Which is the best monocolored control deck in the format?

[Jon Stewart]

I wish to heavily invest in a monoclored control deck, and I would love to hear your advise as to which one.

Green and Red have nothing to offer to my knowledge. So it really comes down to blue, white and black. Any advice/recommendations?

I know many people like Quinn (MWC) but I honestly don't see the appeal and it doesn't seem like the deck has much in the way of disrupting your opponents early on or any answer to combo whereas both blue and black offer countermagic and discard respectively.

Is MUC a viable deck still? I would love to play blue but all work on the deck seems dead and I haven't seen many placements with it on deckcheck.

So I'm leaning towards black because it has so much excellent disruption/discard, removal and sweepers, mana acceleration thru Cabal Coffers, card advantage thru Phyrexian Arena and several fantastic options for finishers.

And it seems some of the recent Train Wreck players have shifted away from splashing green to play Deed and opening themselves up to Stifle and Wasteland when Keg, Disk, Stone and Damnation can serve the same function for less mana and without neccesitating a splash.

[(nameless one)]

What about Pox?

With so much aggro/aggro-control going on, I don't see why Pox would fail.

Also, what about White Staxx?

[Jon Stewart]

Stax and Pox are an interesting suggestions and I already have and play both. They weren't exactly what I mean by control though. Both decks seem to fit more in the element of prison decks than pure control decks in the old school sense.

If I decide to build MBC...



//Mana
20 Land
4 Cabal Coffers
2 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth

//Draw & Discard
4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Phyrexian Arena

//Removal
4 Innocent Blood
2 Chainers Edict
2 Shriekmaw
3 Gatekeeper of Malakir

//Sweepers
3 Damnation
2 Pernicious Deed

//Finishers
1 Staff of Domination
1 Sorin Markov
2 Liliana Vess
2 Consume Spirit


That build but without the Deeds or the Staff but instead playing 2 Disks and the 4th Damnation catches my interest.

[Otter]

Is MUC a viable deck still? I would love to play blue but all work on the deck seems dead and I haven't seen many placements with it on deckcheck.

The main reason that MUC wasn't simply just "bad landstill" was Back to Basics. Once Qasali Pridemage showed up, that was sort of the final nail in the coffin. Even regular UW/x Landstill isn't doing well anymore (though we could debate how good it actually is, it's certainly not putting up T8 numbers these days), so it's hard to think of a reason why MUC would be worthwhile.

[Jon Stewart]

Doesn't MUC play lots of countermagic specifically to protect it's B2B, Propaganda and Shackles from enchantment removal? I do get the idea the format simply became too fast and aggressive for MUC to keep up though. So is MBC the best option? Should I just go ahead and work on building that deck above (-Deed and -Staff +Disk and +Damnation)? Are there any obvious flaws with the list above? Or is there a case to be made that Quinn is strictly the superior option?

[Aggro_zombies]

Doesn't MUC play lots of countermagic specifically to protect it's B2B, Propaganda and Shackles from enchantment removal? I do get the idea the format simply became too fast and aggressive for MUC to keep up though. So is MBC the best option? Should I just go ahead and work on building that deck above (-Deed and -Staff +Disk and +Damnation)? Are there any obvious flaws with the list above? Or is there a case to be made that Quinn is strictly the superior option?
Zoo's threat density is high enough that it can run you out of counters easily. Once that happens, you're toast. It only has to connect with a guy a couple of times to make burning you out a possibility.

Quinn is sooooo slooooow, unless you have the Painter-Stone combo. Even then, you're pretty easy to hate.

Mono-colored control decks are weak in today's meta - actually, control in general is weak in today's meta. You'd be better off building mono-colored aggro-control like Merfolk or mono-aggro like Goblins.

[arebennian]

The main reason that MUC wasn't simply just "bad landstill" was Back to Basics. Once Qasali Pridemage showed up, that was sort of the final nail in the coffin. Even regular UW/x Landstill isn't doing well anymore (though we could debate how good it actually is, it's certainly not putting up T8 numbers these days), so it's hard to think of a reason why MUC would be worthwhile.

It ain't dead yet:
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16602-[Columbus-OH]-UWr-Landstill-Splits-T4-of-Meandeck-Open

[Jon Stewart]

Quinn is sooooo slooooow, unless you have the Painter-Stone combo. Even then, you're pretty easy to hate.

Thank you for that honest assessment. Do you think there is any chance that MBC (the above build) might fare a lil better than the other two?

I feel that even if it's not tier one, every player should have some exposure to/experience playing a pure control deck (one where they are never the aggressor) if they wish to be well rounded.

[Pastorofmuppets]

a more tempo oriented strategy would be to go with a stompy build.
Dragon Stompy puts up the most results, but Green Chalice has the most stable manabase, and Tarmogoyf to boot.
Technically, Solidarity is combo-control, since you want to spend as much time as possible not going off.

[hungryLIKEALION]

Don't cut staff for more damnations. Staff+coffers is instant win... I assume you don't hate winning games, and you've already got a million removal spells. Don't cut staff.

[Jon Stewart]

Yeah I suppose being able to tutor up Staff with Liliana Vess could come in handy in a lot of situations.

[Citrus-God]

Quinn the Eskimo?

[troopatroop]

Mono-Black Reanimator is the best mono colored deck in general, idk if it counts as control though.

[Pastorofmuppets]

Mono-Black Reanimator is the best mono colored deck in general, idk if it counts as control though.

because, you know, Merfolk, Goblins, Burn, all 6 Stompies (has Brown Town Beatdown shown anything yet?), Solidarity, MUC, and Imperial Painter are so lame compared to the force that is Mono Black Reanimator.

[Jon Stewart]

Quinn the Eskimo?

Yes that is what Im refering to when I write Quinn/MWC. I feel like MBC is a better deck than Quinn. Do you think otherwise?

[troopatroop]

because, you know, Merfolk, Goblins, Burn, all 6 Stompies (has Brown Town Beatdown shown anything yet?), Solidarity, MUC, and Imperial Painter are so lame compared to the force that is Mono Black Reanimator.

Actually thats exactly what I think. I think Reanimator has a fantastic matchup against

Mono Red Goblins
Burn
Solidarity
MUC

... and much better matchups against the field than the other decks you mentioned. I think it beats Merfolk pretty well too.

Edit: This is of course assuming that playing Iona and Inkwell doesn't make the deck B/u/w. Cuz it doesn't.

[Pastorofmuppets]

Actually thats exactly what I think. I think Reanimator has a fantastic matchup against

Mono Red Goblins
Burn
Solidarity
MUC

... and much better matchups against the field than the other decks you mentioned. I think it beats Merfolk pretty well too.

Edit: This is of course assuming that playing Iona and Inkwell doesn't make the deck B/u/w. Cuz it doesn't.

now then, please post results. And even if what you say IS true, just because a deck is better in the other monocolor MU's doesn't mean it's the best monocolor deck. Merfolk and Goblins rely heavily on mana denial via Wasteland, MUC uses B2B to a similar effect, and Burn and Solidarity are, well, Burn and Solidarity.

[troopatroop]

Well I'd point to the number of players actually playing Mono Black, which is very few. Most people including myself would much rather be playing Fow, but Unmask serves almost the same purpose. Entomb just got unbanned, Iona just got printed, it's only begun to catch on. Besides, we both know there will always be more Goblins and Merfolk players in general. I'm just saying that it has better matchups against the field on paper.

[4eak]

@ Jon Stewart

I have a great deal of experience playing Monocolor dedicated control decks (feel free to view my posts on the subject). I'm very familiar with MWC/MUC/MBC. Most people don't have a lot of experience with the mono-colored dedicated control decks of Legacy, and for good reason, splashing is so easy in this format. They do play differently than the Landstills, Loam-control, BG-variants, etc. If you are used to the multi-color control decks of the format, then you may find mono-colored dedicated control awkward, as they really are built and played differently than their multi-colored brethren.


I feel like MBC is a better deck than Quinn. Do you think otherwise?

I definitely think otherwise. I consider Quinn to be a much stronger deck overall.


I know many people like Quinn (MWC) but I honestly don't see the appeal and it doesn't seem like the deck has much in the way of disrupting your opponents early on or any answer to combo whereas both blue and black offer countermagic and discard respectively

Here are the generally relevant cards against combo:


3-4 Enlightened Tutor
4 Sensei's Divining Top

4 Orim's Chant
2-3 Abeyance
2-3 Runed Halo
2 Isochron Scepter
2-3 Oblivion Ring

2 Painter's Servant
2 Grindstone

SB:
0-1 Rule of Law
0-1 Ethersworn Canonist
1 Relic of Progenitus
3 Tormod's Crypt
3 Ray of Distortion

It is more difficult to clearly understand what White brings to the table against combo until you've piloted it. If combo becomes problematic enough in your eyes, then you can devote more energy to answering it; white has other cards which are quite powerful in the combo match as well (Aura of Silence, etc.).

I am not claiming most combo decks to be easy matchups, but we do have tools to win. Having an opposing combo to match our opponents is very useful as well. Proper mulligans do make this winnable.

Combo isn't the only matchup to answer though. Against decks that win with creatures, MWC has the best tools. It has the best removal (targeted and sweeping), the best draw engine, 'oops I win' silverbullets, and the best win conditions among the monocolor control decks.

As far as I know, Quinn has the fastest win-condition found in any of the mono-color dedicated control decks. It is also easily protected through Chant effects. Even silver bullets like ChantLock and Moat can be game-ending. Quinn can win on the spot, but it doesn't have to. If for some reason the Painter combo or silverbullet package is fragile/vulnerable/unusable in a particular match, Quinn has the resiliency and flexibility provided by E-Dragon, Sacred Mesa, and in some builds Elspeth.

Quinn takes patience and practice. I think the deck is underestimated; I think most people don't really enjoy played dedicated control. With that said, I think dedicated control is dying in Legacy; the mono-colored dedicated control decks will die first.





peace,
4eak

[Jon Stewart]

It always surprising how many 2 ofs and 3 ofs Quinn plays and not just cards that are tutored for either. Many of the 2 ofs and 3 ofs in the deck are rarely if ever tutored for. It's almost an spoken rule that well tuned decks play mostly 4 ofs with an occasional 3 of or two. Yet Quinn barely plays any 4 ofs at all. That seems inconsistent and kind of random.


Against decks that win with creatures, MWC has the best tools. It has the best removal (targeted and sweeping), the best draw engine, 'oops I win' silverbullets, and the best win conditions among the monocolor control decks.

I respect your opinion, but I don't see how your claim can be correct. Just looking at deckcheck.net, even completely discounting all Train Wreck builds which are only very slight variations on MBC, MBC has nearly three times as many top 8 placements on deckcheck as Quinn.

First you say that Quinn has the best draw engine. Yet, Phyrexian Arena is clearly the superior draw engine since it's a single card that does all that. If additional card advantage is needed, Promise of Power draws an absurd number of cards. Quinn's draw engine requires two cards and primarily consists of the two card combo of Top + Scrying Sheets. Without both pieces of the engines, it wont provide nearly as much card advantage so Quinn's card advantage is actually less reliable if anything.

As for removal, I don't see how you can claim that white has superior removal to black. Both colors are pretty much exactly on par, yes O. Ring is nice but imo Disk is just as good if not better (it costs more but it nukes the whole board) and Quinn doens't have the option to use Disk since the deck is very reliant on permanents. Innocent Blood and Chainer's Edict are imo superior to StP especially since they can get around Shroud and Protection (can kill Progenitus) and Chainer's Edict even recurs. Damnation is on par with Wrath. And if anything, Shriekmaw and Gatekeeper give black an edge in the removal front since they double as both removal and threats.

As for the win conditions, MBC can play Painter's and Grindstone too. It has Beseech to grab both if it wants. But most builds opt not to since black actually has better options for win conditions.

I'll give you that white has some solid silver bullets, but black has it's own advantages, such as Cabal Coffers and black does have silver bullets as well (Disk imo is a fantastic silver bullet). And while E. Tutor is a great tutor, so it Beseech the Queen. Black doesn't mind the higher cc due to the absurd mana that Cabal Coffers generates. And it's awesome that Beseech gets you the card right away and without any card disadvantage.

[FoulQ]

It always surprising how many 2 ofs and 3 ofs Quinn plays and not just cards that are tutored for either. Many of the 2 ofs and 3 ofs in the deck are rarely if ever tutored for. It's almost an spoken rule that well tuned decks play mostly 4 ofs with an occasional 3 of or two. Yet Quinn barely plays any 4 ofs at all. That seems inconsistent and kind of random.

You shouldn't judge numbers on a list until you have played the deck extensively. Oftentimes, there is intricacies in 2-ofs and 1-ofs that aren't really visible unless you have played with the deck. I hate to reference that ......UW Tempo deck, but the 1-of Knight of the White Orchid is a good example. I don't think you can say that is a spoken rule, particularly in legacy, where games can get pretty swingy pretty fast.



I respect your opinion, but I don't see how your claim can be correct. Just looking at deckcheck.net, even completely discounting all Train Wreck builds which are only very slight variations on MBC, MBC has nearly three times as many top 8 placements on deckcheck as Quinn.

Please do not quote deckcheck as a database of all legacy tournaments. It is good for referencing some lists, but it does not have all the events, and puts on a lot of really small ones nobody cares about as well. If you really want to win a debate through this method, you should look towards the t8s of large tournaments like SGCs and such, of which both these decks have little (or no?) placings, probably because of a combination of difficulty to adapt to and because the decks aren't very strong in the current metagame or in general because of the splashability of legacy, as 4eak mentioned.


First you say that Quinn has the best draw engine. Yet, Phyrexian Arena is clearly the superior draw engine since it's a single card that does all that.

A single card that does all that? What the hell does that mean? Well fuck it, it is clearly the superior draw engine anyways.


If additional card advantage is needed, Promise of Power draws an absurd number of cards. Quinn's draw engine requires two cards and primarily consists of the two card combo of Top + Scrying Sheets. Without both pieces of the engines, it wont provide nearly as much card advantage so Quinn's card advantage is actually less reliable if anything.

Except that top is pretty awesome by itself. And promise of power costs 5 mana, you are calling that reliable?


As for removal, I don't see how you can claim that white has superior removal to black. Both colors are pretty much exactly on par, yes O. Ring is nice but imo Disk is just as good if not better (it costs more but it nukes the whole board) and Quinn doens't have the option to use Disk since the deck is very reliant on permanents. Innocent Blood and Chainer's Edict are imo superior to StP especially since they can get around Shroud and Protection (can kill Progenitus) and Chainer's Edict even recurs. Damnation is on par with Wrath. And if anything, Shriekmaw and Gatekeeper give black an edge in the removal front since they double as both removal and threats.

Ok. Innocent blood and chainer's edict are DEFINITELY not better than swords. I was reading your opinions and rationalizing them in my head, but this makes you lose a lot of credibility. White has better removal than black, because STP is a single card that "does all that"


As for the win conditions, MBC can play Painter's and Grindstone too. It has Beseech to grab both if it wants. But most builds opt not to since black actually has better options for win conditions.

What might those be?


I'll give you that white has some solid silver bullets, but black has it's own advantages, such as Cabal Coffers and black does have silver bullets as well (Disk imo is a fantastic silver bullet). And while E. Tutor is a great tutor, so it Beseech the Queen. Black doesn't mind the higher cc due to the absurd mana that Cabal Coffers generates. And it's awesome that Beseech gets you the card right away and without any card disadvantage.

When did cabal coffers become playable again in legacy?

In my opinion, you should just stay away from mono-colored control decks. They are all pretty bad right now. ...Or try a different format.

[Jon Stewart]

Don't be snide. It's blatantly apparenet that by does all that Im referring to the fact that Phyrexian Arena does
by itself what Quinn requires a two card combo to pull off (generate card advantage).

And I made it quite clear why I feel Chains and Innocent Blood are superior in decks that don't play creatures of their own. They can hit progenitus, creatures with Shroud, creatures equipped with SOLS and Chains even flashes back to do it again. They can't be misdirected and they don't even cause your opponent to gain life.

I made my points with evidence, it's not too much to ask that you do the same rather than make snide remarks.

[FoulQ]

Don't be snide. It's blatantly apparenet that by does all that Im referring to the fact that Phyrexian Arena does
by itself what Quinn requires a two card combo to pull off (generate card advantage).

And I made it quite clear why I feel Chains and Innocent Blood are superior in decks that don't play creatures of their own. They can hit progenitus, creatures with Shroud, creatures equipped with SOLS and Chains even flashes back to do it again. They can't be misdirected and they don't even cause your opponent to gain life.

I made my points with evidence, it's not too much to ask that you do the same rather than make snide remarks.

I didn't provide "evidence" because I know this debate would be/is pointless. I'm not going to convince you, and you definitely aren't going to convince me that innocent blood is better than swords to plowshares.

So no, I'm not going to tell you why swords to plowshares is better than innocent blood, always will be, and always has been.

And god damn, "hitting progenitus" has become the new "it dodges counterbalance."

It just bothers me when people make sweeping remarks regarding cards like phyrexian arena and CHAINER'S EDICT when hundreds of legacy players around the world have concluded that those cards aren't that good in legacy. If they were good, they would be winning tournaments, and people would be playing them, but they aren't.

Not to say they don't have potential, but to come on the source, ask for suggestions, and then tell people why innocent blood is better than swords to plowshares when hundreds of people around the world disagree with you who have also been playing magic for a long time, WELL, that doesn't sit well with me.

[4eak]

@ Jon Stewart


I respect your opinion, but I don't see how your claim can be correct. Just looking at deckcheck.net, even completely discounting all Train Wreck builds which are only very slight variations on MBC, MBC has three times as many top 8 placements on deckcheck as Quinn.

I'm hardly convinced by deckcheck in this regard. As I said before, dedicated control doesn't have a lot of pilots. Kithkin WW might have more spots on deckcheck in Legacy than plenty of decks, but that doesn't mean anything more than: "there were a crap ton of pilots" who by happenstance made top8 with a t2 WW deck.

We can look at the numbers if you want though. You've ignored the evolution of the MWC archetype. This isn't just about Quinn, it is about the color White as opposed to the alternatives.

MBC = 16 (http://www.deckcheck.net/list.php?type=Mono+Black+Control&format=Legacy)
MWC = 6 (http://www.deckcheck.net/list.php?type=Mono+White+Control&format=Legacy) + 19 (http://www.deckcheck.net/list.php?type=Rabid+Wombat&format=Legacy)

Trainwreck is more than a slight variation. Deed/Choke/Grip/Regrowth/etc. are huge. The mana-base traditionally gets rocked (hehe) by Wasteland/Stifle because the splash is that valuable. When blue or white add each other, you get U/W Control/Landstill; which is by far the most successful dedicated control deck. I tried to be clear that I was addressing Monocolor dedicated control decks.


First you say that Quinn has the best draw engine. Yet, Phyrexian Arena is clearly the superior draw engine since it's a single card that does all that. If additional card advantage is needed, Promise of Power draws an absurd number of cards. Quinn's entire draw engine consists of the two card combo of Top + Scrying Sheets. Without both pieces of the engines, it wont provide nearly as much card advantage so Quinn's card advantage is actually less reliable if anything.

You don't appear very familiar (perhaps you've not done enough testing) with Quinn. Here is the complete draw engine:

3-4 Enlightened Tutor
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Scrying Sheets
2-3 Eternal Dragon
2-3 Abeyance

How one generates Card advantage, of course, is different from a draw engine. Let's note confuse the issue. MWC has plenty of other direct CA producers (Sweepers for example) and Virtual CA producers (Moat and Chantlock for example). Even Chantwalking or Stalling with Pulse can provide time and resources to draw. I was only speaking about cards that draw and select though. Quinn's engine is actually more reliable than you've implied because there is more to it than just the Snow-Engine.

Phyrexian Arena isn't superior. It costs you 1 life per turn (which matters, especially in Zoo heavy metagames). It is more subject to removal and permission. More importantly, MBC doesn't have the same diversity in card engines and it lacks consistency (as it can only devote so much deckspace to it). MWC can run a more consistent draw engine because much of its draw engine is dual-purpose.

The snow-engine may not seem powerful at first. You'll see it is very good in practice. Mana-efficiency isn't the only concern of a draw engine. The Snow-Engine is extremely versatile, which makes up for inefficiencies. Scrying Sheets can always be used a mana-source. If I don't need to control for a turn (tapping sheets for mana), or if I have any extra mana left at my opponent's end step, I can use that mana instead for continually improving my advantage. Untaps are not wasted in MWC. You also imply that you must have both Top and Scying sheets, which any proficient player will tell you is not true. Blind Scrying will be successful over 1/3rd of the time.

Enlightened Tutor is very efficient, and it allows for some of the more powerful dedicated control (almost combo-esque control) plays in Legacy. End step E-tutors are often nightmares for your opponent.

Top is also stronger than many people realize on paper. It is information advantage, it lets you float cards to overcome discard effects, it let's you play a quasi-10 card hand, it is also a turn 1 play (which matters). It has awesome synergy with shuffle effects. It is the best card in the deck (seriously, you'll e-tutor for a Top almost anytime you don't have a top).

Dragon and Abeyance are clearly dual purpose. I suggest reading the Quinn thread for further explanation.


As for removal, I don't see how you can claim that white has superior removal to black. Both colors are pretty much exactly on par, yes O. Ring is nice but imo Disk is just as good if not better (it costs more but it nukes the whole board) and Quinn doens't have the option to use Disk since the deck is very reliant on permanents. Innocent Blood and Chainer's Edict are imo superior to StP especially since they can get around Shroud and Protection (can kill Progenitus) and Chainer's Edict even recurs. Damnation is on par with Wrath. And if anything, Shriekmaw and Gatekeeper give black an edge in the removal front since they double as both removal and threats.

I'm surprised you are disagreeing on this one -- very surprised. If you can't see how White has superior removal, then you really need more practice with control. This was a hands down obvious one.

Swords and PtE are the most mana-efficient removal cards to date. The fact that these are instant and targeted are extremely relevant in blue.format. I'm shocked that you would think that Edict effects come even remotely close. The few exceptions you can provide are completely negated by cards like Runed Halo, Moat, Story Circle; and there are other options like Wing Shards (which the deck long ago found unworthy).

MWC has similar dual-function removal cards as well. Sacred Mesa and Elspeth are absolute bombs both defensively and offensively; DoJ from the side is also good. Even E-dragon can chump like a pro in the late game.

The trick is that MWC's silverbullets are so potent against many decks that if they don't have an answer, it becomes an academic exercise for MWC to win afterwards.


As for the win conditions, MBC can play Painter's and Grindstone too. It has Beseech to grab both if it wants. But most builds opt not to since black actually has better options for win conditions.

Direct Win conditions for MWC:

Painter/Grindstone
Eternal Dragon
Decree of Justice
Sacred Mesa
Elspeth


Often game-winning plays which players scoop to:

Multiple Runed Halos on decks with a serious lack of threat diversity and answers.
Moat (even stronger with Humility)
Chantlock


Orim's Chant and Abeyance make the real difference betweeen Painter in MBC and MWC. Perhaps it has been a while since you combo'd under Chant's hedge of protection.

As for the tutor similaries, I beg you to reconsider the difference in mana cost and the stages of the game in which they can be used. Beseech costs a great deal more than E-Tutor in the early game, which matters when your best option is to race or find an answer before you lose.


I'll give you that white has some solid silver bullets, but black has it's own advantages, such as Cabal Coffers and black does have silver bullets as well (Disk imo is a fantastic silver bullet)

I'm probably one of the only remaining advocates of Disk. It is a catchall to decks which lack better options (MBC for example). 4-Mana is a ton in the early game though (a time when Coffers is meaningless). And, you are mistaken to assume that MWC can't play Disk; it chooses alternatives which are more versatile.

It appears you may know the in's-and-out's of MBC, but you do not display the same aptitude for MWC. I really suggest picking up Quinn for 3 weeks, and playing it non-stop. Learn the ins-and-outs of the deck, and perhaps you may come to agree with me.





peace,
4eak

[Jon Stewart]

Thanks 4eak for atleast trying to add valid points to the discussion. You make some good points, and a few that I disagree with and I look firward to having that discussion with you. For example, I don't see how you can justify calling Enlightened Tutor, Eternal Dragon or even Abeyance a draw ENGINE. I don't think you mean to call them draw engines because that term doesn't make sense at all in describing those cards, the only true draw engines are two card combos (abeyance+scepter for example) in the deck which is the point I was making.
It just bothers me when people make sweeping remarks regarding cards like phyrexian arena and CHAINER'S EDICT when hundreds of legacy players around the world have concluded that those cards aren't that good in legacy. If they were good, they would be winning tournaments, and people would be playing them, but they aren't.

I don't give a crap if it sits well with you. The only thing Ive asked is that you explain the broad sweeping statements you were making with logic, evidence or examples. You (and the guy posting about Reanimator in a control thread) are the only people here who's made sweeping remarks without backing them up. You know as well as I do that cards like Innocent Blood only function in the extremely rare decks that don't play creatures themselves.

And it's extremely amusing how you talk about cards proving themselves by having other legacy decks and players use them all while defending a deck where 70% of the cards it plays were deemed as unplayable in legacy and don't see play anywhere outside of the deck that you're backing.

Outside the one or two win conditions and maybe Phyexian Arena and Edict every card that MBC plays is used/sees play in legacy in atleast one or more very popular decks with some cards seeing play in almost every black deck in the format. Only a small minority of the cards Quinn plays (stp, top and maybe O. Ring et al) are played by other legacy decks. Most of Quinn's cards are cards that "hundreds of legacy players around the world have concluded that those cards aren't that good in legacy. If they were good, they would be winning tournaments, and people would be playing them, but they aren't."

[FoulQ]

Outside the one or two win conditions and maybe Phyexian Arena and Edict every card that MBC plays is used/sees play in legacy in atleast one or more very popular decks with some cards seeing play in almost every black deck in the format. Only a small minority of the cards Quinn plays (stp, top and maybe O. Ring et al) are played by other legacy decks. Most of Quinn's cards are cards that "hundreds of legacy players around the world have concluded that those cards aren't that good in legacy. If they were good, they would be winning tournaments, and people would be playing them, but they aren't."

Like I said, this was doomed to be pointless from the start.

If you read closely you'll see that I say that Quinn isn't well positioned in the current metagame. Just like every other monocolored control deck right now.

[4eak]

@ Jon Stewart


For example, indont see how you can justify calling Enlightened Tutor, Eternal Dragon or even Abeyance a draw ENGINE. I'm don't think you mean to call themdraw engines because that term doesn't make sense at all, the only true draw engines are two card combos (abeyance+scepter for example) in the deck which is the point I was making

Your definition of a draw engine is far, far too limited. By such a definition, chain FoFs or Standstills doesn't count as a draw engine. Loam wouldn't be a draw engine. Please note though, I haven't necessarily referred to each of those listed cards as draw engines in and of themselves; I said they were a part of the complete draw engine.


Outside the one or two win conditions and maybe Phyexian Arena and Edict every card that MBC plays is used/sees play in legacy in atleast one or more very popular decks with some cards seeing play in almost every black deck in the format.

This is hyperbole. I think you would do better in this debate if you refrained from this language. MBC is hardly a crystallized list; it is usually a hodgepodge of cards thrown together. There are even "MBC" decks listed on deckcheck, for example, that are actually splashing for other colors.


Only a small minority of the cards Quinn plays (stp, top and maybe O. Ring et al) are played by other legacy decks.

I think more cards from MWC (beyond Stp, Top and O-ring) see play in this format:


Painter's Servant / Grindstone see play in several archetypes.
Humility/Moat/Runed Halo in some Landstill, Enchantress and Stax decks.
Elspeth/Eternal Dragon/Decree of Justice/Pulse of the Fields/Wrath of God in some combination or another will be found in the vast majority of U/W Control decks.
Orim's Chant is played in almost all tendrils storm variants.


Also, I think you've de-emphasized exactly how much StP and SDT see play in Legacy. According to deckcheck, both cards are in the top 50 most played cards in the format (including lands). These spells are more than proven; they are the staples of this format. MBC's spells aren't even on that list.





peace,
4eak

[Jon Stewart]

I think you completely missed the point of my post. I was responding to the absurd claim that you can determine the value of a card entirely by how many other decks play it.

[4eak]

@ Jon Stewart


I think you completely missed the point of my post. I was responding to the absurd claim that you can determine the value of a card entirely by how many other decks play it.

What other metric would you suggest?

You are gravely mistaken about the value of StP and SDT. You obviously don't understand why they are so influential in Legacy. Your inability to effectively judge card value is preventing you from making reasonable arguments and comparisons. Seriously, it does look like a waste of time debating this larger "What is the best monocolor control deck?" question with you when you can't admit something as obvious and as small as "STP is generally much better than Innocent Blood".

You came into this thread seeking advice. I suggest you take what was said and test it for yourself.




peace,
4eak

[(nameless one)]

I know Quinn is one of the most underrated decks out there.

I am an aggro player in definition (I have Merfolk, Goblin, Aggro Elves as my main Legacy decks). Some told me that playing Control helps you understand the game even better and in turn will help you become a better player.

Because of this reason, I started building Quinn (I was only missing the Land Package, Orim's Chant, Abeyances and Wrath of Gods when I started building the deck. Plus the fact that I cannot afford other control manabases). When I started piloting the deck, I immediately fell in love with the deck. For the first time, I know how it feels like to control another player and it felt good.

Anyways, even though Quinn has a lot of 1-2 ofs, it could still pull of the cards that it needs. How? First of all, you can tutor them. Second, you have Sensei's Divining Top constantly sifting your topdeck (and the Snow-Land Package generates a lot of card advantage with SDT). The ones you cannot tutor, you just simply play 3-4 ofs (Sword to Plowshares, Wrath of God, Orim's Chant)

Currently, I am piloting a suboptimal Quinn deck (no Painter-Stone combo, Day of Judgement for Wrath of God, Decree of Justice and Marshall Coup as my win condition). The deck is twice as slow as a conventional Quinn deck but it still owns my meta (considering my meta is aggro/control). Hell, I even own some combo (Dream Halls and Dredge). Although I haven't really played it in a tournament within my area, It still owns a lot of regular Legacy decks around. I dont even run Moats (and not intending to run them) and the deck is still functional (Humility owns)

I do love the idea of Quinn as underrated as the people around my area like to netdeck (their decks are 100% copies of whoever shows up in deckcheck.) and there is little traces of Quinn in there.

[Jon Stewart]

@ Jon Stewart
What other metric would you suggest?

You are gravely mistaken about the value of StP and SDT. You obviously don't understand why they are so influential in Legacy. Your inability to effectively judge card value is preventing you from making reasonable arguments and comparisons.

And your ability to repeatedly completely miss the point is preventing you from making reasonable arguments. The point I was making isn't that StP or Top aren't good or influential cards.

The point I was making is that it's ridiculous to assess the value of a card solely by how many decks play it. If you refuse to admit that, then you're basically saying that cards like Enlightened Tutor, Isochron Scepter, Scrying Sheets and such are garbage. I don't think that's the point that you're trying to make. But that's precisely what you're advocating by claiming that just looking at how many decks play a card is enough to establish if the card is good or not.

[4eak]

@ Jon Stewart


The point I was making isn't that StP or Top aren't good or influential cards.

I never said you were claiming that "StP or Top aren't good or influential cards". You simply haven't recognized exactly how good they are; you don't even seem to be rationally comparing StP to Innocent Blood (which is less complicated than judging the full relevance of StP to Legacy). It appears as if you aren't understanding the circumstances (and the rate at which we encounter those circumstances in this format) in which StP is so much better than Innocent. If you can't understand something which is pretty obvious to even an intermediate control pilot, then why should I believe you are experienced/knowledgeable enough to really making sound judgments about the value of StP in general, or for that matter, comparing control decks in general?

I'll briefly make the comparison for you:

StP obviously is not symmetrical like Innocent Blood. This isn't a hard one. Even when we compare Innocent Blood in creatureless decks, it pales in comparison to StP. This symmetry limits Innocent Blood users in their choice of wincons.

Both Swords to Plowshares and Innocent Blood are 1cc, so they're equal there. They both are in secondary colors in this format. Which color is more relevant when talking about decks which actually want creature removal though? For decks which actually play creature removal, White is generally a stronger color. This is demonstrated in decks like Bant, Counterbalance, splashed Merfolk, etc. Being in white, is therefore preferred to black, assuming you can only splash for one or the other (perhaps it is the 3rd color of a 3-color deck).

StP is an instant. I'll give a few examples of times where that is brokenly important:


Aether Vial, particularly on your end step
Man-lands and other temporary creatures.
Cracking Standstills on endsteps of those with 7-card hands
When deciding what colors to Fetch, you can wait until it is necessary, where Sorcery speed does not give you the option to wait.
In response to LD, and often for playing around Stifle and allowing you to wait for your opponent to tap out before you crack the fetch and StP during their step.
Draw-Go or Mana-light positions where you end-step remove and leave your mana open for your turn.
When you must remove while an opponent taps out, particularly if they choose to tap out during your end step.
Any form of Lord based combat. Instant removal messes with the math very quickly.
The information advantage of waiting to play the removal (and your opponent's info disadvantage)
Instant speed draw into removal (floating StP with a Top, and being able to draw and play it at any time)
Breaking up combos and alpha-strikes at instant speed (Painter Combo played in a single turn)
Playing through Counterbalance
Having the option to choose a different creature played during your opponents mainphase can be important, so you don't waste StP on less valuable targets (even if we were comparing it to sorcery speed targeted removal).


If you don't understand any of these, then back the train up and let me know. I'll be happy to elaborate. I'm sure I'm missing a ton of generic instances where being able to respond with instant removal or the information advantage provided by playing an instant instead of a sorcery is so valuable; you get the point though.

StP is targeted, Innocent Blood is not. 9 times out of 10 (probably more) I'd rather have the choice of which creature will be eliminated. For instance, what if Tarpan + Goyf are in play. When I Innocent Blood, Tarpan hits the GY and Goyf lives. When I StP, that Goyf is toast. The times where I meet an untargetable are much, much less relevant than the number of times where I must be able to choose which creature is removed.

Misdirection and Lifegain are pretty ridiculous issues. I've can't recall that last time I saw misdirection in competitive Legacy. If you are playing StP, and basically a control-ish role, then your opponent's life total doesn't matter, stabilizing before you lose all your life is what matters. Also, the ability to StP your own creature actually can matter, not just gaining life in tight spots against Zoo, but even against cards like Vedalken Shackles. In the case of MWC, if you use Pulse of the Fields, you actually enjoy the Life buffer received by your opponent.

StP actually RFGs, unlike Innocent Blood. That is immensely important against recursion. That is great against newly played Goyfs which may have benefited from Innocent Blood putting a creature in the GY, while StP would not have added a creature to the GY.

StP is better against Goyf in general (not just for RFGing). Instants are very common in GYs, and generally expected to be found, while sorceries may or may not be found at some point in the game, often giving an unnecessary +1/+1 boost.


The point I was making is that it's ridiculous to assess the value of a card solely by how many decks play it. If you refuse to admit that, then you're basically saying that cards like Enlightened Tutor, Isochron Scepter, Scrying Sheets and such are garbage. I don't think that's the point that you're trying to make.

Yes, that is roughly what I'm arguing. By and large, a card like Scrying sheets is generally a terrible card. If we were to measure its value relative to the Legacy format (even the ideal, and perfectly mathematical metagame), it is eclipsed by other much more relevant cards. Now, that doesn't mean Scrying Sheets is as bad as Tarpan, but it certainly isn't in the same sphere of influence or value as a card like StP.






peace,
4eak

[Jon Stewart]

I don't why know you suddenly brought up sphere of influence of a card in the format as a whole. No one is talking about that. We're here talking about the power and utility of cards in one particular deck.



The point I was making is that it's ridiculous to assess the value of a card solely by how many decks play it. If you refuse to admit that, then you're basically saying that cards like Enlightened Tutor, Isochron Scepter, Scrying Sheets and such are garbage.

Yes, that is roughly what I'm arguing. By and large, a card like Scrying sheets is generally a terrible card.

Seeing as you're so adamant in insisting that Scrying Sheets, Isochron Scepter, Enlightened Tutor and most of the cards that make up Quinn are garbage just because so few decks in legacy play them, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you.

And using that same logic, you're saying that everything from Armageddon and Survival of the Fittest to Blood Moon are garbage cards too since so few decks use them. Again, I think you're incredibly wrong. But I can see it'll be futile to try to convince you otherwise.

[(nameless one)]

The way I see it, each color has different control elements:


White - White is good in answering problems/threats that already has resolved and about to resolve. It is also good in locking your an opponent.

Blue - Blue is more of preventing a problem before it resolves. Playing against blue screws up people's mind as you can never tell what is going to happen next. At least when you play against white, you can prevent them from screwing up your threats. Basically, blue has the ability to say 'NO'.

Black - Black is more denial. When you play against it, it denies you from having a hand or creature and sometimes lands. Your best bet against it is to create threats in the form of enchantment or artifacts.

Red - Would you count burn as control? It does get rid of small creatures.

Green - Green's definition of control is either getting around control or try to skew the effect of what the control player is about to do.

[Jon Stewart]

The way I see it, each color has different control elements:


White - White is good in answering problems/threats that already has resolved and about to resolve. It is also good in locking your an opponent.

Blue - Blue is more of preventing a problem before it resolves. Playing against blue screws up people's mind as you can never tell what is going to happen next. At least when you play against white, you can prevent them from screwing up your threats. Basically, blue has the ability to say 'NO'.

Black - Black is more denial. When you play against it, it denies you from having a hand or creature and sometimes lands. Your best bet against it is to create threats in the form of enchantment or artifacts.

Red - Would you count burn as control? It does get rid of small creatures.

Green - Green's definition of control is either getting around control or try to skew the effect of what the control player is about to do.

I think that's a fairly accurate assessment for 4 of the 5 colors. But for black, it sounds like you're primarily focusing on the discard utility of black. I'm not sure if that was the intention, but if it was...

You should consider that Black has lots of threat removal too (Damnation, Innocent Blood, Smother, Edict, Snuff Out, Gatekeeper, Shriekmaw, Ghastly Demise and a crapton of others) (but it has to rely on it's discard, disruption and artifcats like Disk, Stone, Keg and such for artifact/enchantment removal). And black also has several prison like elements (Braids, Pox, Smallpox etc) that are solid at locking down your opponents, enough that there is an entire archeatype devoted to that strategy (Pox).

[(nameless one)]

I think that's a fair and relatively accurate assessment. Though you should add that Black has several mana denial elements (Pox, Smallpox, Sinkhole, Braids etc) and Black also has lots of threat removal (Blood, Smother, Damnation, Edict, Snuff Out etc) (but it has to rely on it's discard, disruption and artifcats like Disk, Stone, Keg and such for artifact/enchantment removal though).


The way I see it, each color has different control elements:

Black - Black is more denial. When you play against it, it denies you from having a hand or creature and sometimes lands. Your best bet against it is to create threats in the form of enchantment or artifacts.



I didnt say it prevents, but it denies. Although it is essentially answering, I like the general idea of Black as the denial color. After all, if they got rid of your creature, they denied you from having to use that creature.

[Jon Stewart]

Oh, nevermind then. I just meant that the term deny threats is usually used for countermagic and discard since the card is denied from even reaching the board in those cases, which black certainly does thru discard. And I guess you can sort of argue that denying opponent's the use of their mana and discarding opponents cards is the main strength of black's prison elements (though those cards also work as creature removal and I feel that is almost just as important). But most people rarely think of creature removal and cards like Damnation when they use the term deny.

But yeah, I can see where you're coming from.

I guess my point is, other than countermagic which is blue's thing, black does every element of control extremely well. It has the best (actually the only) discard spells that like countermagic can hit just about any type of spells. It has the best tutoring. It has the best land destruction and prison elements that serve as board control. It has either the second best, or the best threat removal in the game depending on who you ask. And it even has excellent card draw (I honestly think MUC would kill to have access to a card like Phyrexian Arena that consistently generates card advantage every single turn, and would likewise kill to have access to a card like Promise of Power that can draw a ridiculous 5 cards for just 5 mana, and can alternatively serve as a threat, or do both). Necropotence proved quite a while ago that getting a card for each point of life paid is a bargain that any control deck can easily break in half.

For all those reasons, I feel like if there's any color that can break out of the tier 2.5 classification that monocolor control is relegated to in legacy, black has the best tools to do so. It just requires someone to figure out the perfect proportion of each of the above elements for this particular environment.

[4eak]

@ Jon Stewart

I've been pretty reasonable throughout the debate. I'm not even going to nit-pick, neither of us could answer absolutely everything in detail; this is an overview:

You claim (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430512&viewfull=1#post430512) MWC hasn't early disruption or answers to combo; and I show you (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430837&viewfull=1#post430837) that it does.

You imply (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430845&viewfull=1#post430845) that MBC is superior to MWC because it has more results in deckcheck; I show you (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430866&viewfull=1#post430866) that your don't even have you facts straight about the tournament data. I also disagree about how we should interpret that data.

You reveal (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430845&viewfull=1#post430845) a poorly reasoned argument (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430911&viewfull=1#post430911) about what constitutes a draw engine, and you show a lack of comprehension regarding how MWC manipulates and draws its cards; I rebut (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430866&viewfull=1#post430866), and give you a brief overview of the cards you failed to include, hoping you'll see the consistency, resilience, and versatility of its entire draw engine.

You conclude (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430845&viewfull=1#post430845) that MBC has better removal (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430858&viewfull=1#post430858) than MWC. You even go so far as to say Chainer's Edict and Innocent Blood are superior to Swords to Plowshares; I'm surprised (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430866&viewfull=1#post430866)--I briefly explain why StP is pimp and reasons why "sacrifice" just isn't relevant, I also give you a run down of the versatility of MWC's removal. Later, I give you an even stronger rebuttal (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430943&viewfull=1#post430943) of your claim StP/Innocent Blood comparison.

You imply (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430845&viewfull=1#post430845) there isn't much of a difference between the win conditions available to MBC and MWC; I give you (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430866&viewfull=1#post430866) the list of regularly played wincons, food for thought about how Orim's Chant makes Painter/Grindstone a powerful win condition in MWC (where it couldn't be in MBC), and reasons why MWC's stronger card selection enables both faster and more diverse win conditions.

You try to show (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430911&viewfull=1#post430911) irony in another's argument, broadly claiming MBC to play better cards in general than MWC (even if you don't believe that to be relevant in the end); I show (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16600-Which-is-the-best-monocolored-control-deck-in-the-format&p=430918&viewfull=1#post430918) that you did a poor job.


I'm happy to debate the meaning of card value as well, but you continue to use hyperbole and ad hominem; I don't think you are ready to debate it.

I've tried to explain to you, just as FoulQ did, that you lose a great deal of credibility when you fail to show how Innocent Blood is superior to StP (which is part of your larger argument that MBC's removal is as good, if not better, than MWC's; which is part of your larger argument that MBC is superior to MWC).

Considering the merits/values of StP and MBC's alternative is only a one part of comparing the overall effectiveness of MBC and MWC . If you can't solve the small problem, then you certainly won't be solving the larger problem. You've made it pretty clear that you don't understand StP, and that you can't solve a pretty basic strategy question regarding dedicated control. This at least gives us doubt that you are in a justified position to even intuitively compare MWC and MBC, which is a much more complex issue.

Not only have you failed to rebut these issues, but overall, you've failed to substantiate the claim that MBC is a superior deck to MWC. It looks like you've set out from your opening post not to accept that MWC could possibly be the answer to your question. Your obvious ignorance as to how MWC operates either signs you are terrible control strategist even after you've played games with MWC, or more likely, given much of the language you've used, you've haven't thoroughly tested the deck. Are you really here for advice, dude?

Take me to task. Surely, someone who is about to 'heavily invest' real money in a deck will want to have done enough testing to make sure it is worth it. I ask (challenge) you for (to) a 2-man tournament on MWS. Let's choose a specified gauntlet (say a solid selection from, if not the entire DTB Forum?), and we'll both make a deck, you MBC and me MWC. We'll pilot the gauntlet against each other, each person piloting their respective control deck against the opponent playing the gauntlet's decks. Surely, if you are correct, and you are as good at preparing for the metagame and answering it effectively (which usually means you are a pretty good pilot of your opponent's deck as well) as you seem to think, then MBC will show itself superior to MWC in the win/loss ratio against the gauntlet.






peace,
4eak

[Nessaja]

Yes, that is roughly what I'm arguing. By and large, a card like Scrying sheets is generally a terrible card. If we were to measure its value relative to the Legacy format (even the ideal, and perfectly mathematical metagame), it is eclipsed by other much more relevant cards. Now, that doesn't mean Scrying Sheets is as bad as Tarpan, but it certainly isn't in the same sphere of influence or value as a card like StP.
Then I guess Dread Return/Bridge from below/Progenitus is a bad card as well.. I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't need to pack +/- 5 GY hate cards in every deck if it weren't for those 2. I also think that people are perfectly capable of rating cards within a context instead of in a vacuum. Magic is a complex game, if you don't factor in a "deck" or a "metagame" you're giving a skewed vision.

Innocent Blood, in the right context, is a great card. And in a specific deck it can be just as good as STP. It is not my personal belief that it will ever be "better" but together with deck synergies it can be great.

That said, I think it's rather silly to compare individual cards between decks. Especially when you're comparing two decks that aren't even the same color. Yes, an Air Elemental is a lot worse then a Serra Angel but an Air Elemental can perform just as good as the Serra Angel within a context.

[Jon Stewart]

4eak, let's be perfectly clear here.

It was you that initially posted and claimed...
Against decks that win with creatures, MWC has the best tools. It has the best removal (targeted and sweeping), the best draw engine, 'oops I win' silverbullets, and the best win conditions among the monocolor control decks.

Your claim was never that MWC has a draw engine, removal, and win conditions. Your claim was that it has the BEST draw engine, removal and win conditions. This was the claim that I throughly rejected, and that you have yet to demonstrate.

A.) Black has excellent removal spells that easily put it on par with white in terms of removal. Innocent Blood can hit a number of cards that StP can't touch (shroud, protection etc) and vice versa (manlands). Similarly Shriekmaw and Gatekeeper have disadvantages over StP in some respects, and a big advantage over StP in that they also give you a threat to go along with your removal. And Chainer's too has the distinct advantage that it recurs to hit two creatures for the cost of one card. Or if you wish, cards like Smother and Doomblade. None of those cards are meant to be taken as a vaccume, because all those cards function synergetically (especially in a meta largely dominated by aggro control like this one) to rob your opponents of any threat they play regardless of whether or not they have shroud or protection or whatever. Include in sweepers like Disk and Damnation and black easily has just as good a removal suite as white does.

B.) Black has an excellent draw engine easily on par with white. You have already conceded that white's draw engine consists of several interrelated combos and 2-3 mana invested each and every turn for white to draw one additional card each turn. This is something that Phyrexian Arena does by itself, and with zero mana investment. Yes, the individual components that make up the interrelated combos for Quinn draw engine have alternate functions. That's not the point I'm challenging. I'm challenging your premise that white has a superior DRAW engine to black.

C.) You have failed to demonstrate why exactly white win conditions are strictly superior to black's. All you've argued is that white has a diverse set of win condtions, which doesn't prove your point at all. And the fact remains that black has just as large a multitude of ways that it can win. Black's win conditions are everybit as diverse and potent as white's. Whether you're referring to Haunting Echoes, Staff of Domination lockdown, Helldozer, Planeswalkers, Oona, or Drain Life. And I don't see how you can in anyway argue that white's options are superior to blacks.

And I didn't do a poor job of illustrating the irony in the argument FoulQ was making. Others seem to have understood the point that I was making (that you can't judge cards in a vaccume and you can't rate their powerlevel strictly based on how many decks play those cards) perfectly...


Then I guess Dread Return/Bridge from below/Progenitus is a bad card as well.. I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't need to pack +/- 5 GY hate cards in every deck if it weren't for those 2. I also think that people are perfectly capable of rating cards within a context instead of in a vacuum. Magic is a complex game, if you don't factor in a "deck" or a "metagame" you're giving a skewed vision.

Innocent Blood, in the right context, is a great card. And in a specific deck it can be just as good as STP.

Anyways 4eak, I've grown tired of your condenscending attitude and am done debating here with you. Good night.

[Malchar]

The way I see it, each color has different control elements:


White - White is good in answering problems/threats that already has resolved and about to resolve. It is also good in locking your an opponent.

Blue - Blue is more of preventing a problem before it resolves. Playing against blue screws up people's mind as you can never tell what is going to happen next. At least when you play against white, you can prevent them from screwing up your threats. Basically, blue has the ability to say 'NO'.

Black - Black is more denial. When you play against it, it denies you from having a hand or creature and sometimes lands. Your best bet against it is to create threats in the form of enchantment or artifacts.

Red - Would you count burn as control? It does get rid of small creatures.

Green - Green's definition of control is either getting around control or try to skew the effect of what the control player is about to do.

Don't discount red too easily. Pyroclasm happens to answer empty the warrens and bridge from below. Firespout also gobbles up all kinds of aggro decks. Also, there's the significant effect that Blood Moon can have on a metagame. Finally, you get red elemental blast.

[Jon Stewart]

Nessaja, I agree with your post.

Malchar, It would be very cool to play a Red Control deck. Red Elemental Blast and Pyroblast would have to be in the board rather than MD unfortunately.

I don't think we have quite the tools to make Red Control work yet, but we are getting closer. I think the list might go something like this...

4 Chalice of the Void
4 Braid of Fire
4 Pyroclasm
4 Firespout
4 Blood Moon
3 Nevinryll's Disk
3 Kazuul Tyrant of the Cliffs
X Akroma, Angel of Fury

Probably coupled with a stompy like mana base of sorts. Beyond that I don't know what the deck would play. I will say though that finally being able to abuse Braid of Fire would be incredible, and Kazuul is a fantastic way to hold off all your opponent's threats long enough for you to Firespout or Pyroclasm them into oblivion, all while your Kazuul remains unaffected.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

Have you tried Wildfire it is crazy.

4 Ancient Tomb
4 City of Traitors
4 Sandstone Needle
8 Mountain

3 Sundering Titan
2 Bogardan Hellkite
2 Akroma, Angel of Fury

4 Gilded Lotus
4 Thran Dynamo
3 Trinisphere
4 Talisman of Impulse
4 Coalition Relic
4 Chalice of the Void
3 Devastation
3 Wildfire
4 Burning Wish

Sideboard

1 Devastation
1 Wildfire
1 Decree of Annihilation
1 Relic of Progenitus
1 Tranquility
1 Tooth and Nail
1 Shattering Spree
1 Hull Breach
1 Life from the Loam
2 Tormod's Crypt
4 Firespout

[Rico Suave]

White control will always be inferior to blue/black control for 2 reasons:

1) It cannot control non-permanent spells.

2) Its draw engines are bad.

[4eak]

@ Nessaja



Then I guess Dread Return/Bridge from below/Progenitus is a bad card as well..

Yes, they are poor cards in general. When enough very specific conditions are met, they can be quite good. Overall, they are still pretty poor. There are serious deckbuilding costs to benefit from those cards.


I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't need to pack +/- 5 GY hate cards in every deck if it weren't for those 2.

I'm fairly sure that you wouldn't need to pack +/- 5 GY hate cards in every deck if it weren't for those 2 + roughly 20 other cards which are the precondition to their viability.



I also think that people are perfectly capable of rating cards within a context instead of in a vacuum.

Who said I'm arguing for a vacuum? I've demonstrated some context in thinking about the StP and Innocent Blood comparison. Every example I brought up happens on fairly often in Legacy.


Innocent Blood, in the right context, is a great card. And in a specific deck it can be just as good as STP.

In a specific deck (let's pretend the only plays black mana sources), Innocent Blood is always better than StP. When we have to open the context up a bit further (let's just try and generalize Legacy for a moment), I don't think Innocent Blood is as good as StP on average, and that is the point.

Sure, I can find you circumstances where StP and Innocent Blood were equivalent.

Opponent's Turn 1: Mountain->Lackey [I am assuming this is standard MonoRed Goblins]
Projected OT2: Mountain->Combat Step->Swing
My Turn 1: Scrubland->Innocent Blood or Scrubland->StP

In this case, the two cards aren't very different in value. And, clearly, there are many more of these cases. However, even in this matchup, starting turns 2 and beyond, StP becomes a much stronger card.

There are even cases where StP is useless and Innocent Blood is superior. Let's say you have to topdeck an answer to Progenitus. The point is that these cases are much rarer, and thus on average a smaller value to your deck than the multitude of strenths StP has over Innocent Blood in a much larger, much more common, and more relevant set of circumstances we find ourselves in Legacy metagames.

If you really think Innocent Blood 'can be just as good as StP' when approaching the average Metagame, then please give me an example. Give me some Top 8 lists (let's assume that could represent, in some part, a metagame), show me how Innocent Blood is 'just as good' as StP.


@ Jon Stewart


Anyways 4eak, I've grown tired of your condenscending attitude and am done debating here with you.

It didn't look like you were finished speaking. You continued to debate in the post. That isn't a conversation stopper; I will still answer you.


It was you that initially posted and claimed...

I don't have the initial/opening post which failed to accurately represent or compare the colors.


Innocent Blood can hit a number of cards that StP can't touch (shroud, protection etc) and vice versa (manlands).

And, Disenchant can hit a number of cards that StP and Innocent Blood can't touch. Even if a 2/2 for 5 mana vanilla creature existed that said, "Only XYZ can target this card", and there was a card named XYZ which cost three mana and said, "RFG target creature", it does not mean that because there are circumstances where XYZ is the only card which can answer the vanilla creature that we should consider XYZ to be as good as StP. Why? Because the the number of times where StP outclasses XYZ is far more relevant than the much rarer occasion where XYZ is superior to StP.

Likewise, the number of times where StP is the dominant card choice to Innocent Blood far outweighs the number of times where Innocent Blood was dominant to StP.


Similarly Shriekmaw and Gatekeeper have disadvantages over StP in some respects, and a big advantage over StP in that they also give you a threat to go along with your removal.

I went tit-for-tat:


MWC has similar dual-function removal cards as well. Sacred Mesa and Elspeth are absolute bombs both defensively and offensively; DoJ from the side is also good. Even E-dragon can chump like a pro in the late game.


Defensively, they are better than just chumping too or churning out multiple tokens to multi-block; they very often force your opponent to overextend.


None of those cards are meant to be taken as a vaccume, because all those cards function synergetically (especially in a meta largely dominated by aggro control like this one) to rob your opponents of any threat they play regardless of whether or not they have shroud or protection or whatever.

You should build control decks to answer specific metagames. If you tend to see a ton of Shroud, then clearly Sacrifice effects are excellent. Given the average Legacy metagame though, you should definitely choose a card which is superior in most other circumstances, as you really don't need as many answers to Shroud.


Black has an excellent draw engine easily on par with white.

What makes the White engine stronger is how effectively it can be used in the early game and how versatile its draw engine can be.

MBC's draw engine, unfortunately, isn't very dual-purpose, and therefore can't be played in the same quantities, which makes the engine less consistent. For example, you only have 5 cards in the draw engine of your MBC list. Half the time you won't even have a draw engine. Spreading the draw-engine out will give you more consistency.

MWC can actually draw cards (even specific ones) early in the game, which is where control decks are the weakest, and where a proper engine is the most important.

Black has an on par mid-game draw and a great late game draw engine. If you get to the late game, I expect you to win. Mana efficiency isn't all that important in the mid and late game for a dedicated control deck. I'm willing to lower my mana-efficiency in the late game if that will give me a stronger early game.


you've argued is that white has a diverse set of win condtions, which doesn't prove your point at all.

No offense, but you've done very little to explain the actual cards you seem to think are good. You aren't even using half the cards you named.

I was hoping you'd sit down and see for yourself what I was talking about. I'll explain them for you then:

Painter/Grindstone:

Combo finishes take advantage of even the briefest temporary holes of stability.
If you find yourself pressed for time in rounds, a combo finish is excellent.
This is a very mana efficient way to win.
It is tutorable.
You can actually race.
Useable even in the early game
.

Eternal Dragon:

Recursion
Besides RFG effects, largely unkillable.
Usable even in the early game; particularly for finding you land (which is sweet in the first couple turns)
Largely uncounterable, same with its cycle effect.
Hits the sweet spot for at 5/5; strong chumper and ends games in 4 turns.
Shuffle effect.
Can generate card advantage on its own.


Decree of Justice:

Scales with mana
Uncounterable, instant effect
Cantrips, even in the early game if necessary (but not preferred)
Can be used to end games in 1 or 2 turns, especially if it is safe to hardcast
Fogs for several turns or can Wrath some weenies
Plays under Standstill


Sacred Mesa:

Scales with mana
Tutorable, not wasting space.
Usable even in the early game.
Converts unused mana over time into raw board advantage
Chumps like a pro early, ends games in a few turns in the late.
Fundamentally excellent at helping you transition from the control role to the aggro role, and a tool towards stabilization


Elspeth:

Excellent mid-game mana cost
Chumps when you are down, builds a board when you are even, and wins in 5 turns when you are up.
Hilariously, feared enough to force your opponent into mistakes.
Ultimate ability can be excellent against LD or opposing non-RFG removal.



Multiple Runed Halos on decks with a serious lack of threat diversity and answers...
Moat (even stronger with Humility) ...
Chantlock

If they get locked out, then it becomes academic. In some ways, comparable to an activate Staff of Domination. It doesn't directly win the game, but if it is active and potent, then they aren't coming back. The difference is that Chantlock and Moat, for example, are very easy to achieve even in the early or mid game, and fairly consistent given the draw engine.

@ Rico Suave

I'm assuming you are speaking in the context of monocolor dedicated control decks.


White control will always be inferior to blue/black control for 2 reasons:

1) It cannot control non-permanent spells.


Why is control of non-permanent spells a back-breaking point to this discussion?

It is my wet-dream as a combo player to face MUC. Dedicate control fails to put up a real clock, which is absolutely necessary against decks which rely the most upon non-permanent spells.

Further, I'll grant it MWC does not control them as well as black and blue; It would, however, be incorrect to state that there is no control. Orim's Chant and Abeyance actually do help control non-permanent spells, both offensively and defensively. Chantlock is extremely powerful. Additionally, the sideboard and E-tutor engine is excellent for tuning against multiple spells/strategies. Geddon meets Sacred Ground, etc.





peace,
4eak

[Jon Stewart]

TooClosetotheSun, Wildfire is indeed a solid card, and very playable in a Red Control deck should one ever emerge. The remainder of the cards in your list seem very weak compared to the far alternatives available in legacy (cards like Braid of Fire, disruption like Chalice and Blood Moon and removal like Pyroclasm and Firespout)


White control will always be inferior to blue/black control for 2 reasons:

1) It cannot control non-permanent spells.

2) Its draw engines are bad.

All three colors have their own merits. You're right that MWC has weaknesses and a draw engine that requires a lot more mana and multiple cards, but blue and black have weaknessess too.

In this particular meta, I would probably rank from weakest to strongest MUC, MWC and MBC respecitvely.

[The_Red_Panda]

TooClosetotheSun, Wildfire is indeed a solid card, and very playable in a Red Control deck should one ever emerge. The remainder of the cards in your list seem very weak compared to the far alternatives available in legacy (cards like Braid of Fire, disruption like Chalice and Blood Moon and removal like Pyroclasm and Firespout)

I'm sorry, were you not reading?


it is crazy.

it is crazy.

If you build any deck that isn't wildfire you're basically a huge pussy.

[Rico Suave]

Why is control of non-permanent spells a back-breaking point to this discussion?

Because the most dangerous cards in this game must be stopped before they resolve.

There are 2 directions mono-white control can go:

1) Splash green for Enchantresses to get draw. In addition you get Sterling Grove and a variety of silver bullets that the deck needs.

2) Prison.

Both are just...better than a reactive mono-white deck. Extended and T2 decks beat mono-white control, let alone Legacy decks.

[Jak]

Because the most dangerous cards in this game must be stopped before they resolve.

What cards are those?

[oRen]

without reading 3 pages i assume:

- Mono R Painter
- Dragon Stompy (Faerie Stompy and Green Chalice Aggro are less playable imo)
- Dutch Staxx or any other White Staxx build (other colors and brown is not playable at all imo)

regards :)

[Rico Suave]

What cards are those?

How about this: Ad Nauseam

[Jak]

How about this: Ad Nauseam

That card alone keeps MWC from being competitive (in your eyes)? I fail to see how you addvocate MBC and call white "inferior" because of Ad Nauseum. The card isn't even in hand on the opponent's turn.

I hope you have more.

[Nessaja]

@ NessajaYes, they are poor cards in general. When enough very specific conditions are met, they can be quite good. Overall, they are still pretty poor. There are serious deckbuilding costs to benefit from those cards.
I'm fairly sure that you wouldn't need to pack +/- 5 GY hate cards in every deck if it weren't for those 2 + roughly 20 other cards which are the precondition to their viability.
And this is where we disagree. Just because a card is good without building around it doesn't mean a card can't be a a good card if a deck needs to build around it. What you are arguing right now is that synergy based cards are worse by definition. We disagree and I do not believe that this is a point I even consider arguing.


Who said I'm arguing for a vacuum? I've demonstrated some context in thinking about the StP and Innocent Blood comparison. Every example I brought up happens on fairly often in Legacy.
I said you are arguing in vacuum when you're comparing individual cards without their context. This is the same point as above.


In a specific deck (let's pretend the only plays black mana sources), Innocent Blood is always better than StP. When we have to open the context up a bit further (let's just try and generalize Legacy for a moment), I don't think Innocent Blood is as good as StP on average, and that is the point.
I think two points are getting intertwined here, first off, a card can be the absolute best choice for a specific deck. One could say that Innocent Blood is better in a deck build around Pox then STP because the neccesary splash isn't worth it, within the Pox deck, the effect of both cards is more or less the same and Innocent Blood can even be seen as superior in cases because it bypasses immunity. Note that this is not something I neccesarily agree with. I just believe that within a deck a card can be the superior choice even though in many other decks this wouldn't be the superior choice.

[4eak]

@ Nessaja


I said you are arguing in vacuum when you're comparing individual cards without their context. This is the same point as above.

Ah, I really disagree with the idea that I'm not trying to understand these cards in context. I was trying to give context; although, I don't claim I did it completely. Please, lead me by example. It is your turn to give a detailed analysis.

Show me how or where Innocent Blood = StP

If you are going to speak in context, then do so in the context of the Legacy format and the full metagame which springs forth from it. I'm not trying to put this in a vacuum; I'm trying to extend the context. Show me why Innocent blood is ever as good a card as StP in either the universal Legacy metagame or even specific ones (I suggested a top 8 to make it easy for you).

Give an example deck that should have been played in the metagame whereby Innocent Blood was merited as much or more than StP. I'm betting there aren't many (if any at all) of such cases, while I can find the opposite in favor of StP, and that is the reason Innocent Blood isn't in the same league.

Additionally, How do you propose we measure card value?

I think when you sit down to think about how one might theoretically conceive of an algorithm to produce the answer, you're going to find cards like Dread Return pretty marginal (although, extant!) in overall value to the legacy metagame, as most of the value contribution comes from Wasteland/Force/StP/Goyf/Vial/Dual Lands.






peace,
4eak

[Skeggi]

Dutch Staxx
I heard from a reliable source that that deck sucks. I wouldn't play it.

[Rico Suave]

That card alone keeps MWC from being competitive (in your eyes)? I fail to see how you addvocate MBC and call white "inferior" because of Ad Nauseum. The card isn't even in hand on the opponent's turn.

I hope you have more.

You also failed to see that I listed more than one critical problem of the archetype.

[emidln]

I think his point is that a traditional ANT list playing 4 Duress, 4 Orim's Chant can optimize better and quicker than MWC and thus present 2 disruption + Ad Nauseam over the course of the early turns (including some games where Duress + win happens because MWC only has 1 chant effect in hand. Alternately, ANT can simply cast Ad Nauseam end step to go down to some amount of life (5-6 is probably safe), untap and blow you out with a ton of disruption (even if you have a chant, they can keep something like duress, chant, chant, led, led, it and you basically have no outs.

I guess the moral of the story is that decks without Counterbalance + pressure or Trinisphere + pressure don't have a ton of game against the format's premier combo deck. However, I don't know that not beating competent ANT players is the biggest problem for MWC. Zoo and 43Lands are currently tier 1-1.5 and have similar (or worse) matchups.

[Nessaja]

[B][SIZE=3]Ah, I really disagree with the idea that I'm not trying to understand these cards in context. I was trying to give context; although, I don't claim I did it completely. Please, lead me by example. It is your turn to give a detailed analysis.
I don't believe there is a need to give a detailed analysis, what I say is rather straightforward. There are decks that can create ideal circumstances for a card like Innocent Blood - these decks include creatureless decks and decks that often sweep the board. If your deck is build like that (think trainwreck, pox, loam control, trisomy etc) then the drawback on Innocent Blood is neglectable, that doesn't mean that the card is better it does mean that the effect the card has within the deck is either equal or can even be considered better.


If you are going to speak in context, then do so in the context of the Legacy format and the full metagame which springs forth from it. I'm not trying to put this in a vacuum; I'm trying to extend the context. Show me why Innocent blood is ever as good a card as StP in either the universal Legacy metagame or even specific ones (I suggested a top 8 to make it easy for you).
What you are attempting to discuss here is whether a deck is playable in the metagame, but that wasn't what the issue here was. If you are comparing individual cards within a context why would you suddenly jump to the effectiveness of the deck? To put it simply;

Take Wren's Run Vanquisher
1G 3/3 Elf, Deathtouch
If ~ comes into play flash an elf card or pay 3 extra.

Then take the New Guy On the Block
1G 3/3 Human, Deatouch

In a vacuum, you can consider the second guy strictly better as it doesn't have a drawback at all. But the vanquisher can be played in an Elf deck were tribal synergies almost certainly will make it better. The rest of the deck didn't need to be build around the Elf either, it fitted in already. Whether that deck will be a good deck for the metagame is irrelevant when you're comparing single cards.

I understand you would like to put this on just Innocent Blood and Swords to Plowshares but what I say doesn't just apply to this. In my opinion, you cannot evaluate a card without its context - in this case the deck. A card doesn't need to be good in every deck, if it's an effective card in its deck then that could make it a good card. When you start factoring in the meta game you can once again consider that the Elf card is inferior for instance when there is a lot of tribal hate within the meta, the Vanquisher becomes easier to deal with then the New Guy On the Block, I fully acknowledge this as something that also counts for Innocent Blood vs STP but I do not think that the answer to that one is quite that easy.


Additionally, How do you propose we measure card value?
I propose you look at the effect a card has within a deck and evaluate whether its effects (so not the oracle printing) are valuable within the metagame. For Innocent Blood it is "Target opponent sacrifices a creature" for B (in the right deck) which is actually pretty damn good. As I said, I think we (as in, humans, and players of the legacy format) are perfectly capable of looking beyond numerical values and reason what the effects of a card are within context.

I believe your problem here is that you want a numerical solution to this problem, it is my believe that what you are suggesting will simply give us a list of the cards that are most played in the format. But most played does not mean that it is the most effective at what it does within a deck. For instance, when you're looking at the most effective card drawing you might name Standstill when you look at "most played" but I'm fairly sure that when it comes to drawing cards Ad Nauseum is the most effective one, your deck just needs to be build around it.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

If you build any deck that isn't wildfire you're basically a huge pussy.

This.

BTW
The deck is called wildfire.

You should throw the list together on workstation and play some people with it.

[Malchar]

Malchar, It would be very cool to play a Red Control deck. Red Elemental Blast and Pyroblast would have to be in the board rather than MD unfortunately.

Check out the Imperial Painter deck. It plays very much like a control deck with a combo finish. While some people play an aggro version of the deck, I prefer to use Jaya Ballard + Painter's Servant and 8 blasts maindeck. All of this tucked under 8 blood moons and the stompy land base. It's not game-breaking, but it's quite interesting to play a true monored control deck.

[Rico Suave]

However, I don't know that not beating competent ANT players is the biggest problem for MWC. Zoo and 43Lands are currently tier 1-1.5 and have similar (or worse) matchups.

Yes, it is not the biggest problem.

The biggest problem is that it has garbage for a draw engine, while something like 43land has a pretty damn good one.

[Iranon]

Against small critters (Zoo, most Tribal decks) it's fairly easy to build and play Burn as Mono-Red control. With some recurring non-creature damage source (I like Pulse of the Forge because it's only marginally underpowered as a burn spell) and a few Magma Jets to find it, you recover well enough if you are forced to throw fire at creatures.

As for Black vs. white... I think black is better set up to win the old-fahsioned way by burying your opponent in card advantage and raw power. after a Damnation, threats that kill more creatures (Gatekeeper of Malakir and Shriekmaw) keep an opponent from rebuilding. Korlash and Cabal Coffers can get ugly quite quickly. Phyrexian Arena is an easy way to keep the cards coming.

White has a bigger bag of tricks... Scepter + Chant/Abeyance, an Enlightened Tutor toolbox from Porphyry Nodes to a Painter win. I'm not actually too sold on the latter... and prefer independently useful cards that help me stabilise in the midgame (Elspeth isn't unmanageably slow if you can nuke the opponent's board every turn with a Disk).

Blue is also worth considering for a Combo/Control route. Countertop, Stiflenaught, Painter's Servant + enough cantrips to find missing pieces + free countermagic + Wastelands... not classic MUC but so full of backbreaking plays and so good at protecting them that it doesn't even need a draw engine.