Originally Posted by Samsunait
MUC made Top8 at the Source tournament. Last Sunday, it made Top2 at the Dutch Legacy Championships (141-man-tournament)
This message has been deleted by Nightmare. Reason: Boo fucking hoo
As said before, the guy who took F-MUC to the second place in this tournament wasn't Soulles (Fahad). He went 5-2-1, which still is pretty good.
Probably not, Thieving Magpie would be better, but still doesn't cut it as far as I know.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
@ Sae
Yes. Ophidian is similar in nature. I think Sower and Kira are the new Ophidians, especially as this is a creature and creature removal heavy format.Looking at this description, wouldn't Ophidian fit into this particular MUC build? He doesn't perform very well as beater, nor does he have evasion, but he is a very powerful (creature-based) card advantage engine.
@ Skeggi
I agree. If we wanted raw CA creatures, Shadowmage Infiltrator would be the best. How one would make Finkel MUC without turning into Baseruption, which in large part is replaced by ITF, is a good question though.Thieving Magpie would be better, but still doesn't cut it as far as I know.
I'm still not in favor of creature-based card engines in MUC. My testing with Kira/Sower MUC has not produced nearly as positive the results as I have produced with the other variants. If it has anything in its favor, it would be that it is a surprising build. The fact that it is unexpected can make it temporarily viable, but mainstream use of the deck does not seem possible.
peace,
4eak
Just dropping by to point out that Augury Adept is pretty much strictly better than Ophidian.
YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.
As the designer of this build, i'd like to say the following. It is not an easy deck to play.
I never designed the deck to be the better version. I designed it because i experienced, felt and understood that Vedalkan shackles was becoming a weak card. Each new set that appears, artifacts gain more hate.
Purpose of me playing mono-blue is maybe different than the rest. I like to control the creature base of the opponent. But in the end, my deck does not differ that much from the original. I still play Back to basics, i still play Fact or Fiction (I love this card!!), Powder Keg and i think more counters than most permanent MUC builds.
If you are going to play permanents your job becomes defending those permanents. If you can't, you lose. So this begs the question. What is so bad about a card that has evasion and automatically protects your creature control and can swing for 2 damage? This unlike to shackles.
Also it is to bad to see that people narrow Kira's power to Sower only. Not one person said here that Kira allows you to play Morphling turn 5 and heck even creatures that can't protect their self (like Oona, Meloku and screw it, i might try Overbeing of Myth)
In the end it is a matter of preferences. But you can laugh, spit and whatever you do to get your boat floating about my list.
In the end, i probably placed a better prestation than the rest that plays this deck in one year.
Till the day i stop with Magic. I'll stick with my lovely pimped Mono Blue Control.
Have a nice day.
In my experience with Shackles, it's still retarded good. I'm surprised you guys are finding different results.
Uh, yeah, I haven't felt, seen, or experienced any drop-off in Shackles. Also, I don't understand the logic of running creatures over artifacts due to "hate". I'd wager there is three times as much creature hate floating out there than artifact hate. I'm not saying one build is better than another, but some people's reasoning behind card choices is rather odd and I think needs more explanation.
This sound slike a weak argument. Sure, creatures like Tarmogoyf grow very fast in the current meta, but MUC is capable of surviving long enough to make Shackles a bomb, especially because you should have consistent landdrops. In decks like Baseruption or Threshold which operate on low mana, Shackles are bad, but in MUC it is just soo powerful.
And your argument that artifact hate is coming up, why are you then playing Powder Keg? I mean, it's slow and all. But more important: Why did you choose SOWER as the alternative? I mean, take a look at the format: creature removal everywhere. Thus Sower ist like thousand times more fragile than Vedalken Shackles and you need to back it up with Kira. And Kira sucks when alone.
Purpose of me playing mono-blue is maybe different than the rest. I like to control the creature base of the opponent. But in the end, my deck does not differ that much from the original. I still play Back to basics, i still play Fact or Fiction (I love this card!!), Powder Keg and i think more counters than most permanent MUC builds.
Back to Basics and Propaganda are Enchantments which usually don't face any hate preboard. Same is true for Shackles. And even IF there should be something, you are still running 10-12 counters to prevent that.If you are going to play permanents your job becomes defending those permanents. If you can't, you lose. So this begs the question. What is so bad about a card that has evasion and automatically protects your creature control and can swing for 2 damage? This unlike to shackles.
To protect Sower, you need way more counters or Kira. If you draw them in a bad timing, it pretty much blows.
Which is the reason why we only play creatures which CAN protect themselves. Like, Morphling or Rainbow Efreet. Maybe even Call the Skybreaker for undying 5/5 Flyers.Also it is to bad to see that people narrow Kira's power to Sower only. Not one person said here that Kira allows you to play Morphling turn 5 and heck even creatures that can't protect their self (like Oona, Meloku and screw it, i might try Overbeing of Myth)
Then why are you posting in internet forums anyway? In here, it's about to archieve an optimal build through rational thinking. Playing crappy cards out of personal preference is like... stupid.In the end it is a matter of preferences. But you can laugh, spit and whatever you do to get your boat floating about my list.
Kadaj has invested like a lot of time to test come to certain conclusions and has elaborated in various things for like infinite times.
Thus it should be obvious why not to play stuff like Sower. And well, Control Magic would still be better than Sower (coz it doesn't need to be protected by another card). Or Treachery... Meh.
Team SPOD
<Der_imaginäre_Freund> props:
Adan for being the NQG God (drawer)
If you win with those cards, why not? would be stupid instead not to play with them.
On DeckCheck, out of 46 Mono Blue Control decklists, only 2 plays Ancestral Vision; this mean something i think.
At the end is really a matter of preference, if you don't like Kira+Sower, don't play it, it's quite simple; and calling Kira or Sower crappy cards is really, well, crappy...
Results do not tell the whole story, and they never will. Sub-Optimal decks can succeed, and stronger builds can scrub out. Does that make the sub-optimal deck any better? Not necessarily.
As I said previously, I would be much more inclined to listen to the arguments in favor of Kira/Sower and against AV if my testing didn't completely contradict most of the points made in those arguments. However, as of yet, my testing has produced largely the same results it always has in the past. I plan on taking this deck to The Mana Leak Open towards the end of November, so perhaps there I will learn more.
I personally don't have a problem with Soulles' deck list:
If you look at this, what is it playing:
4x Back to Basics
4x Counterspell
4x Force of Will
4x Fact or Fiction
4x Spell Snare
2x Morphling
Those cards all seem pretty standard to me. The only difference in the deck and other decks is only 2x Powder Keg and 2x Vedalken Shackles with 0x Propaganda. Now that could be terrible, but the deck is running 4x Sower which is a different form of creature control than Shackles or Propaganda, but a form of control nonetheless. Some say it is worse than Shackles (I personally agree, but that is neither here nor there). What it is ok is that it doesn't die to a fairly common card...you may know of it...Krosan Grip. I can say Krosan Grip is going to be seen a lot. (And by a lot, I mean, has anyone played in a real tournament? There are a lot of decks with Tarmogoyf aka Green aka Krosan Grip).
Everyone is saying it dies to creature removal without Kira and Kira sucks alone. First, Sower isn't auto-dead to spot removal with all the counterspells. And second, while Kira is not great, it is a 2/2 flier that is pretty difficult to kill in itself. It does fly - it has evasion - not that terrible. It will get annoying to the point where the opponent will be forced to get rid of it one way or another and then you can play FAT (Morphling) and win.
I will say the deck will not work for me because I run 4x Impulse and 24x land and I still have trouble hitting my fourth consecutive land drop (even without mulliganing and seeing three land and an Impulse in my opening hand). I suck at drawing land apparently. This deck cannot be played by someone whom the laws of probability constantly laughs at (read: me). It is only running 23 land and it's only refuel is 4x Fact or Fiction. Plus, if it gets behind, it will be hard to catch up with only 2x Powder Keg.
However, I think the biggest argument against the deck is that it does not play as many Vedalken Shackles or Powder Kegs. If you have Shackles, will the opponent waste a Krosan Grip knowing a Back to Basics could come down (or vice versa depending on the situation)? Under the Kira build, it looks to be the target for a Krosan Grip will be obvious in nearly every situation. Under other builds, the Grip could target Shackles, Propaganda, Powder Keg (maybe), or Back to Basics - the wrong one could cost the player casting Krosan Grip dearly.
Obviously, though, this deck has proven to be playable. The right pilot can definitely take this deck to decent, if not great, results. It really does seem like a matter of preference by the pilot of the deck, and like always, it also heavily relies on the metagame. I say Kira is not terrible, but everyone certainly will not agree.
End of turn...Morphling
Team OMRIAIGTWYFEWARTCAE
As far as I know a deck is defined as good if it performs. You don't define a deck as good when it looks good on paper. Fahad MUC (or FUC/FMUC) has done very well in the past months, and it's a viable strategy in these here Eastern lands.
The argument that Fahad is inconsistent in cutting Shackles for Sower because of artifact hate, but keeping in Powder Keg is a bad one.
First of, MUC really doesn't have anything besides Keg (except for Disk, which is even slower and dies to the same hate). EE, Deed, the usual sweepers in control decks, cannot be played. So Keg becomes the obvious choice. Secondly, by adding Sower, the deck as a whole becomes less susceptable to artifact hate: with both Keg and Shackles, an opponent playing Pithing Needle just has to pick the one that's bothering him the most at that time and he'll always have the option of naming either one of them. By changing Shackles to Sower your opponent now has to side in Needles for Keg, but still has to have another answer to Sower. The same is true for Shattering Spree, which becomes less of a Xfor1, and the Krosan Grips that seem to be in any sideboard of decks running green.
In my opinion, the idea of spreading out the weaknesses like Fahad has done seems like a logical thought process to me.
Besides that, Sower is faster than Shackles too.
I'm not saying FMUC is better than traditional MUC, but it shouldn't be disregarded in spite of the results and thoughts that have gone into it, simply because it "looks bad on paper" or because "Kadaj has a list that he's been tweaking for two years", so what?
This message has been deleted by Nightmare. Reason: Boo fucking hoo
@ Mayk0l
I think we have good reasons to doubt the viability of Kira/Sower MUC. I'm not saying that Fahad even made claims that it was the best deck, but I want to carefully explain how I approach this issue of deck viability--we need common terminology and methods of deducing the value of a deck.As far as I know a deck is defined as good if it performs. You don't define a deck as good when it looks good on paper. Fahad MUC (or FUC/FMUC) has done very well in the past months, and it's a viable strategy in these here Eastern lands.
I don't define a deck as good because it has a nice looking decklist or looks good on paper (and I doubt Kadaj does either). Additionally, a deck can be good, but that doesn't make it optimal or the best. And, in any specific metagame, unless you have a mathematical tie (something astronomically unlikely), there will only be one best deck to play. I don't doubt that this is a good deck; I doubt whether this is an optimal or viable deck; I doubt whether this deck is a better choice than the other variants of MUC (or other decks in general). I don't ask whether it is a good deck; I ask whether it is the best deck.
My questions concerning the optimality of the Kira/Sower variant, as opposed to other variants, is based upon testing.
Testing is not the same thing as "looking good on paper". From testing, I can tell you that I still have better match percentages with the other two variants. Regardless of the combination of decks that define a specific metagame, Kira/Sower has not been able to produce higher total win percentages than our permanent-MUC and Draw/go decks. This testing is the reason I don't call Kira/Sower as strong a choice as the other two variants. If I could produce realistic metagames in which Kira/Sower MUC was the stronger, then I would be able to say there are metagames where it is viable.
(Viability meaning it has the highest win percentage of any deck we could choose)
Now, you might question the validity of testing, opting to believe that somehow Tournament data gives a more complete representation of the value of any deck. I think that would be a mistake though.
I'm going to say the same thing I said to ParkerLewis nearly ten pages ago:
Testing gives you larger samples and the ability to isolate variables. An objective and sanitary testing process is simply the best method to deduce the viability of a deck. Tournament data comes second to testing.I hope you are bringing more to your next post than tournament results. While I study them, I'm quite skeptical of what sorts of conclusions can really be drawn from them.
MUC is an uncommonly played deck in a format that is also uncommonly played. Additionally, MUC can be one of the more skill intensive archetypes to play, some versions more than others, and there are many implications of a deck that is hard to play.
Tournament data is not the holy grail. The sample size is actually very small for a game with this many variables; and frankly, player skill has more to do with winning the tournament than having the best deck or an optimal version of a deck.
Arguments concerning optimality are exceedingly hard to support using a small sample size, and the problem becomes compounded when you cannot isolate and remove things such as player skill from the equation.
Now, you might ask what makes me think I would have any better a chance at calculating optimality if we aren't going to base our support solely on tournament results. Our testing gauntlet has a fairly unique system for calculating player skill and enabling us to remove player skill from equations when attempting to define a deck's optimality. Tables of 1000's of games among several players with a version of a deck, as opposed to something like deckcheck, gives much better data from which to draw conclusions concerning optimality outside the context of player skill.
Kira/Sower is a good deck, but I don't think it is the best or optimal choice. I think Fahad is a very talented player with a deck that is less than optimal (even if it is still a good one) and not as good as some of the other options available to him. Congratz to Fahad for being a skilled player with a unique deck. I think we all appreciate his accomplishments. We can't, however, deduce from a handful of tournament samples (which must be taken with a grain of salt) that his deck is optimal.
Test, test, test.
peace,
4eak
Again, I do not understand, nor have seen a rational explanation, as to why Sower is played over Shackles. The only "reason" I've heard so far is because of artifact hate. Artifact hate. REALLY? That's the best you got? Because last time I checked, hardly any decks pack maindeck artifact hate, and if you're adjusting your maindeck because of someone else's hypothetical sideboard, you've got fundamental problems.
Seriously, people pack lots of maindeck creature hate because (a.) Legacy is a creature-dominant format, and (b.) Tarmogoyf. Saying you want to play more creatures maindeck because it will lessen the effect of an opponent's sideboard cards (Grip, Spree, etc) is okay I guess, but what of the fact that you've now made your opponent's maindeck creature removal spells relevant again, while still having the same sideboard hate problems in g2?
Again, I don't think one build is clearly better than another, but unconventional card choices need more explanation.
My guess is that Sower can steal any creature once you get to 4 mana whereas Shackles will have problems stealing stuff like Countryside Crusher, Terravore, Tombstalker or even Tarmogoyf right away. Also Sower is a 2/2 flying beater who can shorten tight matches by simply flying over for some more damage.
"Anybody want some . . . toast?" —Jaya Ballard, Task Mage
That's all assuming Sower lives, which largely hinges on having Kira out; otherwise, you're going to be using your hard counters protecting your Sower. Again, many decks pack lots of maindeck creature removal, whereas with artifact hate, if it's even available to them, is relegated to their sideboard. I do not understand the rationale of modifying your maindeck because of someone else's sideboard.
Nightmare: Shackles is still indeed an awesome card. However on its own, it's not a reliable win condition anymore. Mono blue control. The world control says it all, right? But we can't control Split second. And Krosan Grip is just a heavy played card right now. Infact when i was watching Leon in the top 8. He played vs StifleNaught with 2x Krosan Grip mainboard. And most green decks, pack in 4x Grip Sideboard in their sideboard. So in other words. Shackles becomes more a liability than an asset. Does that make Shackles worse than sower/kira combination? No. But depending on shackles only is not the right strategy anymore. And for me that is just a fact.
Kadaj: If you are planning to take the exact list to the tournament. I would reduce the Spell Snare amount by 1. I think 4 is a bit overkill and sometimes i drew them to many times late game. With Back to Basics active, i prefer Spike over Snare. I guess if you do, this gives you an extra slot. I guess an extra Powder Keg or Shackles might be worth a try. (Maybe Powder Keg, if the meta is infested with Naught and Ichorid decks)
From my experience, Sower lived far more than Shackles. Also, i can at least counter creature removal. I can't counter Krosan Grip. I am not sure how your meta is. But here, a heavy creature removal deck, has max 8 creature removal spells. This means if Kira is active, an opponent has to cast 2 spells just to get rid of my Sower to get his creature back. And you think i let that happen?That's all assuming Sower lives, which largely hinges on having Kira out; otherwise, you're going to be using your hard counters protecting your Sower. Again, many decks pack lots of maindeck creature removal, whereas with artifact hate, if it's even available to them, is relegated to their sideboard. I do not understand the rationale of modifying your maindeck because of someone else's sideboard.
Also, most of the times, people sideboard out their creature hate versus me. Because it is REALLY useless. You won't get Morphling with it and Kira and Sower are just to hard to deal with.
Not a valid argument mate. If you ask anyone; What do you fear most playing versus MUC? The answers are Back to Basics and Shackles. Unless it's an Ichorid player, i don't think that people that sideboard Artifact hate are saying in their mind; damn we must deal with Keg.The argument that Fahad is inconsistent in cutting Shackles for Sower because of artifact hate, but keeping in Powder Keg is a bad one
Also, give me an blue alternative for Keg, and i will gladly replace it.
Since you are not god, but just a forum member. You don't any any right to call anything unconventional and explaination isn't always necessary, results speak for them self. Especially if they are achieved in a very short period of time.Again, I don't think one build is clearly better than another, but unconventional card choices need more explanation.
Magic isn't always decklists. It's also the pilot, the matchup and luck.
I hope i havn't offended anyone.
Fahad
@Soulles
Kira/Sower is currently unconventional, and it needs more explanation. Yes, it is necessary, and no, tournament results do not speak for themselves. Suboptimal decks can still have tournament results--Go check the flurry of ANT variants that are top8'ing everywhere.You don't any any right to call anything unconventional and explaination isn't always necessary, results speak for them self.
Anyways, these are strengths of Kira/Sower over other variants. You listed some of the reasons Fahad, but I think there is more to explain.
While I don't think Kira/Sower is optimal, I can give you four reasons why it works:
1.) Creature-based card advantage engines aren't as susceptible to Disenchant (DE) effects.
Krosan Grip is extremely powerful, and if run by the majority of players, has serious implications for MUC. I'm less concerned about any other card because I can at least answer those cards. KGrip, however, does fundamentally change how MUC can operate. Few decks revolve so heavily around using only a handful of Artifacts and Enchantments to control the game to the extent we do in MUC.
MUC 1 for 1's, drops an Artifact/Enchantment bomb to generate massive CA and stabilize the tempo race, and then it can switch from the control to aggro role. Krosan Grip is a serious problem that prevents MUC from stabilizing, and unfortunately, there isn't much more we can do about it.
Don't get me wrong, you can still win through KGrip, but the truth is: MUC, which generates a good deal of its CA through Artifact/Enchantment board control, has fundamental problems against a format that widely uses the unanswerable KGrip.
Kira/Sower has fewer problems in this respect. I don't think anyone would argue that Sower is a stronger card than Vedalken Shackles in a vacuum, but, in KGrip heavy metagames, Sower's immunity to an unanswerable (uncontrollable) card has merit.
2.) Targeted Removal is almost completely useless against the deck.
While one might argue that there is a good deal more creature hate than artifact hate in Legacy, we can't argue that there is more unanswerable/uncontrollable creature hate than artifact hate in Legacy.
Targeted creature removal does exists, but few decks pack targeted removal in any large quantity. This means that even reaching the 2-minimum targeting spells to kill a creature protected by Kira is unlikely, especially when we have so much permission.
If Split Second Creature hate was commonly played in Legacy, then the strength of permission and Kira would diminish to the point we wouldn't have a removal-based incentive to play Sower instead of Shackles. As the format stands now, removal is at least easy to answer, and KGrip is not so easy to answer or build around.
3.) Kira/Sower has a much quicker fundamental turn.
This is a tempo-version of MUC, and so while it can't sustain the control role as effectively as other variants, it is capable of switching to the aggro role under the brief windows of time that its control/disruption offers. In a 50-minute match, and in a highly tempo-oriented aggro-control heavy format, it is only natural that some variants of MUC would evolve to become creature-based tempo-versions of MUC.
Kira/Sower is a very heavy-control version of Blue Skies or MU-Threshold. It is still willing to sacrifice card advantage and control over the long haul for tempo and earlier threats.
4.) This is a rogue deck. (i.e. even more than unconventional)
Or, at the very least, I consider this a rogue variant, one that is less likely to be playable as a mainstream version of the deck.
Few people have prepared for this variant of MUC (if they prepare for MUC at all), few people can pilot it, and few people expect it.
The informational and experience advantages of playing a rogue deck has major impact on how games play out. When someone plays Sower in Legacy, I straight up look at them and think, 'wtf, wow, I did not see that one coming'.
While the "rogue factor" is less important in decks that don't rely so much on information advantage, MUC is the undisputed master of leveraging information advantages. The rogue factor is very beneficial to an MUC player.
peace,
4eak
I like to comment several things here regarding the Fahad build, I was the one who became runner-up last Sunday at the Dutch Championships, playing the build Fahad posted the previous page if i remember correctly.
What opposing players think about Kira, is in my opinion not correct. Adan for example keeps claiming Kira sucks on her own. Did you ever tried the card on a tournament? Most opponents haven't ever seen the card, read the ability and see it as a threat. They WILL waste a counterspell, or even better, 2 creature removal cards on it. If not, Kira becomes a evasion-packed clock. Put another creature aside and you WILL win. Even Kira alone has won me about 5 games (in 11 matches, not that bad), along with Sower or Morphling even more.
About Sower: nowdays more players are playing Dreadnought (at least here in the Netherlands). If you have the bad luck it hits the table, you have 2 turns left to find a answer. Shackles won't do that trick, Sower does. (It also did that for me in the quarter finals, topdeck FTW ^^).
But let's take another example which occured last Sunday: my opponent has 2 Goyfs in play (yeah, I know, my own fault... I had Chalice on 1 shutting down my Snares, but doesn't matter now), I have no creature. I had enough lands to either play Shackles or Sower. In this case, Sower will win you the game, because with Shackles you would have 2 Goyfs staring to eachother and both players wouldn't attack.
In the end, it all comes down to personal preferences, I understand that. In my opinion, some keep flaming card choices, but they have proven themselves to Fahad and me. If you don't like Kira and Sower, fine, don't play with them then. But please don't shove it off as junk, because they aren't.
It's nice to know that I cannot ask for explanations on unconventional card choices because I'm not God, but simply a member of an Internet forum. It's ironic however, due to the fact that Internet forums were designed with the sharing of information, opinions, and thoughts, in mind. However, because I'm not the almighty creator, I'm not allowed to participate in discussion. Awesome.
Also, results achieved in a short period of time, all grouped together, means far less than a decklist that has put up results over long stretches of time (see Threshold, Goblins, and Storm combo).
But then again, I'm not the giver of life, so who am I to have an opinion?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote