[Premium Article] Reconsidering CounterTop

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/19019_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Reconsidering_CounterTop.html



So Many Insane Plays – Reconsidering CounterTop
Visit the StarCityGames.com booth at Grand Prix Houston! Monday, March 22nd - With Legacy gaining popularity across the board, Stephen Menendian looks at the popular CounterTop strategy. He shares his list, explains some of the more esoteric card choices, and runs it through a local tournament with promising results.

[frogboy]

Plows are perhaps the single most effective tactic against both Zoo and Merfolk. There are few cards that are as strong against both archetypes simultaneously.

Firespout? It is at least a three, so you don't want to immediately slit your wrists when you draw it in the mirror. I get that Misdirection makes War Monks better against Zoo, but you can play both. I generally hate Force against Zoo and Merfolk, but Misdirection does have hilarious applications against Zoo at least.

I agree emphatically with the lack of Natural Order, but you may or may not want to elaborate on that for the benefit of others.

You spoke of the desire to have a higher number of pitch counters to be able to interact in the first few turns. It's pretty implicit that you want to be able to so through Daze; getting your Force or Misdirection Dazed is a huge huge blowout. You also only have 19 lands, which implies that you are Pondering on turn one to find lands quite often. I have been enjoying quite a bit of success with 22 lands and 2 Ponder. Not having to spend my first turns Pondering for lands makes opposing Dazes quite weak in sequences where I am casting Force of Will. I also have Snares, so I can't be Pondering on one as often anyway, but I am curious how often you find your mana bottlenecked early because you are digging for lands.

[Malakai]

Him Vialing in Kira in response to your path doesn't save his creature, as the moment for that to trigger has already passed.

[paK0]

Your curve seems bad, even more if you take out RWM.

Btw, ditching RWM for Lion is probably the wrong step if you are looking for a good Zoo MU.

[MattH]

How does your tournament list differ from the suggested one? What did you cut to fit in the Lions?

[SMR0079]

While I like the idea of adding Path and misdirection, the rest of the additions don't seem to give me reason to try this build over
Natural Order, or traditional countertop. It kind of sits in between the two IMO.

I think Frogboy is spot in regards to these more controling builds. I cut Ponder for more lands and haven't looked back. Someone *hint* *hint* should write an article on the pros/cons between the more controling Counterop build and the aggressive Natural Order build.

[Malakai]

Someone *hint* *hint* should write an article on the pros/cons between the more controling Counterop build and the aggressive Natural Order build.

I've been working on a primer for the former, but enumerating the advantages of each is not something I am interested in. People need to stop referring to them as two sides of the same coin, however. The gameplans of NO CounterTop versus something more akin to Supreme Blue, or Smmemen's list here, are different, and should be recognized as separate decks entirely. We don't group Merfolk and Canadian Threshold together just because they both run Wastelands and Forces of Will.

I think Menendian's take here is an interesting one. Exact card choices aside, he's shooting for maximum relevance in the early game, essentially forcing something broken through--Counterbalance or, lacking that, Tarmogoyf. It actually reminds me of Canadian Threshold. It seems to me that here CounterTop is taking on the same role as Winter Orb has in the past; that is, he's looking to put down a quick beater and then get his lock piece down, albeit with much greater flexibility and power. I would say that the NO lists do this as well, but with less focus; they're midrange decks.

That said, I do not think this is the correct game plan, because I don't think it's the correct use of Counterbalance. The card feels less like a lock piece in the vein of Chalice of the Void and the Orb, but more like some strange hybrid of Morphling and Counterspell. I realize these aren't the best analogies, but my point is that Counterbalance seems to behave better as a powerful card-and-tempo advantage engine in a control deck than it does as a seal-the-deal type card. Granted, it's not so cut and dry as that, but these are my observations.

Which role you are assigning the card will be a deciding factor in how many lands you play, and which creatures you want. My controlling build, for example, could never truly leverage a Jotun Grunt, nor would it want to. The last thing I want on my side of the board is a card my opponent can choose to ignore.

[SMR0079]

I've been working on a primer for the former, but enumerating the advantages of each is not something I am interested in. People need to stop referring to them as two sides of the same coin, however. The gameplans of NO CounterTop versus something more akin to Supreme Blue, or Smmemen's list here, are different, and should be recognized as separate decks entirely. We don't group Merfolk and Canadian Threshold together just because they both run Wastelands and Forces of Will.

I think Menendian's take here is an interesting one. Exact card choices aside, he's shooting for maximum relevance in the early game, essentially forcing something broken through--Counterbalance or, lacking that, Tarmogoyf. It actually reminds me of Canadian Threshold. It seems to me that here CounterTop is taking on the same role as Winter Orb has in the past; that is, he's looking to put down a quick beater and then get his lock piece down, albeit with much greater flexibility and power. I would say that the NO lists do this as well, but with less focus; they're midrange decks.

That said, I do not think this is the correct game plan, because I don't think it's the correct use of Counterbalance. The card feels less like a lock piece in the vein of Chalice of the Void and the Orb, but more like some strange hybrid of Morphling and Counterspell. I realize these aren't the best analogies, but my point is that Counterbalance seems to behave better as a powerful card-and-tempo advantage engine in a control deck than it does as a seal-the-deal type card. Granted, it's not so cut and dry as that, but these are my observations.

Which role you are assigning the card will be a deciding factor in how many lands you play, and which creatures you want. My controlling build, for example, could never truly leverage a Jotun Grunt, nor would it want to. The last thing I want on my side of the board is a card my opponent can choose to ignore.

I agree that they play out substantially differently, I play both versions, but I disaagree about your conclusion. Both decks share the same core of CountertopGoyf - but how you choose to position yourself in relation to that strategy has certain pros and cons depending on the metagame. What is the most powerful thing you can do with Counter top given a particulair meagame? How do the strategies diverge. In my opinion that makes for a very interesting article.

[Aggro_zombies]

NO Counterbalance developed as a way to circumvent the format's ability to deal with Counterbalance. Immediately out of GP Chicago, Counterbalance in the Nassif/LSV version was the consensus best deck, and the format developed several different angles of attack to beat it, including mass evasion (Merfolk), ubiquitous use of Krosan Grip, Qasali Pridemage, fast aggression with durable threats that could come down before the Counterbalance lock came on-line (Zoo), etc. In order to maintain relevance, the Nassif version essentially spun off two progeny decks: Supreme Blue (probably inferior) and NO Counterbalance. Each of these tackle the issue of a less relevant Counterbalance in different ways: the first, by playing the control deck and using Counterbalance as a recurring source of card advantage, and the second by having the ability to win out of nowhere with an extremely difficult-to-answer threat. That's basically all there is to it.

That said, I agree with the criticisms of Menendian's version. His backup plan to losing Counterbalance is not strong enough, as he doesn't really commit to gaining control or winning creature wars. A Zoo deck that can spam creatures and burn spells will always win the ground war against him if Counterbalance doesn't remain active to tilt things in his favor (which is something Progenitus can do: when the ground gets too cluttered to profitably attack, Progenitus comes down and does it anyway).

[Parcher]

NO Counterbalance developed as a way to circumvent the format's ability to deal with Counterbalance. Immediately out of GP Chicago, Counterbalance in the Nassif/LSV version was the consensus best deck, and the format developed several different angles of attack to beat it, including mass evasion (Merfolk), ubiquitous use of Krosan Grip, Qasali Pridemage, fast aggression with durable threats that could come down before the Counterbalance lock came on-line (Zoo), etc. In order to maintain relevance, the Nassif version essentially spun off two progeny decks: Supreme Blue (probably inferior) and NO Counterbalance. Each of these tackle the issue of a less relevant Counterbalance in different ways: the first, by playing the control deck and using Counterbalance as a recurring source of card advantage, and the second by having the ability to win out of nowhere with an extremely difficult-to-answer threat. That's basically all there is to it.

That said, I agree with the criticisms of Menendian's version. His backup plan to losing Counterbalance is not strong enough, as he doesn't really commit to gaining control or winning creature wars. A Zoo deck that can spam creatures and burn spells will always win the ground war against him if Counterbalance doesn't remain active to tilt things in his favor (which is something Progenitus can do: when the ground gets too cluttered to profitably attack, Progenitus comes down and does it anyway).

Just for accuracy, the Hatfields released NO CounterTop well before Chicago. In fact Gerry T even mentioned their creation as "the deck to plan to beat at Chicago; not the deck to play" in his article about his Bob-CounterTop deck.

[OurSerratedDust]

NO Counterbalance developed as a way to circumvent the format's ability to deal with Counterbalance. Immediately out of GP Chicago, Counterbalance in the Nassif/LSV version was the consensus best deck, and the format developed several different angles of attack to beat it, including mass evasion (Merfolk), ubiquitous use of Krosan Grip, Qasali Pridemage, fast aggression with durable threats that could come down before the Counterbalance lock came on-line (Zoo), etc. In order to maintain relevance, the Nassif version essentially spun off two progeny decks: Supreme Blue (probably inferior) and NO Counterbalance. Each of these tackle the issue of a less relevant Counterbalance in different ways: the first, by playing the control deck and using Counterbalance as a recurring source of card advantage, and the second by having the ability to win out of nowhere with an extremely difficult-to-answer threat. That's basically all there is to it.


What makes you say Supreme blue is probably inferior?

[Malakai]

What makes you say Supreme blue is probably inferior?
Without getting much into that here and hijacking Steve's thread: The deck just hasn't been putting up any results, for quite a while. Personally I think it's due to card choices, but that's another discussion.

People were putting Progenitus into Counterbalance decks the day the card was printed. I recall pointing the combo out to people during the pre-release, while simultaneously pulling my Natural Orders out of my trade book. Use of the combo wasn't so much developed as a way to beat anything, but born out of people's desire to put a big stupid monster into play, and then tweaking those decks.

[Smmenen]

This is an interesting conversation to observe.

Misdirection and Jotun Grunt have proven very strong against Zoo, but the key to beating Zoo (if the Counterbalance lock doesn't come) is actually my 6 plows. I use my superior card search and cantripping to find them. Consequently, they have creatures that aren't Goyfs, and I have Goyfs.

Incidentally, I played a deck at the GP that was only 4 or so cards off from Nassif's list. I played Chapin's 4c BobCounterTopGoyf as well.

On the point about Counterbalance, I used Counterbalance not as a hard lock, but as a source of card advantage and tempo, variously. It's the only real way this deck can generate card advantage.

[morgan_coke]

Why isn't treasure hunt mentioned/included in any of these lists and articles? I've found it to be amazing in conjunction with Brainstorm/Top. It just draws 2-4+ cards for two mana, which is a bit beyond fairly awesome.

[Aggro_zombies]

Just for accuracy, the Hatfields released NO CounterTop well before Chicago. In fact Gerry T even mentioned their creation as "the deck to plan to beat at Chicago; not the deck to play" in his article about his Bob-CounterTop deck.
True. Allow me to rephrase that, then: NO Counterbalance rose to such prominence as a result of its ability to beat a variety of threats while the slow, ponderous Nassif builds could not.

[Malakai]

Consequently, they have creatures that aren't Goyfs, and I have Goyfs.
This. Personally I haven't had issue beating Zoo with a variety of builds, precisely because I've always had access to maindecked Swords and Spell Snares. I stop their Tarmogoyfs (and Reliquary knights) and save my Forces of Will to protect my own, and subsequently they don't have any cards that matter. If the game stalls at all you will eventually get Counterbalance online, and then they can no longer win.

[freakish777]

Just for accuracy, the Hatfields released NO CounterTop well before Chicago. In fact Gerry T even mentioned their creation as "the deck to plan to beat at Chicago; not the deck to play" in his article about his Bob-CounterTop deck.

True, however due to the printing of Noble Hierarch, Qasali Pridemage, and Rhox War Monk, the decks play wildly differently (also the inclusion of Red in Alix and Jesse's build for Chicago led to an awkward manabase in my opinion). Where Alix and Jesse's version attempted to play as a control deck until they could "combo out" with Natural Order and fetching up Dryad Arbor, the Bant NO CounterTop decks today have more solid game plans of just attacking the opponent with Exalted creatures if Counterbalance or NO are answered (further, Alix and Jesse's creatures all relied on the graveyard, leaving them even more susceptible to Relic of the Progentius).

I think it's fair to say at this point if someone says "NO CounterTop" they aren't talking about Alix and Jesse's innovation for Chicago anymore, due to Wizards just outright printing a bunch of cards that everyone simultaneously realized could be dropped right into the deck and make it better.

[BreathWeapon]

I think if anything Jeff Cosgrove's Top 8 in St. Louis should probably be given credit for the popularity of the BANT, NO, Balance/Top decks - pretty much nobody was running that configuration in mass before then in all fairness.

[Parcher]

And now everyone goes off-topic. My point was simply that NO CounterTop was doing well before Nassif's deck came to fruition in Chicago, not due to this result.

[aTn]

Steve, how does your deck deal with Reanimator and new equipment based decks like http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16864-[Report]-Jupiter-Games-Duel-for-Duals-3-13-10-3rd-out-of-106 ?

How do you justify not having any maindeck artifact/enchantment hate maindeck ?

How is the Landstill MU ? It would seem that it is harder than for standard NO-Bant-CB-Top lists (in particular, you don't have any CB@4 action maindeck) ?

Thanks in advance for the answers...

[Mark Sun]

Haha, thanks for the name-drop, I like how everyone else you played didn't have one. :smile:

First of all, like aTn, I'm wondering why you don't have Artifact/Enchantment hate in the main, in the form of Qasali Pridemage. You mentioned that you can take care of opposing Goyfs and handle smaller creatures. In a vacuum on paper, this is definitely true, but having Qasali Pridemage there not only gives you a backup plan to that (Exalted Goyf > Regular Goyf), but also smashes critical A/E in both your Zoo and Merfolk matchups, mainly Sylvan Library for Zoo and Aether Vial/Jitte for Merfolk. Seems important.


@ aTn: From looking at the list, pre-board the deck is incredibly weak to Engineered Explosive slipping through CB lock, as his drops (if he uses Loam Lion) are 1-2cc only. I think that's a major problem, as you often have the risk of an X-for-1 in most situations, especially if you are trying to apply pressure with Goyf under a CB soft lock or something of the sort. It can always side in Pithing Needle post-board (I assume the correct plan is +3 Needle, +2 K.Grip), but it's only a temporary answer versus Vindicate, Dismantling Blow, Ray of Distortion, etc.

[aTn]

I agree with your points Morbid.

Personally, I'd rather play UGW-CB-Top with N.O. with either 3 Path to Exile in the SB or UGWr-CB-Top with N.O. and 1 Volcanic Island MD + (1 Volcanic I. + 3 Firespout) in the SB.

I don't see why the new list is significantly better in the decks bad MUs... but I may be wrong...