Which is the best monocolored control deck in the format?

[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Please do not quote deckcheck as a database of all legacy tournaments.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
MWC = 6 + 19

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 MWC hasn't early disruption or answers to combo; and I show you that it does.

You imply that MBC is superior to MWC because it has more results in deckcheck; I show you 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 a poorly reasoned argument about what constitutes a draw engine, and you show a lack of comprehension regarding how MWC manipulates and draws its cards; I rebut, 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 that MBC has better removal 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--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 of your claim StP/Innocent Blood comparison.

You imply there isn't much of a difference between the win conditions available to MBC and MWC; I give you 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 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 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.