[DTB] Blade Control

I've always considered Wastelands, but I'm trying to play lots of expensive spells and this deck is super mana hungry, so Wasteland isn't really an option if I'm trying to consistently cast Jace/Verdict/Snapcaster/Clique/Jitte cast + equip, etc. I like Factories as they allow me to go on the beatdown plan quickly while committing very little in terms of resources to the board. They also live through most sweepers, and they let me have an out to sacrifice effects (as in, TNN on board, my opponent casts Edict, I activate Factory in response). They are also surprisingly effective at blocking and creating board stalls when needed. (Side note: I own all 4 seasons of Gem Mint Factories, so...)

In that vein, I'm really digging Qweerios' suggestion of Moorland Haunt. My creatures die a lot and I'd rather have a semi-steady stream of 1/1 flyers than anything else in most situations. 2012 tech. What's old is new again.

BTW, TNN is a miserable card. But if I don't run it myself, then I virtually auto-lose to the decks that are running TNN. Fight fire with fire.

Nobody is forcing you to sac Wasteland, the extra pressure against combo decks is better than random utiliy land like Moorland Haunt. Besides doesnt Deathrite make Moorland Haunt somewhat silly..?

I wouldn't activate Moorland Haunt if my opponent has an active DRS. Once he activates his DRS, then I activate my Haunt in response. I may lose 2 life in that exchange, but I now have an evasive threat on board. If he doesn't activate DRS, then that's great. Also, I was thinking of Haunt more along the lines when I Verdict the board away (I run 2 Verdict maindeck), not when I'm in a staring contest with an active DRS.

Wasteland is far better suited in a deck like RUG/BUG Delver where they can land a 1cc threat, then ride it to victory via mana denial and taxing counters. Blade Control isn't constructed in the same way, so the tempo gained by cutting them off a color/mana point isn't as advantageous for us as it is for other decks. And combo decks tend to run a high number of basics (Sneak and Show, Reanimator, AnT) so I'm not really pressuring them if they're simply laying basics and passing.

And as combo decks don't run Wasteland themselves, my Factories are guaranteed to apply pressure on their life total, while not committing anything to the board. And the Moorland Haunt would be replacing Academy Ruins, nothing else.

I mentioned this before, but Ruins has been pretty "meh". There have been a couple times when it single handedly won me games I had no business winning, but there have been wayyyyy more times (like, 99%) it does nothing and is just a colorless mana producing Legendary Land. Qweerios' suggestion of Moorland Haunt makes way more sense if I'm going to play a 1-of techland; I almost always have creatures in the yard, it gives me yet another way to eke out value from my dudes (even in death), it gives me a threat for those games I have a lonely equipment but no dude (this happens a lot, especially since I'm forced to Verdict my board away in those grindy matchups that get out of hand), etc. Seems infinitely better than Ruins in all ways.

EDIT: I re-read Moorland Haunt, and me exiling a creature is part of the cost, so DRS would do nothing when I have priority.

Will be testing Dack in this shell (I know, long time until he is legal), but I love UWr blade control and I have hopes he may push the deck a bit :)
The deck can answer every treat from fair decks and isn't really concerned by Liliana. The mana base is still weak and combo looks bad as always.

http://i58.tinypic.com/w2ne42.png

The SB consist on 2 Meddling Mages, 3 Swan Song, 1 Canonist, 2 Relics, 1 Wear / Tear, 1 Pithing Needle, Pyroblasts... The common stuff.
However I built it before testing, so lots of work to do.

You're going to crush pretty much every fair deck out there. Between StP, EE, 2 Verdict and Punishing Fire, nothing is going to live. Awesome.

Why do most miracle decks play a combination of pierce and cspell with no snare? Is there a fundamental difference between our decks? Are miracle players missing out on something?

Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

Huge differences. The biggest being that Miracles is running 4 Terminus or 3 Terminus/1 Verdict maindeck while most Blade Control lists are on 0-2 Verdicts. This allows them much greater latitude to allow creature spells to resolve since they have a greater number of spells that deals specifically with creatures. Their main concern are non-creatures spells, which is why you see Pierce and Counterspell (and REB even), which they are soft to pre-CounterTop.

We are different as we are really relying on StP to deal with creatures and maybe a Verdict (not all lists run maindeck sweepers though, so this isn't a given). We sometimes can't allow a Goyf to resolve if we just spent our only StP on their Dark Confidant the turn before.

The 2nd biggest difference is the fact we can go on a legit beatdown plan from turn 2 onward. When we're assuming the aggro role, we're typically using our all/a lot of our mainphase mana to cast creatures, activate Factory, equip creatures, etc. This leaves very little room for us to have 2 blue open while trying to apply pressure. Thus, the need for Counterspell when we're the beatdown is greatly reduced in our deck. In Miracles though, they rarely can/are the beatdown, they are reactive from the beginning to end, so the value of Counterspell is far greater in their deck when assuming that role.

I don't know about "taping out for factory" but I think both decks share an immense amount of similarities. They are essentially the same deck except that one uses Top + Entreat to win while the other uses an SFM package. We essentially have access to the exact same card pool and wish to adopt a control position but we do so in slightly different ways. Miracle packs more of a punch with high cost-effect ratio cards that require lots of deck manipulation to be effective (Less consistency, more synergy at its core). This is why Miracle decks spend every turn stacking and shuffling its own hand and deck, because it is required to in order to function (Control-combo). Blade control decks (Control-aggro) have a more slow and steady approach where we use a more diverse approach to win and eek out incremental gains through individual cards rather than combinations of cards (Less synergy, more consistency). However you look at it, both decks are reactive in nature and our proactive cards are there to tighten our grip on the board/stack (Jace, CB vs. SFM).

The reason why Blade Control doesn't need 3-4 Verdicts is because it can generate a board position of its own. I don't think you can play a Blade deck without a healthy amount of Verdicts/EE in this TNN era. Even if we have access to our own Nemesis, we can't just play the Nemesis game against other Nemesis decks because the others are often better suited to exploit him which is why we often have to reset and take over.

When I play Blade control I rarely tap out and when I do it's to exploit a window. I am either adopting a control role or an aggro role. I will tap out for a Verdict, a Jace, a Nemesis, or a SFM if I am forced to but I am contempt with sitting back and making land drops until I can cast multiple spells at once. Once I have anything on the board that my opponent cannot currently trump, I'd rather be holding or be able to dig for a Counterspell and ensure that however little cards my opponent has left in his library cannot interfere with my win (AKA: Liliana and Nemesis make and break games). We aren't forced to squeeze out threats and back them up with counterspells, that's a tempo deck's job. This is where Snare and Pierce's strength lies, in their low cost. Of course we can do it at times, but that's not where we generally want to be.

Also, I can see how we play slightly different lists can cause one list to appreciate Snare more than CSpell. With 4 Mishra's, beating down a Lily is easier but becomes much harder through a Goyf, Bob, or even SFM. Leaving 2 mana open and reaching UU (or 1UUU with Snap) can also be a more difficult endeavor with 4 Mishras + tech lands. Personally I don't think I can afford to play more than a couple of colorless lands in a blue deck with Verdict.

Double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

You're going to crush pretty much every fair deck out there. Between StP, EE, 2 Verdict and Punishing Fire, nothing is going to live. Awesome.

---

Thanks :)
I'll post results if the deck proves to be competitive.

Qweerios, I do not agree at all that Miracles and UWx Stoneblade are "essentially the same deck" just with different win conditions. The two decks, despite sharing a UWx base, are very different in form and function. Miracles is aiming to achieve a near-hardlock of CounterTop in order to (a.) generate card advantage (either virtual if opponent opts not to cast a spell into CounterTop or actual if opponent opts to cast a spell and get it countered by Counterbalance's trigger) and (b.) protect the player/win condition; the win condition is largely irrelevant once the board is clear and CounterTop is online.

Stoneblade has no such near-hardlock to lean on for card advantage. Therefore, we must use value creatures such as Clique, Snapcaster, SFM, and TNN in order to generate virtual/actual card advantage. This requires us to commit resources and permanents to the board in order to advance our gameplan whereas Miracles doesn't have to commit much (just Top in most cases) in order to advance it's gameplan. In that vein, we are able to play the aggro role reasonably well due to naturally playing evasive creatures + Equipment while Miracles has no such option available to it; Miracles is almost always going to be the control deck in every matchup whereas we are able to shift roles quite easily, naturally and effectively. Also, both methods of generating card advantage have their respective advantages/disadvantages, as do the win conditions each deck chooses to run.

So, to recap, the method in which both decks choose to generate card advantage are different, the advantages/disadvantages of those methods are different, as you alluded to earlier, the win conditions will be different, the advantages/disadvantages of those win conditions are different, the ability to assume different roles depending on the matchup are different as Miracles is far more locked in on the control role whereas UWx Stoneblade can shift between aggro and control quite easily. These profound differences are enough for me to look at Miracles and UWx Stoneblade as completely different decks, aiming to do completely different things via completely different methods even though there is some color/card overlap, much like I do not view Team America to be "essentially the same deck" as Shardless BUG, despite there being color/card overlap.

I feel like my list is fairly weak to miracles. Have you tested the matchup, Arsenal?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee

I feel like my list is fairly weak to miracles. Have you tested the matchup, Arsenal?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

---

My matchup vs miracles has been great so far with Shane Remelt's list (-1 Island, +1 Counterspell).

It's usually pretty easy to feign being a UWR delver list which gives them a false sense of security before playing out maindeck cliques and 4 Jaces which are difficult to answer.

The trick to beating miracles is never getting losing out on a trade. If you're trading 1-for-1 on everything, then you'll have a much better chance at coming out ahead. The whole pierce vs. snare debate has been pretty funny. I always feel like people who play with snare swear by it whereas people who are more familiar with pierce see it's versatility making it much more superior.

Yes pierce is amazing at slowing down fast combo decks like SnT, Dredge, Belcher, Storm, etc. but against most of the fair decks it's very easy to play around. You'll almost never find value out of a pierce against miracles unless you're really pressuring them, and let's be honest we're positioned more of a control deck here not a deck that will slam a delver on turn one and hit them for 10+ damage forcing them to cast spells into a pierce.

Snare, though, really shines against miracles and hitting the premier 2-drop creatures of the format.

But anyway... back to beating miracles.

My playstyle revolves around preventing counterbalance from resolving. I think that's the real card that needs to be fought. There's no reason wasting our few countermagic cards against top or any of the removal spells. If you play smart, a 1-for-1 terminus trade is completely fine in our books if you're holding another creature or Jace. Let it resolve and just play out your next threat. Don't play autopilot countering everything you see. Save your cards for where they matter.

Usually the first couple turns are just land drops, keeping enough mana up to represent countermagic. It's risky to tap-out because you might just get locked out of the game. I wouldn't drop a stoneforge until we have 3 or 4 lands. Likewise with TNN. Other than that, it's pretty straightforward. Clique should be played eot to see if Jace can be played through their hand. I rarely use it to stop a terminus unless I would win that turn or if they're hellbent and they've been digging furiously for the terminus. If they're on a full grip, the clique should be saved for a better purpose.

@Arsenal What's your opinion on Back to Basics? Seems good in this shell. Have you tested it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm playing 2 in my board, posted above. It's pretty good, although it does have a tendency to shut off parts of my deck that I don't want shut off. It can be unwieldy, but certain matchups make it worth it, bug is the main one.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

@ Secretly

Although I've always rolled the Miracles player in my playgroup and beat my Miracles opponent at SCG Milwaukee, I've had to get pretty lucky most matches. I actually think the matchup is slightly in their favor as we are the beatdown in that matchup and they are incredibly well equipped to deal with our threats. Also, they're running 2 maindeck REB/Pyroblast which gives them even more of an edge versus us when we're trying to resolve eot Clique, Snapcaster value, Jace, win a counter war, etc. I've had success versus Miracles, but I don't believe that my results are indicative of how that matchup truly plays out. I'd give them a slight 60/40 edge against us for sure.

Also, your list looks to be incredibly strong versus Miracles, primarily off the back of your 2 maindeck Elspeth; Miracles has a really tough time dealing with that card.

@ weaselface

I've never tested it, although I've seen a few games where UW Stoneblade is on the maindeck B2B plan. Idk, it seems like it can be a blowout in some matchups, dead in others. I personally would not play B2B as it can be dead too often, or potentially ineffective even in the matchups where you think it'll be a blowout. For me to tap 3 mana mainphase, I'd rather just resolve a TNN and force my opponent to deal with it.

I have a question guys, why does Geist of Saint Traft see zero play in SB's?
When I play this deck (UWr or UWb) I always feel it's biggest problem is to asume the aggro role in the MU's it has to.
Combo decks are the worst pairings. We have disruption, we have as much as we want: Swan Song, Fluster, Pierce, Fow, Needle, Meedling, Canonist, Duress, Pyroblast, Vendilion... But disrupting and being slow doesn't work well. Miracles can do that because of the Countertop, which needs time to be set but then is almost gg.
As we can't do that, I think we should be able to become more aggro if needed. Other random decks such as Post or Ubg Landstill are also really dificult to beat as while time passes they become stronger.
Maybe becoming completely tapped on turn 3 is too risky against combo? Not sure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BVB09

I have a question guys, why does Geist of Saint Traft see zero play in SB's?
When I play this deck (UWr or UWb) I always feel it's biggest problem is to asume the aggro role in the MU's it has to.
Combo decks are the worst pairings. We have disruption, we have as much as we want: Swan Song, Fluster, Pierce, Fow, Needle, Meedling, Canonist, Duress, Pyroblast, Vendilion... But disrupting and being slow doesn't work well. Miracles can do that because of the Countertop, which needs time to be set but then is almost gg.
As we can't do that, I think we should be able to become more aggro if needed. Other random decks such as Post or Ubg Landstill are also really dificult to beat as while time passes they become stronger.
Maybe becoming completely tapped on turn 3 is too risky against combo? Not sure...

---

Pretty much. I've thought about Geist as well, but there's just no way you can tap out to play him.

Clique is what you're looking for in the combo matchups. You can "safely" cast him eot, he's further disruption and he beats for 3 in the air. He's also good bait, in general, to use at end step to induce a counter war, then you untap and Jace-stomp your opponent.

I used to run 3 Geist back when I was on Vidi's GP Denver list. I liked him a fair amount then, but others are correct in that tapping out during your mainphase, unless it's for a hate card that is sure to wreck your combo opponent (like RiP versus Dredge/Reanimator), is a risky proposition. Also, Factories allow me to apply pressure to my opponent's life total fairly well when combined with another dude. Like, eot Clique, untap turn 4, activate Factory and swing for 5 total while having 2 lands untapped is a common thing I do versus combo, and it feels great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

Clique is what you're looking for in the combo matchups. You can "safely" cast him eot, he's further disruption and he beats for 3 in the air. He's also good bait, in general, to use at end step to induce a counter war, then you untap and Jace-stomp your opponent.

---

Yes I play 2 Cliques main and they're amazing, maybe I should include one more in the SB.
However I tend to play them in the draw step. I guess it depends on what combo deck the opponent is playing. Maybe against S&T and ANT is better to cast them EOT, but against Elves, Painters and Post (And all fair decks) is probably more correct to cast it in the draw step, to prevent a "bomb" that turn. Am I right or am I playing them completely wrong?

Edit: Have to agree on Geist, if we have to wait 1-2 more turns to cast it safely it's not that aggresive... but still feeling this deck needs a fast beater. Have to test Mishra's factory, only played them once in my UWr list, and just a couple.