[Deck] Mono-Blue Control (MUC)

[4eak]

Permanent based MUC is more inclined to play Rainbow Efreet and Morphling, and for good reason--it isn't as capable of controlling the stack.

Meloku is still the best creature in stack-based MUC. It gives you calculable combat knowledge (no guessing) and it gives you the extra-board control you may desire. Additionally, the fundamental turn where you switch from the control to aggro role can be accomplished more effectively through Meloku.

In both cases, the version of MUC you play will dictate which creature is really best. MUC decks with less stack control need creatures that play around that weakness, while versions of MUC with less board control will make the most of creatures that strengthen the state of your board.

Most people in this thread play a permanent-based MUC, and as such, you should be playing Morphling or Rainbow Efreet. Stack-based MUC can viably play Meloku (as well as Morphling and Efreet), so if you are going to dismiss Meloku, then do so in the proper context (permanent-based control lists).





peace,
4eak

[DeathwingZERO]

I would like to hear the reasoning behind playing Impulse over Ancestral Visions actually.

The list looks identical to my list except for that one change.

To me, Impulse vs. Visions isn't even close. Impulse gives you no actual card advantage. This deck thrives completely off of card advantage.

This isn't the same MUC as we used to have in the days of Forbiddian. Draw-go doesn't work now nearly as much as "draw/answer, draw/answer, threat, threat, threat....etc".

You don't need raw CA to beat a lot of decks anymore, you need reasonably fast threats that can be protected long enough to put your kill out at your leisure. Impulse does a much better job of digging in the early game for your answers/threats, as it's instant speed and gives you the choice of the best of 4 cards you see. Visions gives raw CA, yes, but 4 turns from now I might be dead already, or those 3 cards could be complete garbage.

As far as I'm concerned, I still think Visions is garbage. It requires you to rely heavily on what you've gotten in your opening hand alone, making mulligans even more painful when you see an "average" (power level) hand of 5 or so cards after packing it in a few times. At least things like Ponder, Brainstorm, Impulse, etc allow for more sway in the opening hand, knowing you can dig immediately rather than draw turn 5, when FoF is already being the MVP.

[4eak]

@ DeathwingZERO

Draw-go doesn't work now nearly as much as "draw/answer, draw/answer, threat, threat, threat....etc".

Draw/go does basically the same thing, it just chooses to play its answers later than permanent-based control lists. Built correctly, draw/go performs quite well.

As to Impulse vs. AVisions, I completely agree with you.


peace,
4eak

[Bahamuth]

I'd like to see some lists, guys. Could you post a good stack-oriented build 4eak?

Also, I read earlier in this threat you were testing Ponder, DeathwingZERO. How was it? Better than Impulse?

[Kadaj]

This isn't the same MUC as we used to have in the days of Forbiddian. Draw-go doesn't work now nearly as much as "draw/answer, draw/answer, threat, threat, threat....etc".

You don't need raw CA to beat a lot of decks anymore, you need reasonably fast threats that can be protected long enough to put your kill out at your leisure. Impulse does a much better job of digging in the early game for your answers/threats, as it's instant speed and gives you the choice of the best of 4 cards you see. Visions gives raw CA, yes, but 4 turns from now I might be dead already, or those 3 cards could be complete garbage.

As far as I'm concerned, I still think Visions is garbage. It requires you to rely heavily on what you've gotten in your opening hand alone, making mulligans even more painful when you see an "average" (power level) hand of 5 or so cards after packing it in a few times. At least things like Ponder, Brainstorm, Impulse, etc allow for more sway in the opening hand, knowing you can dig immediately rather than draw turn 5, when FoF is already being the MVP.

The major reason I considered Visions in the first place, way back in the day, is because I found that my deck repeatedly lacked the mid-game punch necessary to succeed against the majority of the format. MUC does not need reasonably fast threats/answers. What it needs is sweeping answers that can provide card advantage, either through 2 for 1s on the board, or by simply drawing more cards than the initial investment cost.

Yes, Back to Basics and Propaganda do not provide CA in the strictest sense, but the board advantage they create is often good enough to replicate massive CA, and as such I consider them untouchable in the overall scheme of the build. Powder Keg and Vedalken Shackles usually provide actual 2 for 1s, and as such they fit the scheme as well.

This deck is loaded with answers, whether it be the aformentioned cards or counterspells themselves. The sheer quantity of answers this deck has at its disposal and the versatility of many of them (Propaganda OR Vedalken Shackles OR Powder Keg can all answer an on board creature, etc) makes card selection noticeably less relevant. Between that and the fact that I rely heavily on mulligans as it is and don't keep marginal hands regardless of whether or not they have a Ponder, Brainstorm, or whatever in them, meant that I didn't miss the card selection I had cut.

The other major reason I still prefer Ancestral Visions over the alternatives is that I want a specific function out of that slot. Namely, Fact or Fiction 5-8. I don't want card selection because I found it to be weak, and I established through lots of testing that this deck had a real habit of running out of gas at around turn 6 if FoF hasn't shown up, and even sometimes with FoF. A control deck that runs out of gas when its supposed to be at its strongest is a serious problem, and one that Vision is very good at rectifying.

Most of the arguments against Visions revolve around its perceived slowness, something I have never really understood or experienced during actual tournament play, and the idea that it isn't necessary to the decks overall gameplan. If you honestly feel that you don't need raw CA in that slot, then by all means cut Visions and find something else. However, if you're like me and find that without it it becomes way too easy to run out of gas in the mid-game, keeping Visions in is your best bet.

[Captain Hammer]

Imo, the stack based versions of the deck just aren't as good. You said it yourself, stack based versions need to win fast, because all they do is trade with your opponent's threats 1:1. They can't shut down multiple threats like Shackles, Keg and Propaganda can. If one of the threats slips through, you're screwed.

If you want a stack based version, you need to run better faster threats. Here, Meloku isn't nearly fast enough. You're better off running Goyfs and at that point you ought to be playing Threshold. But I should say, that's all just my opinion.

The major reason I considered Visions in the first place, way back in the day, is because I found that my deck repeatedly lacked the mid-game punch necessary to succeed against the majority of the format. MUC does not need reasonably fast threats/answers. What it needs is sweeping answers that can provide card advantage, either through 2 for 1s on the board, or by simply drawing more cards than the initial investment cost.

Yes, Back to Basics and Propaganda do not provide CA in the strictest sense, but the board advantage they create is often good enough to replicate massive CA, and as such I consider them untouchable in the overall scheme of the build. Powder Keg and Vedalken Shackles usually provide actual 2 for 1s, and as such they fit the scheme as well.

This deck is loaded with answers, whether it be the aformentioned cards or counterspells themselves. The sheer quantity of answers this deck has at its disposal and the versatility of many of them (Propaganda OR Vedalken Shackles OR Powder Keg can all answer an on board creature, etc) makes card selection noticeably less relevant. Between that and the fact that I rely heavily on mulligans as it is and don't keep marginal hands regardless of whether or not they have a Ponder, Brainstorm, or whatever in them, meant that I didn't miss the card selection I had cut.

The other major reason I still prefer Ancestral Visions over the alternatives is that I want a specific function out of that slot. Namely, Fact or Fiction 5-8. I don't want card selection because I found it to be weak, and I established through lots of testing that this deck had a real habit of running out of gas at around turn 6 if FoF hasn't shown up, and even sometimes with FoF. A control deck that runs out of gas when its supposed to be at its strongest is a serious problem, and one that Vision is very good at rectifying.

Most of the arguments against Visions revolve around its perceived slowness, something I have never really understood or experienced during actual tournament play, and the idea that it isn't necessary to the decks overall gameplan. If you honestly feel that you don't need raw CA in that slot, then by all means cut Visions and find something else. However, if you're like me and find that without it it becomes way too easy to run out of gas in the mid-game, keeping Visions in is your best bet.

I found everything you said to be completely true. This deck has a serious problem of running out of gas midgame if it doesn't see a Fact or Fiction. Visions does act as Fact of Fiction 5-8. I honestly found Visions to be more powerful than Fact a lot of times and I've never once been unhappy to see the card.

You almost never win before turn 13 or so, it's a war of attrition till that point. So Visons draws me plenty of cards and keeps me well supplied till that point. And if there is a Visions in my hand that I anticipate not needing, I can always pitch it to Force.

[Soulles]

I found everything you said to be completely true. This deck has a serious problem of running out of gas midgame if it doesn't see a Fact or Fiction. Visions does act as Fact of Fiction 5-8. I honestly found Visions to be more powerful than Fact a lot of times and I've never once been unhappy to see the card.
You almost never win before turn 13 or so, it's a war of attrition till that point. So Visons draws me plenty of cards and keeps me well supplied till that point. And if there is a Visions in my hand that I anticipate not needing, I can always pitch it to Force.

Could you elaborate on the highlighted part? I don't see how Visions is anywhere usefull as Fact or Fiction mid/late game. It is a card that does nothing for 4 turns. This unlike Fact of Fiction which can find answers on EOT phase of the opponent.

Also i do have a question for the people who play Visions with Force Spike.

Your opening hand consist of an Ancestral vision, Force spike and 5x cards. Do you play it on turn 1 or on turn 2? Keeping in mind you don't know what the opponent is playing.

[Captain Hammer]

Who plays Visions with Force Spike? I certainly don't.

I like Visions more than Fact for the first several turns. It only costs me one mana. Sure you won't get the cards for a few turns, but early on, you have a pretty full hand already. Playing Visions turn one to get a bunch of cards before you would even be able to cast Fact is money. Playing both Visions and Propaganda/Shackles/Keg is money. Fact eats up all the mana on the turn that you play it. And if those weren't enough reasons, an early Visions gets me land to make sure I don't miss a land drop. Fact isn't even playable if you run into a glut of landless cards.

And with Fact, you often only get one good card out of it.

[Hoojo]

Also i do have a question for the people who play Visions with Force Spike.

Your opening hand consist of an Ancestral vision, Force spike and 5x cards. Do you play it on turn 1 or on turn 2? Keeping in mind you don't know what the opponent is playing.

I don't think a lot of versions run both of those cards. In this situation, being the opponent's deck is unknown, I would hold Force Spike mana open and play visions turn two. If I was holding a Force of Will as well, I'd play visions and use the Spike as Force fodder.

I personally don't run Force Spike, and always love opening with a turn one suspended Ancestral Visions.

[Mordel]

Soulles,

A rule I play by with draw-go style decks that I picked up the first time I got duressed(the asshole took my whispers too!) is when in doubt, play conservatively.

[Jason]

Also i do have a question for the people who play Visions with Force Spike.

Your opening hand consist of an Ancestral vision, Force spike and 5x cards. Do you play it on turn 1 or on turn 2? Keeping in mind you don't know what the opponent is playing.

It depends on the other 5 cards, but I would probably suspend the Visions turn 1 of game 1. I think the worst thing my opponent could play on the next turn would be Lackey. Mongoose would be annoying, but that can be dealt with eventually. I guess Thoughtseize or Dark Ritual into dumbness would also suck, so it would completely depend on the rest of my hand.

Plus, playing blue means you always have the illusion of Force of Will and suspending Visions means 1 of 2 things:
1) you have nothing better to do
2) you have an answer to anything your opponent does turn 1 (aka Force of Will)

[4eak]

Just as I see a difference between the sorts of creatures that should be run in the two variants of MUC (permanent and stack oriented control), I think your choice of draw spells will vary.

Ancestral Visions is clearly more acceptable in a deck that is more willing to tap out. Permanent-based control lists tap during the main phase a lot. Tapping out in the main is not a cardinal sin in permanent-MUC. Most importantly, permanent-MUC can sustain a longer-term softlock, which allows AV to be a more reasonable card in the deck. Permanent-MUC is a more tempo-oriented control deck than its brother, and as such, it has more difficulty acquiring card advantage. It has a much greater need for strict, raw CA spells.

In contrast to permanent-MUC, decks built to control the stack rely more heavily upon sweeping the board (as opposed to mana-denial). Stack-MUC softlocks the stack instead of the ground, choosing carefully what is to resolve, and cleans up through more effective use of artifact board control, which are CA engines in themselves. Card advantage is rarely the problem for the deck, but rather tempo is the problem it must attempt to solve. It is a different strategy, and it has different needs.

Tapping out to play spells during your main is something you do a lot more conservatively with stack-MUC, and so as your deck progresses towards that strategy, you have more and more disincentive to run Ancestral Visions, and more incentive to play instant draw.

If AV belongs anywhere, it belongs in permanent-MUC lists. Disk, Shackles, and FoF are still the best CA tools for stack-MUC.



peace,
4eak

[DeathwingZERO]

I like Visions more than Fact for the first several turns. It only costs me one mana.

So does Brainstorm, Ponder, and multitudes of other cards, and they allow for the ability to sculpt your next few turns without 100% reliance on topdeck and hand.

Sure you won't get the cards for a few turns, but early on, you have a pretty full hand already.

Unfortunately this deck still has to mulligan, especially games two and three if you need to see a specific card ASAP. AV also does not help in this aspect, as turn five is sometimes not nearly fast enough.

Playing Visions turn one to get a bunch of cards before you would even be able to cast Fact is money.

This is just wrong. Fact goes online on your turn four (assuming 100% land drops, which is quite common with twenty five or so lands), and can be cast on your opponent's turn. AV comes online on your turn five upkeep, THEN still has to resolve (a terrible dilemma in control mirrors). It's a full turn slower.

Playing both Visions and Propaganda/Shackles/Keg is money.

I play Propaganda, Shackles, and Keg. Those are all minimum three of, and will never go below that in the main deck. None of those cards cast any real relevance on AV vs any other cantrip/draw, however. I'm just as likely to draw into any of them by turn five as AV is to get them in my hand after that.

Fact eats up all the mana on the turn that you play it.

Only if you are sitting on four lands forever (which you shouldn't be, and it'll be VERY useful to hit that FoF asap if you are), or if you specifically cast it on turn four. Most of the time, it can wait until five or six, leaving mana open for counters and still have FoW to fall back on.

And if those weren't enough reasons, an early Visions gets me land to make sure I don't miss a land drop. Fact isn't even playable if you run into a glut of landless cards.

Again, this view is very wrong. An early (meaning first turn) AV = a turn five draw. This does nothing to help you in between, when it's absolutely critical you hit every land drop, so you can play any of your answers. Again, anything allowing draw or topdeck manipulation serves a better purpose than AV here.

And with Fact, you often only get one good card out of it.

If this is the case, that means with AV chances are you probably whiffed on that one good card in five, and now have waited 4 turns for nothing, and still are stuck in topdeck mode. While this is very uncommon (the deck is almost like Aggro Loam in a sense that it's very close to 50/50 on lands/answers&threats), that Fact also could have been played in response to something, and you needed to see that one card.

I'm also curious why you are resorting to arguing AV vs Fact. Fact is simply the MVP of this deck, it fuels the mid and late game far better than anything else. AV has been argued by many to be very lackluster at times, and very useful at times. Nobody is arguing these things with Fact, and it's pretty much a staple four of. And chain-Facts are just SICK. I can't say how often enough in testing I've dropped those five cards, only to realize next turn I'm more than likely doing it again.

I actually did a number of games running Whispers of the Muse. I know, I was just saying this isn't "Draw-go" MUC like it used to be, so why am I playing the MVP of 1997? Simply put, it's got insane late game, and it's got usefulness early game as a cantrip just to get a little deeper. Yes it's a blind draw, and yes it's only a cantrip. But it's a quick early play, and RAW CA late game, all with you at total control of when to use it.

I would honestly suggest giving it a try, especially as a four of. In a number of the lists I've seen, it'd fit right in. But again, it's really down to preference. Explosive potential mid to late game, or versatility at the (possible) cost of that CA.

[Captain Hammer]

Where did I say to cut Fact?

My list runs 4 Fact, 4 AV. That's how it should be.

I was merely making the point that I'm always happier to see an Ancestral Visions in my opening hand than I am to see a Fact or Fiction. Though, I'm happy to see either card.

I've found that early game, AV is an incredibly broken card at such a low cc.

[Hoojo]

This is just wrong. Fact goes online on your turn four (assuming 100% land drops, which is quite common with twenty five or so lands), and can be cast on your opponent's turn. AV comes online on your turn five upkeep, THEN still has to resolve (a terrible dilemma in control mirrors). It's a full turn slower.

Technically, Fact or Fiction will only come online turn four if you do not have to hold a counter open for your opponent. Ancestral Visions may be cast on turn five, but its immediately after you untap, so you have your full mana available to protect it if necessary. Understand Fact can be cast during your opponents turn, but it still needs to resolve as well.

[Ch@os]

Ancestral Visions is a so bad topdeck, you all assume its comes down turn 1.
Okay draw Ancestral Visions on Turn 2-3 and its totally outnumbered by fact.
Or worse, a AV on turn 4-5 , the deck loses some of its lategame power by playing AV.

And even it comes down turn 1, i cant play SpellSnare/Force Spike or Brainstorm.

[Mordel]

Like almost every deck there has ever been: it does matter what match up you are in and how you pilot the deck.

[Citrus-God]

Ancestral Visions is a so bad topdeck, you all assume its comes down turn 1.

Standstill is an awful topdeck, and we still play that card. Only difference between the two cards is that you can still cast AV and stall for the next 4 Turns if you have the tools to keep you alive until then.

Okay draw Ancestral Visions on Turn 2-3 and its totally outnumbered by fact.
Or worse, a AV on turn 4-5

The point isn't to play it for an immediate effect; it's to recover from using your answers aggressively. Even if you played it during those turns, you probably had Powder Kegs, Shackles, Propaganda, and counters to gum up the board so that your AV can resolve and draw you more of those cards you love gumming up the board with.

Also, the point of playing AV is to be additional FoFs. You dont have to run AV in these slots, just cards that serve the same purpose somewhat. For example, you can run Whispers of the Muse like DeathwingZERO suggested or Thirst for Knowledge and such.

And even it comes down turn 1, i cant play SpellSnare/Force Spike or Brainstorm.

Who said that any of the current builds with AV right now runs Force Spike or Spell Snare? Also, why do we tap out Turn 2 for Standstill? I mean, with that two open mana, we could leave mana open for Counterspell, Diabolic Edict, Disenchant, and such.

[Mordel]

I usually associate ancestral visions with the slots that I used to put brainstorm and/or impulse in to be honest.

Whispers of the Muse was unspectacular when I briefly tested it: it was only really good in matches against this gwb decree control deck that people played a lot on magic-league for a while and other control sort of matchups, but not many. Six mana for an extra card was pretty unspectacular. I'd be more likely to try Jace if I wanted a draw engine, which I don't.

[Citrus-God]

I usually associate ancestral visions with the slots that I used to put brainstorm and/or impulse in to be honest.

Whispers of the Muse was unspectacular when I briefly tested it: it was only really good in matches against this gwb decree control deck that people played a lot on magic-league for a while and other control sort of matchups, but not many. Six mana for an extra card was pretty unspectacular. I'd be more likely to try Jace if I wanted a draw engine, which I don't.

Jace seems a little counter productive with this deck. I'd say go for something like a TfK based deck? I'm thinking somewhere along the lines of

3 Chrome Mox
4 Seat of the Synod
1 Academy Ruins
4 Mishra's Factory
3 Wasteland
2 Flooded Strand
2 Polluted Delta
6 Island

3 Morphling

3 Spell Snare
3 Force Spike
4 Counterspell
4 Force of Will
4 Powder Keg
3 Crucible of Worlds
2 Vedalken Shackles
4 Thirst for Knowledge
4 Fact or Fiction


Sideboard
1 Shackles
2 Jace Beleren
4 Chill
4 BEB
4 Pithing Needle


That list probably sucks, but I think TfK warrants a lot of testing.