of 5 decks are affected by a 2 mana cantrip and you not then you should play it.



Thirst costs 1 more mana, and it digs one less. It does have the ability to generate raw card advantage, but that isn't so difficult to do in a deck that already has FoF/Shackles/Disk.

But there is a fundamental difference. If you impulse then you have A, B, C or D. With TfK (or any other real draw) you have A, B AND C. And if you want to keep the Disk or Shackles and have no Relic then just discard 2 and it worked like a Brainstorm.

[Shawon]

@4eak:

Assuming you're running Brainstorm along with Impulse, you can't assume you have redundancy since you cut corners to add in cantrips. Thus, yeah, it still seems kinda bad because you're shelving cards you would've like to drawn in the near future, and probably won't anymore since you've shelved, unless you cast more cantrips and wait more turns. I haven't even mentioned the fact that you run little win conditions, meaning if you need a Shackles at the cost of shelving a Morphling, you save yourself in the short term, but you do it at the cost of insurance in the late game. You can't dig forever for your win conditions.

I'm not trying to say that cantrips are bad in MUC. I'm just trying to say that Impulse is bad in MUC, since it's shelving effect is counterproductive to MUC's plan. I'm also saying it's not a staple either, as Brainstorm is more often than not better, and even that card isn't universally played in MUC for valid reasons.

[jjjoness']

The main way you will lose to Tempo-Thresh, Dreadstill, or Team America is if they keep you from ever hitting your cards like Disk or Shackles (Shackles not so much against Dreadstill, but the concept remains the same). All of the decks I just mentioned can afford to spend multiple turns doing nothing but stunting your mana growth while they get beats in with a Mongoose, Goyf, or whatever, and if you can't break out of it you will lose. That is an undeniable threat that Stifle creates, and one that you can largely mitigate by not playing fetchlands.

That's just not true at all. I haven't lost a single match against Team America or Tempo ThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh with my 6 Fetch 4 Brainstorm list, in both testing and tournament play. (haven't played against Dreadstill with this deck)
I do not have much experience with MUC, but so far I didn't have any problems with the deck except it's horrible burn and combo matchup. And I never got screwed because my opponent stifled my fetches.
Just to make sure that I won't be mistaken:
I'm not saying that Brainstorm is the best card for MUC, and therefore should be played. I'm also not saying that Think Twice or other cards are worse than Brainstorm. So what I'm getting at, is that Brainstorm worked out for me.

[4eak]

My argument for Brainstorm and Impulse is directly in regards to Draw/Go. I suggest playing:

4x Brainstorm
2x Impulse
4x Fact or Fiction

@ Kadaj


I'm going to make a recommendation to those who are arguing about Brainstorm in here: Read the thread. Seriously, this argument has come up repeatedly over the course of the fifty some odd pages, and my reasons for not playing Brainstorm haven't changed.

I've read the threads, and I still think it merits discussion. Your reasons may not have changed, but that doesn't mean your reasons are correct.

I know why you don't run it. You also don't play or test as much Draw/Go (and I understand why you don't), which is really the only place which I heavily argue to play the card.


That is an undeniable threat that Stifle creates, and one that you can largely mitigate by not playing fetchlands.

First, you are overvaluing the strength of Stifle against MUC. That card is not as scary as you seem to think. Sure, God-hands can do amazing things, but on average, Stifle is a poor card against MUC, even if it runs Fetchlands.

Stifle is often more dangerous when dropping early Dreadnoughts or buying time against your Artifact Board controllers. If they don't Stifle you early, then they'll be Stifling you later. Either way, Stifle is a timewalk, but it is not the bottleneck to a solid mana-base for MUC (even with 4-6 fetches) as it would be for other decks.

It is still quite possible to play around Stifle with MUC because we don't rely upon a 17-land mana-base. Heck, we run at least that many unstiflable lands in addition to our fetches. Additionally, the threat of Stifle is largely mitigated by having the early digging power (in conjunction with a high land count) to not be disrupted.

Brainstorm simultaneously weakens (through opening ourselves to Stifle) and strengthens the mana base. There is still a net gain in the strength of the mana base compared to not even running Brainstorm.


by using Brainstorm and Impulse to dig for lands, you reduce their effectiveness dramatically...Brainstorm is also much worse in a deck that has a ton of cards that essentially do the same thing. Decks like Threshold and Landstill have a wide-variety of cards that they need to sift through (threats, answers to threats, counters, cantrips, lands, etc) whereas MUC really only has 3 or 4 kinds of cards.

You don't use Brainstorm/Impulse just to dig for lands. The functions of Draw/Go remain nearly as diverse as other decks.

-Permission
-Shackles
-Disk
-FoF
-Land
-Bounce
-Win Conditions

These all play fundamentally different roles. Brainstorm and Impulse search for all of these, not just land. They are enormously effective cards in Draw/go.


Why do you think we run so many lands in the first place? It isn't because I want to be digging for them with unnecessary cantrips, it's so that I don't have to go looking for them in the first place.

Even with 24-25 lands, the odds of getting the 4th and 5th land drops on their respective turns are substantially lower in any version of MUC that doesn't play Brainstorm and Impulse. Increasing the odds is still very important. The beauty of both Brainstorm and Impulse is that if you don't need lands, then you're giving yourself access to the other functions of the deck.


Now, Think Twice isn't the strongest card, I understand that, but replacing it with Brainstorm or Impulse is incorrect because they don't fill the same role. Namely, they don't provide card advantage.

Think Twice really doesn't provide much more card advantage than Brainstorm at all. And, it certainly doesn't provide card advantage and quality in the earliest stages of the game as effectively as Brainstorm and Impulse. The early game is really hardest part for MUC. The mid to late game is very strong, and Brainstorm/Impulse help you get there much more effectively than Think Twice (and the other suggestions).

Brainstorm provides card advantage by preventing Mulligans. I don't care if you say you don't keep risky hands Kadaj, because wherever you do actually draw the line of where you would be willing to keep a hand would still be undeniably improved by Brainstorm. Preventing mulligans is a form of card advantage. Brainstorm does this where TWice does not

Additionally, Brainstorm will let you see your other CA producers much earlier than a card like Think Twice, and for a fraction of the cost. The CA produced by other cards like FoF/Shackles/Disk come about earlier because you played Brainstorm instead of Think Twice. And, the CA produced by those cards continues to produce even more CA--much like a snowball effect. Brainstorm gets that snowball rolling much sooner than anything else available, and it is a vital part of chaining together cards like FoF.

Lastly, Brainstorm can produce card advantage because it can turn dead cards (read late game Force Spike) into real ones. The ability to shuffle away dead or less useful cards for 3 other cards is a form of card advantage.

Brainstorm produces card advantage before the game begins, on Turn 1, on Turn 3, and still on turn 10.



Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, lest we waste time twisting each other's words in circles for a few days before deciding what I've already decided, namely that it's a waste of time.

You certainly don't have to argue about it. Even if you don't think it should be played, considering it is in the top 5 cards played in MUC, it still deserves honest discussion.


@ mackaber


Thanks for pointing out the obvious and ignoring the main points of my post.

Oh, please forgive me for ignoring your well-written post. I did, however, address the points in your post.


Kadaj thank you for making this clear even to someone unable to read!

Kadaj actually has real arguments for not playing Brainstorm.


@ Tao


I agree that Brainstorm is good. I can understand anyone who has 4 Brainstorms in his list. But in the current Meta I don't want to open myself to Stifle.

Fair enough. You also have a better reason not to play Brainstorm than anyone else here. Given the use of what I consider to be a metagame specific card like Relic in the main, I'm much more willing to accept that you have to bend over backwards (including the removal of Brainstorm) and metagame much more specifically than the average Draw/Go player.


Impulse does nothing by itself. It finds a spell and that spell is doing something.

Think Twice doesn't do much by itself in this regard either. Impulse is simply better at getting you those few spells which are most effective at their functions.


But there is a fundamental difference. If you impulse then you have A, B, C or D. With TfK (or any other real draw) you have A, B AND C. And if you want to keep the Disk or Shackles and have no Relic then just discard 2 and it worked like a Brainstorm.

Absolutely. And, I definitely like TfK more than Think Twice for reasons we both have listed. I still think this isn't stronger than Impulse though.

My main points for Impulse instead of TfK are:

1.) Impulse happens earlier and in situations that TfK can't be casted (that 1 mana can make the difference).
2.) Impulse digs 1 card deeper, and this is matters.
3.) Draw/Go already has stronger card advantage engines than TfK in FoF/Disk/Shackles. It is better to have a versatile digging spell that grabs for that which you are usually trying TfK than to play TfK.


@ Shawon


Assuming you're running Brainstorm along with Impulse, you can't assume you have redundancy since you cut corners to add in cantrips.

The question to ask with cantrips is: "how much redundancy do I need?" I do assume I have a lot of redundancy, or specifically, I have enough of it.

The point is that cantrips enable me to construct the proper ratio of each function in the deck. This is not the same as "cutting corners".


You can't dig forever for your win conditions.

Luckily, I play more win conditions than all but Kira/Sower players.


I'm just trying to say that Impulse is bad in MUC, since it's shelving effect is counterproductive to MUC's plan. I'm also saying it's not a staple either, as Brainstorm is more often than not better, and even that card isn't universally played in MUC for valid reasons.

My argument is not that Brainstorm/Impulse are staples in MUC as an archetype. The argument is that they are staples in Draw/Go MUC. Historically, this is true. Deckcheck.net, various MUC articles (even the really old ones), or even Kadaj's opening post would admit this.

Lastly, I'm not unwilling to remove Impulse in Draw/Go, as long as Brainstorm is preserved (the problem is really removing both). But, with a substantial amount of testing, I can tell you that it is a mistake to not play Impulse in Draw/Go.


@ jjjoness

I'm glad someone else has experienced something similar to what I have experienced.

Stifle is overvalued against MUC.

While I agree with most of what you said, I do want to be careful to explain that Stifle can cause game losses. My argument is that the amount of games that would be lost to Stifle are completely overwritten by the number of games that are won because Draw/Go plays Brainstorm instead of another card.




peace,
4eak

[Kadaj]

@ Kadaj
I've read the threads, and I still think it merits discussion. Your reasons may not have changed, but that doesn't mean your reasons are correct.

I know why you don't run it. You also don't play or test as much Draw/Go (and I understand why you don't), which is really the only place which I heavily argue to play the card.

First, you are overvaluing the strength of Stifle against MUC. That card is not as scary as you seem to think. Sure, God-hands can do amazing things, but on average, Stifle is a poor card against MUC, even if it runs Fetchlands.

Stifle is often more dangerous when dropping early Dreadnoughts or buying time against your Artifact Board controllers. If they don't Stifle you early, then they'll be Stifling you later. Either way, Stifle is a timewalk, but it is not the bottleneck to a solid mana-base for MUC (even with 4-6 fetches) as it would be for other decks.

It is still quite possible to play around Stifle with MUC because we don't rely upon a 17-land mana-base. Heck, we run at least that many unstiflable lands in addition to our fetches. Additionally, the threat of Stifle is largely mitigated by having the early digging power (in conjunction with a high land count) to not be disrupted.

Brainstorm simultaneously weakens (through opening ourselves to Stifle) and strengthens the mana base. There is still a net gain in the strength of the mana base compared to not even running Brainstorm.

You don't use Brainstorm/Impulse just to dig for lands. The functions of Draw/Go remain nearly as diverse as other decks.

-Permission
-Shackles
-Disk
-FoF
-Land
-Bounce
-Win Conditions

These all play fundamentally different roles. Brainstorm and Impulse search for all of these, not just land. They are enormously effective cards in Draw/go.

Even with 24-25 lands, the odds of getting the 4th and 5th land drops on their respective turns are substantially lower in any version of MUC that doesn't play Brainstorm and Impulse. Increasing the odds is still very important. The beauty of both Brainstorm and Impulse is that if you don't need lands, then you're giving yourself access to the other functions of the deck.

Think Twice really doesn't provide much more card advantage than Brainstorm at all. And, it certainly doesn't provide card advantage and quality in the earliest stages of the game as effectively as Brainstorm and Impulse. The early game is really hardest part for MUC. The mid to late game is very strong, and Brainstorm/Impulse help you get there much more effectively than Think Twice (and the other suggestions).

Brainstorm provides card advantage by preventing Mulligans. I don't care if you say you don't keep risky hands Kadaj, because wherever you do actually draw the line of where you would be willing to keep a hand would still be undeniably improved by Brainstorm. Preventing mulligans is a form of card advantage. Brainstorm does this where TWice does not

Additionally, Brainstorm will let you see your other CA producers much earlier than a card like Think Twice, and for a fraction of the cost. The CA produced by other cards like FoF/Shackles/Disk come about earlier because you played Brainstorm instead of Think Twice. And, the CA produced by those cards continues to produce even more CA--much like a snowball effect. Brainstorm gets that snowball rolling much sooner than anything else available, and it is a vital part of chaining together cards like FoF.

Lastly, Brainstorm can produce card advantage because it can turn dead cards (read late game Force Spike) into real ones. The ability to shuffle away dead or less useful cards for 3 other cards is a form of card advantage.

Brainstorm produces card advantage before the game begins, on Turn 1, on Turn 3, and still on turn 10.

You certainly don't have to argue about it. Even if you don't think it should be played, considering it is in the top 5 cards played in MUC, it still deserves honest discussion.

First, please stop trying to define card quality as card advantage. Brainstorm does not increase your hand-size. Period, end of discussion. Seriously, card advantage has a strict definition, stop using it improperly. Card quality definitely comes in varying degrees, Brainstorm versus... say Opt for example, but that doesn't make it card advantage[/end pet peeve]

And, for the most part, my decision to mulligan hands is almost never influenced by Brainstorm. If it has two lands and Brainstorm but weak other cards, I'm not keeping it. If the Brainstorm were a Think Twice, or whatever else might be played in that slot, it wouldn't change. I just don't think Brainstorm has enough statistical variance to make keeping sketchy hands worth it; Especially in a control deck like this one.

Next, I do test Draw/go. A lot, as it turns out. Not as much as perm-based sure, but enough to know that you're severely undervaluing how much impact Stifle can have against it. For the most part, you've continued to repeat that Stifle isn't strong against Draw/go without offering a single reason why it is other than "we run 24+ lands". Yeah, that's great and all, but having 1 land to your opponent's three is rarely a good thing, even if you have 3 lands in hand.

As I've said before, the games I lose to Threshold variants (Team America, what have you) almost always occur because I didn't get going fast enough and their disruption kept me off my relevant cards. Stifle was always a huge part of that. Can you play around it? No shit, but in playing around it you've often slowed yourself down at least a bit in the process, so it's a double-edged sword. But, once again, we're back to anecdotal evidence in my testing versus your testing, etc, and that isn't going to lead either of us anywhere.

Anyway, I'll end my participation in this argument by saying this: I don't believe Brainstorm is inviable or irrevocably sub-optimal in draw/go. I believe it to be weaker than the alternatives in the metagames that I encounter on a daily basis and in my own testing, and thus I do not run it. If you feel your own metagame doesn't have the sort of obstacles that make running Brainstorm a liability, than by all means run it. Otherwise, don't.

[raharu]

First, please stop trying to define card quality as card advantage. Brainstorm does not increase your hand-size. Period, end of discussion. Seriously, card advantage has a strict definition, stop using it improperly. Card quality definitely comes in varying degrees, Brainstorm versus... say Opt for example, but that doesn't make it card advantage[/end pet peeve]

Card Advantage only matters if you have Card Quality. A hand of 9000 plains doesn't beat a hand of FoW, Shackles, Disk, Propaganda, etc... The amount of *live* cards (to take a term from another game) is what wins games. I'm sure you're aware of this, but you like to over-value Card Advantage.


And, for the most part, my decision to mulligan hands is almost never influenced by Brainstorm. If it has two lands and Brainstorm but weak other cards, I'm not keeping it. If the Brainstorm were a Think Twice, or whatever else might be played in that slot, it wouldn't change. I just don't think Brainstorm has enough statistical variance to make keeping sketchy hands worth it; Especially in a control deck like this one.

It should, though. Brainstorm has strength on it's own. It's not a blank in an opening hand, but that's how you treat it. It's always Live, and it gives you access to more Live cards while removing dead ones. Dead cards are --CA. Live cards are ++CA. This is true regardless of where you want to draw the line between CA and CQ, because dead cards aren't cards anymore.


Next, I do test Draw/go. A lot, as it turns out. Not as much as perm-based sure, but enough to know that you're severely undervaluing how much impact Stifle can have against it. For the most part, you've continued to repeat that Stifle isn't strong against Draw/go without offering a single reason why it is other than "we run 24+ lands". Yeah, that's great and all, but having 1 land to your opponent's three is rarely a good thing, even if you have 3 lands in hand.

Wasteland is dead against Islands, so you only have to worry about Stifle on a Fetchland, and personally the number of people that'll save Stifle for Disk/ Keg/ Shackles (wtf, iKno, rite?) are just about evenly split. You also have to consider the number of things that have to happen for you to loose a land, and for that loss of a land to be relevant. Example:

One of the few times that land disruption is relevant against MUC is in the early turns. With 17+ natural Islands in the deck, there's not much of a reason to play a fetch before turn 3 if you expect Stifle. Ergo, don't. You'll make your 3rd land drop naturally in most situations, and you'll still make your critical drops like 'Ganda, Shackles, etc.

The only time that you'll really kick yourself over a fetchland counter is when you Brainstorm -> fetch, and can't clear the jank. Personally I feel that in the late game Brainstorm is still better than alternatives because you access 3 cards at once. Even if you can't shuffle them off, you still dug 3 turns deeper, so your hand is improved, for the time being, and what you draw later isn't a surprise.


As I've said before, the games I lose to Threshold variants (Team America, what have you) almost always occur because I didn't get going fast enough and their disruption kept me off my relevant cards. Stifle was always a huge part of that. Can you play around it? No shit, but in playing around it you've often slowed yourself down at least a bit in the process, so it's a double-edged sword. But, once again, we're back to anecdotal evidence in my testing versus your testing, etc, and that isn't going to lead either of us anywhere.

Just run into the fetches like David does in ITF. Seriously, it's not a problem.


Anyway, I'll end my participation in this argument by saying this: I don't believe Brainstorm is inviable or irrevocably sub-optimal in draw/go. I believe it to be weaker than the alternatives in the metagames that I encounter on a daily basis and in my own testing, and thus I do not run it. If you feel your own metagame doesn't have the sort of obstacles that make running Brainstorm a liability, than by all means run it. Otherwise, don't.

Okay then. I still feel it's the strongest compliment to the draw engine available, but that's either a playstyle difference, or a theory difference, so I'll agree to disagree.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Losing land drops against fast aggro-control decks with Daze when you need to drop Disks and Shackles is a problem. Dave may say otherwise, but then, it's Dave. Who plays manabases like that in control when half the decks are running 4xStifle/4xWasteland/4xDaze, with some others throwing in Sinkhole or Blood Moon for good measure?

[frogboy]

Who plays manabases like that in control when half the decks are running 4xStifle/4xWasteland/4xDaze, with some others throwing in Sinkhole or Blood Moon for good measure?

Real men.

[claudio.r]

Hey !
Yesterday i played a version of MUC to a 2ºplace finish in a rather small tournament (16 people, it's a small town). Here in Portugal there aren't a lot of legacy tournaments so the metagames are always a little strange.

Here is the list i played:

22 island
1 academy ruins

4 brainstorm
4 force spike
3 spell snare
2 force of will
4 counterspell

3 back to basics
3 propaganda
3 powder keg
1 engineerd explosives
1 sensei's divining top
1 pithing needle

4 spire golem
3 trinket mage
1 rainbow efreet

SB:
2 relic of progenitus
1 engineerd explosives
3 mind harness
1 divert
3 echoing truth
4 blue elemental blast
1 masticore

As you can see, i'm still lacking some very important cards as 2 forces of will and vedalken shackles. I tried to have a mono blue control with trinket mage toolbox, and it worked preety well, i faced a MUC mirror (1 - 1) and 3 mono red burn decks and went wich i won.

In the end my MVP's of the evening were the blue elemental blasts, the SDT wich was great against the burn decks, and i thought that the spire golems were not good enough but in the end they owned the house. The echoing truths in the board were useless.

So what do you guys think, what would you change ?

[Shawon]

You should try Meekstone. It works well with Spire Golem. I once lost an Extended game to Spire Golem + Meekstone + Umezawa's Jitte.

[Tao]

You should play a real draw spell. With 14 Artifacts Thirst for Knowledge seems like the best choice even though your 3 Mana slot is already pretty full. Brainstorm is not good in your list with Trinket Mage as the only shuffle effect.

[someone_unimportant]

Can you play around it? No shit, but in playing around it you've often slowed yourself down at least a bit in the process, so it's a double-edged sword.

I've already given substantial and fairly in-depth reasoning on why this is, in fact, false and your opponent must slow themselves down by at least a full turn in order to even represent stifle, much less cast it. Read the thread (or the old thread, I don't remember which) for specifics. And, for the record, I fully support Brainstorm and Fetchlands in all builds of MUC.

[claudio.r]

Brainstorm was good everytime i played it, but yes, i do really need a real draw spell, i was thinking about fact or fiction, two copies or three, but i really don't know what to take out. I can take out one copie of spire golem, but i really don't want to play less than 3 without having shackles...

[wolfstorm]

Brainstorm was good everytime i played it, but yes, i do really need a real draw spell, i was thinking about fact or fiction, two copies or three, but i really don't know what to take out. I can take out one copie of spire golem, but i really don't want to play less than 3 without having shackles...

AK usually seemed solid whenever I played MUC but i also ran 3x Fact or fiction with 1 more in the board for cunning wish.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Stifle means that they have to have mana open once, which they might've had anyway. It also means that you lose that mana permanently. And they're running a much lower mana curve than you.

The prevalance of Stifle, along with Daze and Wasteland, is half the reason to play MUC right now, I think. Landstill has more power, generally, it's just the trouble with resolving things.

Frankly put, for the cost of opening yourself up to 4 one-mana, instant Sinkholes, I'd rather run Opt.

[4eak]

@ TheInfamousBearAssassin

Have you tested Brainstorm/Impulse? They are powerful enough cards to at least spend 10 games playtesting.


Stifle means that they have to have mana open once, which they might've had anyway. It also means that you lose that mana permanently.

Playing around Stifle means that they have to keep that mana open more than once, but they have to keep it open until you pop the fetch. If they've left the mana open, then you are usually timewalking them. I'm perfectly happy to see tempo decks stay untapped, especially if they aren't forcing through T2 Goyf/CB/Dreadnought.

Decks that are playing Daze/Stifle/Wasteland are not running nearly as many land as MUC. They can't keep up land drop parity with us, and by holding back to Stifle and not playing more aggressively against MUC, they will lose a serious tempo war because they didn't abuse the early game. They majority will eventually be forced to tap down against you before you need to pop the fetch.

Once we get to 4 lands, they are in a lot of trouble. Draw/Go with Brainstorm/Impulse has the highest probability of reaching the fourth land on 4th turn. Additionally, getting Stifled on fetch is not as common as you think. I usually open 2-3 land and 1 cantrip-dig spell (Brainstorm/Impulse), and fetching into danger zones isn't usually common.

Although, against T1 Swamp, and I suspect Sinkhole, I may lay fetch first if I'm going second.



The prevalance of Stifle, along with Daze and Wasteland, is half the reason to play MUC right now.

We can consistently (especially with cantrips) make unstiflable land drops against tempo decks. While fetchland weakens this position slightly, it is quite minimal compared the strength and resilience added by Brainstorm at this stage of the game.

Unlike Landstill which is more color dependant to even cast and resolve spells, MUC is much better at holding out on the handful of fetches it plays. With Brainstorm/Impulse, we are still at an advantage against the tempo deck that chooses to stay untapped for Stifle against us.


Frankly put, for the cost of opening yourself up to 4 one-mana, instant Sinkholes, I'd rather run Opt.

Brainstorm is worth playing before Opt even without Fetchlands. Digging 3 deep on turn 1 is spectacular, especially for anyone who is so concerned about having a stable mana base. The shuffle effect only becomes important in the mid and late game. Goto 4 fetches if you are that worried.




peace,
4eak

[Captain Hammer]

While I don't think either Brainstorm or Impulse is ideal in this deck compared to proven bombs like Ancestral Visions and Fact or Fiction...

Both Brainstorm and Impulse are roughly 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x better than inexcusably crap cards like Whispers of the Muse, Think Twice and to lesser degree Accumilated Knowledge* that absolutely don't belong in any deck, period.

*AK is I guess playable ONLY in a deck also running Intuitions, but certainly not by itself as is the case here.

[Benie Bederios]

While I don't think either Brainstorm or Impulse is ideal in this deck compared to proven bombs like Ancestral Visions and Fact or Fiction...

Both Brainstorm and Impulse are roughly 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x better than inexcusably crap cards like Whispers of the Muse, Think Twice and to lesser degree Accumilated Knowledge* that absolutely don't belong in any deck, period.

*AK is I guess playable ONLY in a deck also running Intuitions, but certainly not by itself as is the case here.

In Legacy I think Fact or Fiction+AK is better than Intuition+AK.

BB

[4eak]

@ Benie Bederios


While I don't think either Brainstorm or Impulse is ideal in this deck compared to proven bombs like Ancestral Visions and Fact or Fiction...

Brainstorm and Impulse (to a lesser extent) have been proven in MUC. They might not be preferred in permanent MUC, but they are still the best choice for Draw/Go.

There is a reason we see someone like Kadaj forced to offer a lengthy explanation as to why he doesn't run the card--he has to justify why he isn't running a proven card. My testing shows he's right about Brainstorm in permanent-MUC, but this is not the case with Draw/Go.

I hope you don't think I'm offering Brainstorm as a replacement to Fact or Fiction =)...The last 4-6 draw spells beyond FoF in Draw/Go are all I am arguing about.




peace,
4eak

[Rood]

I'm surprised you guys haven't tried out Meditate yet, it's rediculous for me so far in testing. This is my list I'm working with atm

Rood MUC

// Lands
24 [10E] Island (3)

// Creatures
4 [LRW] Sower of Temptation
1 [US] Morphling

// Spells
4 [REW] Powder Keg
4 [US] Back to Basics
4 [FNM] Fact or Fiction
4 [IA] Counterspell
3 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [DIS] Spell Snare
4 [TE] Meditate

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [IA] Hydroblast
SB: 4 [TE] Propaganda
SB: 4 [ALA] Relic of Progenitus
SB: 3 [TSP] Wipe Away

It's running really smoothly for me. I do like Think Twice but I'd rather pay 3 mana for 4 cards instead of 5 mana for 2 cards. I don't think the extra turn really hurts this deck, it's designed to go to late game.

[Tao]

Sry but Meditate is probably the worst suggestion of the whole thread ;)

I am usually open for unusual choices, but giving an extra turn for one or two extra cards (compared to TfK)....no. Really.

[Rood]

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback (Lol), it's not as bad as it seems. I'll test out TfK in that slot then and see how much better it is.

Alot of times if you don't have the Artifact all TfK is draw 1 card for 3 mana. When you put it into perspective you draw 3 additional cards at the cost of skipping a turn...doesn't seem all that bad.

[Tao]

Well, you don't have enough Artifacts for TfK, so you should rather try something conservative (Impulse or AK).

[Rood]

Impulse is really bad man at providing what this deck needs, pure card advantage. AK is alright, but requires Intuition which will fill up more slots I don't really have. AV would be the only other viable option, but when you topdeck the card it's horrible slow beyond belief, so both Meditate/AV have there pros/cons.

Also B2B compliments Meditate very nicely ;-).

[jjjoness']

I did some testing with Meditate and it is indeed very good, although quite situational. It is absolutely the nuts in the control mirror, as you can refill your hand by spending 3 mana and letting your opponent draw a card. The other side of the coin is that there's probably no other card that is worse than Meditate against aggro. So in a meta full of control I'd really recommend to run Meditate over or in addition to FoF. In an more aggressive Meta just don't.

[Illissius]

Heh. I remember the endless Meditate discussions from the TEC thread. It sounds similar to Jace Beleren in a way: both are much better if your opponent has no pressure on the board, and worse if they do.

So let's see:

Jace: If no pressure, nets two cards every three turns (or just three cards over the first three turns), minus Jace itself.
Meditate: Nets three cards immediately, minus Meditate.
Winnar: Jace?

Jace: If opponent has damage on the board, cantrips and potentially draws some of it away.
Meditate: Nets two cards while taking the damage on the chin. (not always an option)
Winnar: Meditate if you have plenty of life and the opposing damage is small; Jace otherwise.

Jace: Is a sorcery.
Meditate: Is an instant, but casting it at the end of their turn means casting it right before their extra turn, which is much the same.
Winnar: Neither. A draw.

Jace: Dies to burn.
Meditate: Doesn't give a shit about burn.
Winnar: Meditate

Jace: Can deck people. (Before the extreme late game, though, you'd rather just draw cards.)
Meditate: Can not.
Winnar: Jace. I guess.


Final verdict? As always: depends on the metagame. I like Meditate better if there's lots of burn around, and Jace otherwise.

[Sae~]

Seeing most people have moved their Back to Basics to the sideboard in the Draw/Go version, what do you think about running the T2 card draw engine Scrying Sheets?

You could run it in addition to twenty-four lands, and it should draw a decent amount of land with that much snow-covered basic lands, even without manipulating your topdeck.

Pro's & Con's:

+ It's uncounterable
+ (Possible) card draw every turn
+ Produces mana (colorless though)

- It's wasteland sensitive
- Costs a land drop
- It's possibly a bit slow

It could be an interesting card to test, perhaps as a two-of.

Sae

[KillemallCFH]

I've tested Meditate in MUC before, and was rather unimpressed. There were way too many times it was stuck in hand because you couldn't afford to give your opponent another turn. As Illissius noted, it fills a simliar role as Jace, and I would almost always rather have Jace. If you're meta is filled with burn (read: Aggro), both are pretty awful, as giving an Aggro player a free Time Walk is seldom beneficial. Jace at least cantrips and draws a burn spell away. And FWIW I think Jace also gets the edge in the Control matchup (though both are good there).

@Scrying Sheets: Quinn only runs that as a draw engine because it has nothing better. FoF and company are infinitely better methinks.

[Arsenal]

I haven't tested Meditate at all, so I can't comment on it's effectiveness in the Control matchup, but I have tested Jace Beleren, and it's an absolute BOMB. I've rarely lost a game once I resolve Jace in the pure control matchup. If your meta is slow (mid-range stuff, control decks, etc), then I'd highly suggest testing Jace as a 2-of.

[Shawon]

@Scrying Sheets: Quinn only runs that as a draw engine because it has nothing better. FoF and company are infinitely better methinks.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't suggesting cutting FoF and company for Scrying Sheets.

Anyway, Scrying Sheets seems interesting. Even though I run 4 B2B main, I run 1-2 Calciform Pools (storage land) because it provides a huge mana advantage that helps you own control mirrors. I guess Scrying Sheets can serve as the card advantage equivalent of Calciform Pools. Let us know how Sheets works out as a 1-of or 2-of.

[Shawon]

On my storage land note, is anyone who is experimenting with MUC willing to try storage lands? I've tried them and I love them because after I pack enough counters, I get to cast Morphling with enough mana for counters on my main phase. It's also good after an EOT Fact or Fiction when you have a shit load of a hand and you can just use the storage lands to dump Kegs/Shackles down.

[Tao]

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4178

I made this a while ago (Phyrexian Ironfoot was really good before Tarmogoyf was printed). I think that with the Snow engine CounterTop deserves thoughts (Sheets are improved by Top and Top is improved by CB).

[Arsenal]

I've ALWAYS wanted to find a reason to play Ironfoot; best looking artwork for a creature imo. Too bad it's not really something MUC would run. I mean, a 3/4 vanilla creature isn't going to strike fear in your opponent.

[Tao]

I know I know. But back then the field was Goblins, Thresh and Solidarity and Ironfoot is good against them. Goyf, Doran, C. Crusher, Gathan Raiders etc. were not printed and Naught not Stifleable and a 3/4 for 3 Mana was something good. I just posted the link so maybe you can find some ideas in it.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

@ TheInfamousBearAssassin
Have you tested Brainstorm/Impulse? They are powerful enough cards to at least spend 10 games playtesting.

Is this a serious question? Yes.


While I don't think either Brainstorm or Impulse is ideal in this deck compared to proven bombs like Ancestral Visions and Fact or Fiction...

Both Brainstorm and Impulse are roughly 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x better than inexcusably crap cards like Whispers of the Muse, Think Twice and to lesser degree Accumilated Knowledge* that absolutely don't belong in any deck, period.

*AK is I guess playable ONLY in a deck also running Intuitions, but certainly not by itself as is the case here.

Quite a lot of people have found Think Twice to be quite a good card, so I'm not really sure where this is coming from, but I suppose your opinion is just as valid as those who actually form arguments based on something.

[Sae~]

@Scrying Sheets: Quinn only runs that as a draw engine because it has nothing better. FoF and company are infinitely better methinks.

I agree Fact or Fiction beats Scrying Sheets hands down when it comes to card advantage. I'm just not happy with the 'and company' cards (TfK, AV, Meditate), and was looking some other card advantage engine.


I'm pretty sure he wasn't suggesting cutting FoF and company for Scrying Sheets.

I may have been a bit unclear about this, but my intention is indeed to run Sheets in addition to 4x Fact or Fiction and another draw spell (as 3/4-of).

If Scrying Sheets is included it's probably better not to run Brainstorm, as Fetchland lowers our snow-count. With twenty-four snow-covered Islands and a pair of Sheets you should be able to draw a land almost 50% of the time when you fire the ability. It filters the deck by drawing excess land, sure looks good on paper.

I don't think CounterTop belongs in here though, you have to dedicate so many slots to them, and we can't really abuse Counterbalance as we lack a significant clock. Sheets does give us the option to run a singleton Forbid to make use of the extra land though..

I'll try out 4x Fact of Fiction, 4x Impulse and 2x Scrying Sheets for now.

Sae

[Arsenal]

But is Scrying Sheets worth not running B2B maindeck? Is filtering your deck of lands worth running over the sheer power of a resolved B2B's "I win" effect? I suppose CtS would be the best win condition if you're running the Scrying Sheets/snow land combo, as you'll almost always have a land in hand to pitch to Retrace CtS.

[Illissius]

1-2 Oona's Grace could also make sense in that case.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Scrying Sheets isn't really comparable to Fact or Fiction. It would be like comparing Wasteland to Plow Under, or Barbarian Ring to Lightning Bolt. The fact that it takes a land slot and not a spell slot, and the fact that it taps for mana while having an uncounterable (if Wastelandable) effect, just makes it an entirely different creature.

That being said, you really need Top to make Scrying Sheets work.

[Soulles]

I finished second sunday. 31 men attended. The meta was all over the place and i couldn't really decide what kind off side-board to make.

My match ups were
Bye, Merfolk aggro, TES, ZOO, TES (lost this one with 1-2 due a play error), Reccuring Rock (ID)

And in the top 4, i beat Stax and lost to that Recurring rock deck.

I played my trusted build

23 Island

4 Force Spike
3 Spell Snare
4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
4 Fact or Fiction
4 Back to Basics
2 Powder Keg
3 Vedalken Shackles

4 Sower of Temptation
3 Kira, Great-Glass Spinner
2 Morphling

And mine sideboard
3x Crypt
3x Annul
2x Pithing Needle
3x Propaganda
4x Chalice

I still hate Prencious deed and it made me lose the finals due it and am considering playing Rainbow Efreet sideboard (x2-3) just to have some beaters available.

And i am considering switching to Relic instead of Crypt. Though i need them foil first!!

[FlavaSava]

What are you thinking about of playing Wastelands and Stifle ? You can avert the playing of spells rather you can delay it. What do you mean?

[Jason]

I still hate Prencious deed and it made me lose the finals due it and am considering playing Rainbow Efreet sideboard (x2-3) just to have some beaters available.


You could split the 2x Morphling to 1x Morphling, 1x Rainbow Efreet. I have never had a time where I saw Rainbow Efreet in my hand and was upset because it wasn't Morphling. That might give you a workaround without having to shuffle up the sideboard for a different win condition altogether. Once Efreet comes down, it should be just as scary for your opponent as Morphling.

[Jaynel]

I still hate Prencious deed and it made me lose the finals due it and am considering playing Rainbow Efreet sideboard (x2-3) just to have some beaters available.

Have you considered Stifle in the board, or is Pithing Needle enough?

[Omega]

Against burn deck, i saw some list with COTV so i guess we bring in COTV.

How about Chill?

Robert

[Rascal]

...as I wrote to Soulles...

...and on Brainstorm note...

Now I try something like this, and the results are good for now:

F-MUC

16 Island
3 Flooded Strand
3 Polluted Delta

4 Brainstorm
3 Force Spike
3 Spell Snare
4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
4 Fact or Fiction
3 Back to Basics
3 Powder Keg
2 Vedalken Shackles

3 Sower of Temptation
3 Kira, Great-Glass Spinner
1 Morphling
1 Rainbow Efreet

Sideboard:
4 Propaganda
4 Chill
4 Relic of Progenitus
3 Pithing Needle

I played Legacy tournament in my country last week. Ended 33rd of 57, with 3-3, due to my playmistakes - my teammates wants to kill me if they saw me playing :o))
I must do a lot of practice with this deck.

I was little uncertain abour Fahad´s 23 land, but in his version this count of land seem to be OK.
After tournament I feel, that I need in this deck more card selecting.
Brainstorm with fetches is on the mind at first. In my meta I don´t be afraid of too decks with Stifle, so I think I can go this route.
Testing results seems quite good, as I said.

Another potentail card may be Accumulated Knowledge - nice with Fact or Fiction :o) But it does pure card advantage, not card quality - which I want, especialy in midgame, when I see me sometimes manaflooded /yes, I this low land count / - when I want to draw a bussines spell.

And another good for CQ is Impulse, but after that there is no shufling effect, which is great on the Brainstorm.

[Tao]

First of all your version needs a 4th Sower. So if opponent swords one you can play the next. I think the Efreet is not needed so you could play it in this slot. If you want card selection: There is not more than Impulse, maybe Opt if you want something to do on turn 1.


Just out of curiosity: what matchups you played in the 6 rounds?

[Rascal]

Thx for suggestions. I try it.

And my 6 rounds...

I met ANT (only UB) which I lost 1-2 due to my fault, when I read IGG in wrong way - should win this.
In 2nd round I beat Solidarity 2-0.
Third turn I lost again to my own fault / counted wrong my lands - I have mana to pay for Daze in second game / against URW Thresh with CB/SDT. 1-2
Fourth turn was against very nice Rock I hardly won 2-1 - I hate combination of Duress+Thoughtseize+Extirpate.
Fifth turn against "fake man" - the man who sold me about two years ago very nice playset of fake Savannah - I ended with Magic after that for a while. So - nice match. I beat his UWG Threshold with CB/SDT backup 2-1 :o))
And in sixth I was beated by Ichorid - has no chance. 0-2

So 3-3 and 33rd place of 57.

Poor. But the deck was great, much stronger than its pilot. I do much more practice and sleep more than one hour before tournament :o)) /due to testing/ :o))

[Jak]

Hmm... Like in Quinn, why not play a fast, non-attacking win condition? Keep some Morphlings, CoS, Efreets, etc but play Painter's + Grindstone. I haven't tested the newer lists but I did play a heavy counterspell build a few months ago and the deck was good, actually being able to keep drawing and countering, but it just couldn't win fast enough.

I don't know how it could fit in or if Fabricate should be run (probably not) but I think it may be good.

[Illissius]

Quinn does also have Enlightened Tutor to find the pieces. If I were going to run a fast win condition highly vulnerable to removal, I think I'd rather have it be Sower of Temptation than Painter-Grindstone.

[4eak]

Quinn does also have Enlightened Tutor to find the pieces. If I were going to run a fast win condition highly vulnerable to removal, I think I'd rather have it be Sower of Temptation than Painter-Grindstone.

I agree.

Sower is at least both an answer and a threat that doesn't require tutoring. Painter's Combo needs tutoring to make it a fast threat (which we can't afford to do), and it has no control element to help us get to the mid and late game by itself.



peace,
4eak

[Arsenal]

With so many suggestions re: alternate win conditions, I am curious: what situations are you guys running into so often that alternate win conditions are required?

If your deck did what it was supposed to do, what cards/situations are you frequently coming across where you have the board locked, have a 5-7 in hand, it's late in the game, you draw a Morphling, only to think, "Fuck this piece of shit".

[ParkerLewis]

With so many suggestions re: alternate win conditions, I am curious: what situations are you guys running into so often that alternate win conditions are required?

If your deck did what it was supposed to do, what cards/situations are you frequently coming across where you have the board locked, have a 5-7 in hand, it's late in the game, you draw a Morphling, only to think, "Fuck this piece of shit".

It's more like simple insurance.

Think about the simple Pithing Needle on Morphling (now it sucks bigtime). Still, you have ways to destroy the Needle (Keg).

But what about discard + extirpate on Morphling (it could certainly happen if your opponent is actually trying to, which is not a bad play at all if you were to only play Morphling).

Or a Runed Halo on Morphling. You don't have much ways to deal with an enchantment on board (except maybe Disk if you run it, but that's it).

Still, if you feel like you don't need it (maybe nobody plays any of these cards, or your shackles are enough), you're free to cut the additional wincon.

[Arsenal]

It's more like simple insurance.

Think about the simple Pithing Needle on Morphling (now it sucks bigtime). Still, you have ways to destroy the Needle (Keg).

But what about discard + extirpate on Morphling (it could certainly happen if your opponent is actually trying to, which is not a bad play at all if you were to only play Morphling).

Or a Runed Halo on Morphling. You don't have much ways to deal with an enchantment on board (except maybe Disk if you run it, but that's it).

Still, if you feel like you don't need it (maybe nobody plays any of these cards, or your shackles are enough), you're free to cut the additional wincon.

Oh, I completely understand why you wouldn't run 1 Morphling as your only win condition, as I run 1 Morphling and 1 Rainbow Efreet (and 2 Jace Beleren, technically speaking).

What I'm asking is what situations are you (not you specifically, but 'you' the people who've been suggesting unconventional win conditions) running into so often that even with Morphling + other creature (Meloku, Rainbow Efreet, CtS even), you're still not satisfied with your win package.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The situation where they have an answer to Morphling, then I have to wait to draw another card and this is where I'd be losing to time if it wasn't MWS.

Going to time is what makes control decks suck. It's a huge, glaring weakness that needs to be addressed directly.

[Illissius]

What I'm asking is what situations are you (not you specifically, but 'you' the people who've been suggesting unconventional win conditions) running into so often that even with Morphling + other creature (Meloku, Rainbow Efreet, CtS even), you're still not satisfied with your win package.

As far as I can tell, the situation isn't "I'm not satisfied with Morphling + other creature and want to run even more things", but rather trying to figure out what the best "other creature" to run in addition to Morphling is. Necessarily that entails discussing a lot of different options.

As for your previous question, I imagine it's when your opponent has been building up quite a stockpile of Edict, Deed, and/or Wrath effects in their hand throughout the game because they had nothing else to use them on, so that when you actually go to win the game with a Morphling you, all of a sudden, find yourself in a shitstorm. Rainbow Efreet looks like it solves that just as well as Call the Skybreaker, though. (The appeal of Call is in that if you need a little inevitability, you might as well go for a lot of inevitability. An Efreet can be held at bay, overwhelmed, worked around, but it's rather difficult to deal with a near-endless supply of 5/5 flyers.)

[mackaber]

I've been very happy with the following list. It rarely has problems with finding finishers. Call of the skybreaker is a weird card since it's frikkin expensive and clunky but quite a number of situations come up where neither Morphling nor efreet can get the job done but Call will eventually grind it out. Having a way of recursively producing dragons also means you are less boned by opposing graveyard recursion.

// Lands
23 [10E] Island (3)

// Creatures
1 [US] Morphling
1 [VI] Rainbow Efreet

// Spells
2 [GP] Repeal
4 [U] Nevinyrral's Disk
3 [FD] Vedalken Shackles
4 [TSP] Think Twice
4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [IA] Counterspell
3 [DIS] Spell Snare
1 [LRW] Cryptic Command
3 [FNM] Force Spike
4 [NE] Accumulated Knowledge
2 [TE] Intuition
1 [EVE] Call the Skybreaker

// Sideboard
SB: 3 [MOR] Vendilion Clique
SB: 4 [MR] Chalice of the Void
SB: 4 [US] Back to Basics
SB: 4 [TSB] Tormod's Crypt

It looks real janky but I feel like the list is very strong, the draw suite being particularly powerful since it can easily outdraw other controldecs in the lategame and can be cantripped against everything else early game preventing manascrew quite readily. Vendilllion Cliques and Chalice are there for combo and for the sake of flexibility since there's quite a few matchups where you want to board out stuff like disks, shakels, bounce but don't have anything good to bring in.

[Shawon]

Has anyone won any games off the back of Call the Skybreaker? I would like to hear about them if anyone has done so.

[Arsenal]

The situation where they have an answer to Morphling, then I have to wait to draw another card and this is where I'd be losing to time if it wasn't MWS.

I don't understand what you mean by "I have to wait to draw another card".


As far as I can tell, the situation isn't "I'm not satisfied with Morphling + other creature and want to run even more things", but rather trying to figure out what the best "other creature" to run in addition to Morphling is. Necessarily that entails discussing a lot of different options.

As for your previous question, I imagine it's when your opponent has been building up quite a stockpile of Edict, Deed, and/or Wrath effects in their hand throughout the game because they had nothing else to use them on, so that when you actually go to win the game with a Morphling you, all of a sudden, find yourself in a shitstorm. Rainbow Efreet looks like it solves that just as well as Call the Skybreaker, though. (The appeal of Call is in that if you need a little inevitability, you might as well go for a lot of inevitability. An Efreet can be held at bay, overwhelmed, worked around, but it's rather difficult to deal with a near-endless supply of 5/5 flyers.)

Illissius, if you re-read the last 4 pages, there has been suggestion of cutting Morphling altogether, in favor of stuff like Call the Skybreaker.

And as to my previous question, I think I should rephrase: if your deck did what it was designed to do, then how are people not winning with Morphling + other creature package? I add that opening clause because when my deck does what it's supposed to do (locking up board, drawing tons of cards), I very rarely lose with a Morphling + other creature win package. If my opponent was able to smash/combo before I could stabilize and establish board control, then my deck did not do what it was designed to do and I fail to see how debating the win condition is relevant in that situation.

Also, if you are afraid for your Morphling because of Wrath & countermagic (as suggested by IBA) or Deed & Edict, then I'm assuming you're playing against Landstill variants. As you well know, we have an excellent matchup against Landstill, and if your deck did what it was designed to do, I don't really see the Landstill player out countering you or out Wrathing you on a consistent basis. Will they be able to push something through sometimes? Sure, it happens. Will they be able to Wrath for free, with no resistance from you everytime you play Morphling? I doubt it.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I don't understand what you mean by "I have to wait to draw another card".

My bad. Another threat is what I meant.


Has anyone won any games off the back of Call the Skybreaker? I would like to hear about them if anyone has done so.

Yes. I have.

I won.

It was off the back of Call the Skybreaker.

It is really nice to flip it off Fact or Fiction by the way.

In seriousness, the inevitability matters.

Time limits are what keep Control decks down. Morphling is slightly faster than Call the Skybreaker (maybe) in the situation where he works, and vastly slower in the situation where he doesn't by means of being countered or dead.

You lose or tie rounds (which is as good as a loss half the time) because of kill conditions dying or being answered. This is why you should make it as hard to answer your kill conditions as possible. Either make them very resilient, or put them in business slots so they double up. Morphling serves no secondary function beyond being a very expensive wall. I'd rather run Razormane Masticore as a secondary kill on top of CtS, for instance. Razormane Masticore can single-handedly destroy a lot of aggro and aggro-control decks. Or Venser, who can do double-duty. Or Jace.

[Tao]

This is why you should make it as hard to answer your kill conditions as possible.......
I'd rather run Razormane Masticore as a secondary kill on top of CtS, .... Or Venser...Or Jace.

I really like 95% of what you say about cards and decks. But SOMETIMES I just don't get it.

[Jason]

Also, if you are afraid for your Morphling because of Wrath & countermagic (as suggested by IBA) or Deed & Edict, then I'm assuming you're playing against Landstill variants. As you well know, we have an excellent matchup against Landstill, and if your deck did what it was designed to do, I don't really see the Landstill player out countering you or out Wrathing you on a consistent basis. Will they be able to push something through sometimes? Sure, it happens. Will they be able to Wrath for free, with no resistance from you everytime you play Morphling? I doubt it.

The problem with this is not that they are necessarily out-countering us or casting Wrath of God on a consistent basis. The problem is they are forcing us to out-counter them, only to Wrath the next turn. When we cast Morphling (turn 10 maybe?), the landstill player is going to attempt to counter it (and your opponent probably will because the only real threats against them are our win conditions and Back to Basics and the opponent is running 8-13 counterspells); we must then spend our counterspell effects protecting Morphling in order to try and win. If we do that, we more often than not leave ourselves vulnerable for the opponent's next turn Wrath or even worse, Humility. I have found that to be a likely scenario (and not that far-fetched, seeing as it is 10 turns in with the landstill player having played Brainstorm at least once or twice so "dead cards" like Swords to Plowshares are less likely to be in his or her hand). I think that Morphling is just a tease in these matchups; it looks really awesome and can win games, but I know the card can bite me in the ass just as many times as it will destroy my opponent.

[Soulles]

My bad. Another threat is what I meant.



Yes. I have.

I won.

It was off the back of Call the Skybreaker.

It is really nice to flip it off Fact or Fiction by the way.

In seriousness, the inevitability matters.

Time limits are what keep Control decks down. Morphling is slightly faster than Call the Skybreaker (maybe) in the situation where he works, and vastly slower in the situation where he doesn't by means of being countered or dead.

You lose or tie rounds (which is as good as a loss half the time) because of kill conditions dying or being answered. This is why you should make it as hard to answer your kill conditions as possible. Either make them very resilient, or put them in business slots so they double up. Morphling serves no secondary function beyond being a very expensive wall. I'd rather run Razormane Masticore as a secondary kill on top of CtS, for instance. Razormane Masticore can single-handedly destroy a lot of aggro and aggro-control decks. Or Venser, who can do double-duty. Or Jace.

So..Morphling sucks and is to expensive.

But your prefer and recommend to run a 5 mana cost Artifact creature, that has no shroud, no flying, no untap abilities and has an additional upkeep cost every turn above it.

I see what you did there.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

The problem is that Morphling requires an almost unrealistic amount of mana for what it does. Until you've got a bajillion mana, all it can do is wall, where as Razormane Masticore is constantly applying pressure and keeping the field clear. Plus, call me insane, but I'd rather be discarding situational cards to keep the Masticore in play than spending a shitton of mana to make Morphling useful and thereby leaving me unable to react to a damn thing on my opponent's turn if I don't have a Force of Will in hand.

[Arsenal]

Uh, I don't know about Draw/Go, but with permanent-based MUC, I rarely use Morphling to block. By the time I play Morphling (well beyond turn 10 as someone suggested), I usually have multiple Propaganda and Shackles active, an active Keg ready to pick off anything that might slip through, B2B limiting my opponent's disposable mana, 5-7 cards in hand, and an assload of Islands available. This is my deck doing what it was designed to do.

If my deck didn't do what it was designed to do, and I have to resort to using an 'early' Morphling to block, or I don't have any board control permanents to speak of, or my hand is gassed, or I'm staring down a horde of creatures ready to swing for lethal, that's more the failing of the deck, not the win condition.

[Shawon]

The problem is that Morphling requires an almost unrealistic amount of mana for what it does. Until you've got a bajillion mana, all it can do is wall, where as Razormane Masticore is constantly applying pressure and keeping the field clear. Plus, call me insane, but I'd rather be discarding situational cards to keep the Masticore in play than spending a shitton of mana to make Morphling useful and thereby leaving me unable to react to a damn thing on my opponent's turn if I don't have a Force of Will in hand.

I'm calling you insane. You don't have any recurring card advantage to sustain Razormane Masticore before you start discarding important cards (not to mention, you'll be using cards to counter or whatnot). Razormane is counterproductive for the deck. It actually requires more care than Morphling. I'm puzzled as to why you think Morphling needs that much maintenance, at least more than Razormane.

I don't see why Morphling needs that much mana the turn after you cast him. I never rush to cast Morphling, I always make sure I have a surplus amount of mana to cast Morphling, which is not unrealistic at all, given the board control elements I use to buy me enough time.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I really like 95% of what you say about cards and decks. But SOMETIMES I just don't get it.

To clarify;

You're constrained on card slots you can use for kill conditions in control.

There are two primary ways around this and the implications it has for losing to time.

The first is to run really hard to deal with kill conditions. Gigapede is the best example of this, others being Grave-Shell, Decree of Justice, etc...

The second is to run cards that allow you to cut some sort of control slot, because they serve a secondary function. Krosan Tusker, Razormane Masticore, Venser are examples of this; the best known example is manlands, which you can run in a landslot. This enables you to run somewhat more kill conditions over all.

Kill conditions that do both are nice; best examples here are Eternal Witness/Dragon. Idealy you want some mix, ala Dragon, Mesa, and Painter's-Stone in Quinn, or Witness/Gigapede/Echoes in Truffle Shuffle. Or DoJ/Manlands/Dragon in Landstill, if you want to use non-Jack Elgin deck examples for some reason.

Morphling gets maybe a 2/4 in both these categories. He's hard to Swords but easy to kill or counter otherwise, and he's little more than a wall for utility. He's not worth a kill slot and he doesn't serve as a utility slot.


Uh, I don't know about Draw/Go, but with permanent-based MUC, I rarely use Morphling to block.

This is indicative and not counterindicative of the point that Morphling is terrible because he simply blocks.


By the time I play Morphling (well beyond turn 10 as someone suggested), I usually have multiple Propaganda and Shackles active, an active Keg ready to pick off anything that might slip through, B2B limiting my opponent's disposable mana, 5-7 cards in hand, and an assload of Islands available. This is my deck doing what it was designed to do.

If my deck didn't do what it was designed to do, and I have to resort to using an 'early' Morphling to block, or I don't have any board control permanents to speak of, or my hand is gassed, or I'm staring down a horde of creatures ready to swing for lethal, that's more the failing of the deck, not the win condition.

Then why not simply run Mahamoti Djinn and save some money?

I'm serious here.

Blue decks used to run Mahamoti Djinn because it was the most compact late-game kill condition monoblue had available. No good options in the above listed kill conditions existed in color yet. Morphling was simply an update on this.

But Morphling doesn't give you an edge when both you and an opponent are in topdeck mode and out of gas.

And Morphling doesn't give you an edge when you're losing or struggling not to lose.

Morphling does exactly one thing that Mahamoti doesn't do, and that's duck Swords to Plowshares.

Otherwise, you could have any generic large vanilla creature in that slot and it would save the same function. Presuming it was blue and still pitched to Force of Will.

Except most of the large blue creature printed since 2000 don't need an upkeep of 4UU to remain large, evasive and relevant.

For what Morphling costs to affect the board on a typical turn, you could just cast Keiga. At least Overbeing of Myth is a draw engine.

Morphling is a relic of a bygone era. Let it go. Your sentiment is unwarranted. All your argument for it does is reveal it's weakness. It's good when you've already won. What creature isn't? Eater of Days?

[Illissius]

Sky Swallower

[Adan]

Sky Swallower

You, too... Stupid?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Damn. You know, I have to say, that's one of the best posts I've ever made. There should be laws against my level of brilliance, it's just not fair to the others.

[Illissius]

You, too... Stupid?

What? I can't make sense of this to decide if you're calling me stupid.

In any case, I was replying to the end of Jack's post.

[Arsenal]

Then why not simply run Mahamoti Djinn and save some money?

I'm serious here.

Blue decks used to run Mahamoti Djinn because it was the most compact late-game kill condition monoblue had available. No good options in the above listed kill conditions existed in color yet. Morphling was simply an update on this.

But Morphling doesn't give you an edge when both you and an opponent are in topdeck mode and out of gas.

And Morphling doesn't give you an edge when you're losing or struggling not to lose.

Morphling does exactly one thing that Mahamoti doesn't do, and that's duck Swords to Plowshares.

Otherwise, you could have any generic large vanilla creature in that slot and it would save the same function. Presuming it was blue and still pitched to Force of Will.

Except most of the large blue creature printed since 2000 don't need an upkeep of 4UU to remain large, evasive and relevant.

For what Morphling costs to affect the board on a typical turn, you could just cast Keiga. At least Overbeing of Myth is a draw engine.

Morphling is a relic of a bygone era. Let it go. Your sentiment is unwarranted. All your argument for it does is reveal it's weakness. It's good when you've already won. What creature isn't? Eater of Days?

If I'm in topdeck mode, I'm assuming that it's late game. If it's late game, it's also safe to assume I have a good amount of Islands out in play. In that scenario, I'll take topdeck Morphling over topdeck Djinn anyday.

If I'm losing, and facing an opponent's horde preparing to swing for lethal, there aren't many blue creatures that I can play and have them magically save me from imminent death.

I really don't understand where you're getting your numbers from. 4UU for Morphling to be relevant per turn? How? When? Why?

Also, your nonchalant attitude of Morphling just being able to evade StP/other targetted removal is strange; many, many decks do not have access to Wrath/Deed/Damnation/etc or simply don't play them. Most decks do play targetted removal/burn/bounce as their "failsafe" versus problematic creatures that have resolved.

Seriously, arguing with you is becoming tedious and tiresome. You're suggesting running Venser/Razorcore + CtS over Morphling + other creature. If you feel that's the best possible win package for your deck, then so be it. My testing has shown that Morphling + Rainbow Efreet is the most effective win package for my build.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Seriously, arguing with you is becoming tedious and tiresome.

Is studiously avoiding relevant points really so exhausting? You poor child.

Here, I'll tl;dr for you


1) Morphling cannot occupy a control, card draw, or mana slot.

2) For a dedicated kill condition slot, that did nothing except kill, you could run things that were either much more mana efficient (Spire Golem), or much more resilient (Call the Skybreaker). Morphling is marginally resistant, but not very.

[Arsenal]

Is studiously avoiding relevant points really so exhausting? You poor child.

Here, I'll tl;dr for you


1) Morphling cannot occupy a control, card draw, or mana slot.

2) For a dedicated kill condition slot, that did nothing except kill, you could run things that were either much more mana efficient (Spire Golem), or much more resilient (Call the Skybreaker). Morphling is marginally resistant, but not very.

I actually answered all of your points, but you know what, you're absolutely right about Morphling. The more I think about it, the better a win package of Venser + Spire Golem looks. Thanks for helping me out.

[mackaber]

I actually answered all of your points, but you know what, you're absolutely right about Morphling. The more I think about it, the better a win package of Venser + Spire Golem looks. Thanks for helping me out.

Irony has always been a cheap ass way of ducking out of an argument.

[Arsenal]

Irony has always been a cheap ass way of ducking out of an argument.

I addressed all points given by IBA, then he proceeds to say that I am avoiding them? And I do not understand how I'm ducking anything; he stated his opinion, I stated mine. Did I not address a particular point raised by IBA?

And by the way, it's sarcasm, not irony. Irony would be like a firefighter dying from a fire in his own home, or a brain surgeon dying from a brain tumor, etc.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Irony, noun.

1) a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by android questioning- also call Socratic irony.

2) a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression of utterance.

3) a1: incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result 2: an event or result marked by such incongruity b: incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play- also called dramatic irony/ tragic irony


What's actually happened, by the way, is I've supplied arguments and you've avoided them. You haven't yet defended Morphling's use beyond appealing to your own experience. Why is Morphling any better than other clunky, expensive threats that are easily dealt with?

Why wouldn't it be more effective to use Spire Golem and Venser over Morphling?

[Arsenal]

What's actually happened, by the way, is I've supplied arguments and you've avoided them. You haven't yet defended Morphling's use beyond appealing to your own experience. Why is Morphling any better than other clunky, expensive threats that are easily dealt with?

Why wouldn't it be more effective to use Spire Golem and Venser over Morphling?

You've answered your own question numerous times throughout this thread.

Also, if Morphling sucks because he can be countered and Wrathed, but protects itself the majority of the time, why would a creature that can be countered and Wrathed, but can't protect itself be a better win condition? I mean, you're honestly telling me you'd run Spire Golem over Morphling?

Actually, you supplied hypothetical situations (topdeck mode, losing mode, etc) and I addressed all of them. Did I miss a hypothetical?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Over Morphling?

Perhaps. It's much easier to drop Spire Golem and have counters open. It can block at the stage in the game where you most want blockers.

In conjunction with other utility kill conditions, such as Venser, or perhaps Aeon Chronicler? Perhaps. I'd more likely run another utility creature or CtS in that slot, however.

However, I'm not advocating for Spire Golem. What I'm advocating is for you to produce an actual argument for why Morphling should be played. You haven't yet done it.

[Soulles]

You've answered your own question numerous times throughout this thread.

Also, if Morphling sucks because he can be countered and Wrathed, but protects itself the majority of the time, why would a creature that can be countered and Wrathed, but can't protect itself be a better win condition? I mean, you're honestly telling me you'd run Spire Golem over Morphling?

Actually, you supplied hypothetical situations (topdeck mode, losing mode, etc) and I addressed all of them. Did I miss a hypothetical?

Why bother?

He is the founder of Team failure. I think the name says it all.

I think someone asked him how to deal with recurring EE for Call of the skybreaker tokens. It is still unanswerd.

[Arsenal]

IBA, I'm being 100% serious when I say you win. No internet sarcasm, irony, or anything else. You've won this debate/argument. I have no counters to your points (no pun intended). I seriously can't think of a good reason to run Morphling other than sentimental reasons.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Why bother?

He is the founder of Team failure. I think the name says it all.

I think someone asked him how to deal with recurring EE for Call of the skybreaker tokens. It is still unanswerd.

You're really trying to mock someone's self-deprecation?

A bold strategy.

But will it work?

To the answer of how I would deal with recurring EE with CtS;

Very poorly.

I'd hope to draw into another kill condition. Or hope I was maindecking either Spell Burst or C. Wish for Spell Burst.

I would take consolation in the fact that it's easier to avoid than non-recurring counter/removal on a Morphling.

But all that isn't a reason to strive for less resilience rather than more. Obviously I would prefer if ITF did not run a maindeck answer to CtS, but we do what we can, yes?

Oh. I'd also high-five myself mentally for G2 B2B. Although if ITF was going to be a large meta consideration for me, I would simply maindeck the B2B, obviously.


IBA, I'm being 100% serious when I say you win. No internet sarcasm, irony, or anything else. You've won this debate/argument. I have no counters to your points (no pun intended). I seriously can't think of a good reason to run Morphling other than sentimental reasons.

Okay. Cool. Forgive my cynicism, it is the internet and all. People very rarely concede that an argument has been deflated.

[Baumeister]

Morphling is good for the reason that it is the most flexible creature mono-blue control can run in that slot. Sure, it's not a counterspell, creature kill, or a land, but the rest of the deck is composed of those different pieces. Morphling is the raw kill that this deck can play, and most players aren't going to drop it until around turn eight. This leaves plenty of mana open to use Morphling's abilities and hold couterspells to control the opponent.

Morphling represents inevitability in that it will end the game because it is very difficult to deal with. Most opponents won't burn removal spells on Morphling hoping that the player will "forget" to give it shroud. If control decks have to use a Wrath of God to remove just one creature, doesn't that give us the upper hand? Four mana to destroy a creature is pretty bad in this format. You're going to ramp a Pernicious Deed up to five? Please do.

Why do people play Morphling? Because it's a creature that has counterspells built in. Forget having to deal with targetted removal for the rest of the game - and it doesn't even cost a card. That is why he is good.

I've never been sad to rip a Morphling off the top of my deck. And I've never thought, "Oh hell, I wish this was a Mahamoti Djinn." Yes, the creatures you mentioned come out faster, or are bigger, but they don't have the built in fail-safes that Morphling does. I run Razormane Masticore in this deck alongside Morphling and Rainbow Efreet and that package all together is pretty terrifying. Since each creature does different things, most standard removal can't deal with all of them.

You can dismiss Morphling, but this deck plays out slowly and Morphling fits the curve, even if it costs 4UU a turn. I'd rather play 4UU than eat up counterspells protecting my win condition.

[Tao]

IBA, thanks for claryfying your point.

First of all for the use of an utility creature as kill condition (another massively underplayed card in this attempt is Vendilion Clique btw). This is what the Fahar MUC with Sowers of Temptation backed up by Kira tries to do.
This attempt is a different deck then what the Disk MUC tries to do. The Disk MUC will try to run as few Win Conditions as possible to maximize the number of Couterspells, Draw, Lands and Board Control Artifacts. But if you'd start to use cards like Razormane Masticore or Venser in the maindeck to kill your opponent then you'd have to run more of them because the opponent could kill them pretty easily. That thought was the main reason why I was flaming so much against the lists with 2 Morphling, 1 Meloku. It makes absolutely no sense to run 2 kill conditions that are untargetable / immune to spot removal and then one more powerful backup kill condition with the biggest imaginable target on its forehead. How is this a backup? Why not just 2 Morphling? Or why not go the whole way and play 3 Meloku? If their opponent could kill 2 Morphlings how big is the hope that Meloku will survive? The same is true for Razormane Masticore. You run it as a) a Win Condition or b) a control spell. So

a) If you see it as the backup win condition: If for some reason you were not able to protect your CtS then what are your chances to discard 4 cards and swing for 20 with an Artifact creature?

b) and if you run Razormane Masticore as a control spell then why not just run another control spell instead that doesn't serve the function a) if a) will not be relevant at all? This other control spell that can't kill your opponent will have a higher control value because it can't kill your opponent. Example: One random maindeck Propaganda instead of one random Razormane will win you more games against aggro (Gobs, Icho, ETW tokens, Zoo swarm) than the Razormane Masticore and it will kill exactly as many opponents as the Maticore: Zero.

So using one Utility creature as secondary win is bad because it won't win and using more than one is bad in the hardcore control Disk attempt because it is by definition the weaker draw/counter/land/control card.

____

The next is the hard-to-kill pure win condition. Examples like Decree of Justice or Gigapede are irrelevant in this thread because they can't be played in MUC. Wizards has a good reason to print no blue Decree of Justice!

If you don't count cards like Isleback Spawn then we have access to 5 of these so far (correct me if I forgot one): Morphling, Call the Skybreaker, Jace, Tezzeret and Rainbow Efreet. Imo Jace is Sideboard material because he massively sucks against Aggro and can't function as the primary kill condition. The Rainbow Efreet is strictly outclassed by CtS. So we are left with Tezzeret, CtS and Morphling. And now the card quality will come into play: Morphling is the best of these. This is what testing has shown again and again. When I had drawn CtS or Tezzeret a Morphling would usually have been better. He is way faster than the other options (remember our MUC-Solidarity match? Casting CtS there? Impossible). He will dominate the board with his flying vigilance massive P/T. Just for the case that you run into a Deed/ Wrath deck you may want an alternative, and in these cases you can play a CtS or Tezzeret as second win.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Morphling is good for the reason that it is the most flexible creature mono-blue control can run in that slot.

I find this statement worryingly unbased in reality.


Sure, it's not a counterspell, creature kill, or a land, but the rest of the deck is composed of those different pieces. Morphling is the raw kill that this deck can play,

This phrasing reveals, to me, that your line of thinking is based around justifying Morphling, rather than asking what is the objective best kill condition for MUC.

There are lots of "raw kills" that the deck can run, and lots of utility beats it could run as well. Let's not discard the alternatives pre-emptively. They're real. They exist.


and most players aren't going to srop it until around turn eight. This leaves plenty of mana open to use Morphling's abilities and hold couterspells to control the opponent.

By turn eight, you have access to a shitton of kill conditions. Some of them are much harder to deal with than Morphling; some have a much bigger impact.

The position in which it's the late game, and you have lots of mana and counters open is a very easy one to negotiate from. What about more troublesome scenarios?


Morphling represents inevitability in that it will end the game because it is very difficult to deal with.

Less so than a lot of other kill conditions, ones that are difficult or impossible to effectively counter, or destroy, or both. Morphling is very far from being the most resilient kill condition available, so why run it over those that offer more resiliency?


Most opponents won't burn removal spells on Morphling hoping that the player will "forget" to give it shroud. If control decks have to use a Wrath of God to remove just one creature, doesn't that give us the upper hand? Four mana to destroy a creature is pretty bad in this format. You're going to ramp a Pernicious Deed up to five? Please do.

No, it doesn't give you the upper hand, because you've made a previously dead card extremely relevant. And you're reduced to looking for another kill; most other control decks have kill conditions that are in turn difficult for you to deal with, such as Decree of Justice, Eternal Dragon, Gigapede. Haunting Echoes, God forbid.


Why do people play Morphling?

This question is comically different when you don't assume that people behave rationally.


Because it's a creature that has counterspells built in. Forget having to deal with targetted removal for the rest of the game - and it doesn't even cost a card. That is why he is good.

Him and Isleback Spawn.

Of course, Spawn is usually bigger.


I've never been sad to rip a Morphling off the top of my deck. And I've never thought, "Oh hell, I wish this was a Mahamoti Djinn." Yes, the creatures you mentioned come out faster, or are bigger, but they don't have the built in fail-safes that Mrophling does. I run Razormane Masticore in this deck alongside Morphling and Rainbow Efreet and that package all together is pretty terrifying. Since each creature does different things, most standard removal can't deal with all of them.

And why wouldn't CtS, as a larger, removal-proof flyer without a significantly higher price tag, and which may in fact be cheaper in the long run and certainly has more synergy with Fact or Fiction, be better in that package? Hell, it has more synergy with Razormane Masticore too.


I'd rather play 4UU than eat up counterspells protecting my win condition.

5UU.

Call the Skybreaker costs 5UU.

But otherwise, this is indeed correct.

[Jaynel]

Relic is actually really, really awesome. I've been playing with Tao's list posted earlier (with 11 Artifacts and 1 Tezzeret) and you really have so much control over everything.

The spot I've been a little bit leery about is the 2 Capsize. I (almost) always treat it as a 6 mana spell - is this appropriate? Tao, could you explain how you use it, and what other cards you tested in those 2 slots?