Which is the best monocolored control deck in the format?

[Malchar]

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.

Don't discount red too easily. Pyroclasm happens to answer empty the warrens and bridge from below. Firespout also gobbles up all kinds of aggro decks. Also, there's the significant effect that Blood Moon can have on a metagame. Finally, you get red elemental blast.

[Jon Stewart]

Nessaja, I agree with your post.

Malchar, It would be very cool to play a Red Control deck. Red Elemental Blast and Pyroblast would have to be in the board rather than MD unfortunately.

I don't think we have quite the tools to make Red Control work yet, but we are getting closer. I think the list might go something like this...

4 Chalice of the Void
4 Braid of Fire
4 Pyroclasm
4 Firespout
4 Blood Moon
3 Nevinryll's Disk
3 Kazuul Tyrant of the Cliffs
X Akroma, Angel of Fury

Probably coupled with a stompy like mana base of sorts. Beyond that I don't know what the deck would play. I will say though that finally being able to abuse Braid of Fire would be incredible, and Kazuul is a fantastic way to hold off all your opponent's threats long enough for you to Firespout or Pyroclasm them into oblivion, all while your Kazuul remains unaffected.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

Have you tried Wildfire it is crazy.

4 Ancient Tomb
4 City of Traitors
4 Sandstone Needle
8 Mountain

3 Sundering Titan
2 Bogardan Hellkite
2 Akroma, Angel of Fury

4 Gilded Lotus
4 Thran Dynamo
3 Trinisphere
4 Talisman of Impulse
4 Coalition Relic
4 Chalice of the Void
3 Devastation
3 Wildfire
4 Burning Wish

Sideboard

1 Devastation
1 Wildfire
1 Decree of Annihilation
1 Relic of Progenitus
1 Tranquility
1 Tooth and Nail
1 Shattering Spree
1 Hull Breach
1 Life from the Loam
2 Tormod's Crypt
4 Firespout

[Rico Suave]

White control will always be inferior to blue/black control for 2 reasons:

1) It cannot control non-permanent spells.

2) Its draw engines are bad.

[4eak]

@ Nessaja

Then I guess Dread Return/Bridge from below/Progenitus is a bad card as well..

Yes, they are poor cards in general. When enough very specific conditions are met, they can be quite good. Overall, they are still pretty poor. There are serious deckbuilding costs to benefit from those cards.

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'm fairly sure that you wouldn't need to pack +/- 5 GY hate cards in every deck if it weren't for those 2 + roughly 20 other cards which are the precondition to their viability.

I also think that people are perfectly capable of rating cards within a context instead of in a vacuum.

Who said I'm arguing for a vacuum? I've demonstrated some context in thinking about the StP and Innocent Blood comparison. Every example I brought up happens on fairly often in Legacy.

Innocent Blood, in the right context, is a great card. And in a specific deck it can be just as good as STP.

In a specific deck (let's pretend the only plays black mana sources), Innocent Blood is always better than StP. When we have to open the context up a bit further (let's just try and generalize Legacy for a moment), I don't think Innocent Blood is as good as StP on average, and that is the point.

Sure, I can find you circumstances where StP and Innocent Blood were equivalent.

Opponent's Turn 1: Mountain->Lackey [I am assuming this is standard MonoRed Goblins]
Projected OT2: Mountain->Combat Step->Swing
My Turn 1: Scrubland->Innocent Blood or Scrubland->StP

In this case, the two cards aren't very different in value. And, clearly, there are many more of these cases. However, even in this matchup, starting turns 2 and beyond, StP becomes a much stronger card.

There are even cases where StP is useless and Innocent Blood is superior. Let's say you have to topdeck an answer to Progenitus. The point is that these cases are much rarer, and thus on average a smaller value to your deck than the multitude of strenths StP has over Innocent Blood in a much larger, much more common, and more relevant set of circumstances we find ourselves in Legacy metagames.

If you really think Innocent Blood 'can be just as good as StP' when approaching the average Metagame, then please give me an example. Give me some Top 8 lists (let's assume that could represent, in some part, a metagame), show me how Innocent Blood is 'just as good' as StP.


@ Jon Stewart

Anyways 4eak, I've grown tired of your condenscending attitude and am done debating here with you.

It didn't look like you were finished speaking. You continued to debate in the post. That isn't a conversation stopper; I will still answer you.

It was you that initially posted and claimed...

I don't have the initial/opening post which failed to accurately represent or compare the colors.

Innocent Blood can hit a number of cards that StP can't touch (shroud, protection etc) and vice versa (manlands).

And, Disenchant can hit a number of cards that StP and Innocent Blood can't touch. Even if a 2/2 for 5 mana vanilla creature existed that said, "Only XYZ can target this card", and there was a card named XYZ which cost three mana and said, "RFG target creature", it does not mean that because there are circumstances where XYZ is the only card which can answer the vanilla creature that we should consider XYZ to be as good as StP. Why? Because the the number of times where StP outclasses XYZ is far more relevant than the much rarer occasion where XYZ is superior to StP.

Likewise, the number of times where StP is the dominant card choice to Innocent Blood far outweighs the number of times where Innocent Blood was dominant to StP.

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.

I went tit-for-tat:

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.

Defensively, they are better than just chumping too or churning out multiple tokens to multi-block; they very often force your opponent to overextend.

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.

You should build control decks to answer specific metagames. If you tend to see a ton of Shroud, then clearly Sacrifice effects are excellent. Given the average Legacy metagame though, you should definitely choose a card which is superior in most other circumstances, as you really don't need as many answers to Shroud.

Black has an excellent draw engine easily on par with white.

What makes the White engine stronger is how effectively it can be used in the early game and how versatile its draw engine can be.

MBC's draw engine, unfortunately, isn't very dual-purpose, and therefore can't be played in the same quantities, which makes the engine less consistent. For example, you only have 5 cards in the draw engine of your MBC list. Half the time you won't even have a draw engine. Spreading the draw-engine out will give you more consistency.

MWC can actually draw cards (even specific ones) early in the game, which is where control decks are the weakest, and where a proper engine is the most important.

Black has an on par mid-game draw and a great late game draw engine. If you get to the late game, I expect you to win. Mana efficiency isn't all that important in the mid and late game for a dedicated control deck. I'm willing to lower my mana-efficiency in the late game if that will give me a stronger early game.

you've argued is that white has a diverse set of win condtions, which doesn't prove your point at all.

No offense, but you've done very little to explain the actual cards you seem to think are good. You aren't even using half the cards you named.

I was hoping you'd sit down and see for yourself what I was talking about. I'll explain them for you then:

Painter/Grindstone:

• Combo finishes take advantage of even the briefest temporary holes of stability.
• If you find yourself pressed for time in rounds, a combo finish is excellent.
• This is a very mana efficient way to win.
• It is tutorable.
• You can actually race.
• Useable even in the early game

.

Eternal Dragon:

• Recursion
• Besides RFG effects, largely unkillable.
• Usable even in the early game; particularly for finding you land (which is sweet in the first couple turns)
• Largely uncounterable, same with its cycle effect.
• Hits the sweet spot for at 5/5; strong chumper and ends games in 4 turns.
• Shuffle effect.
• Can generate card advantage on its own.

Decree of Justice:

• Scales with mana
• Uncounterable, instant effect
• Cantrips, even in the early game if necessary (but not preferred)
• Can be used to end games in 1 or 2 turns, especially if it is safe to hardcast
• Fogs for several turns or can Wrath some weenies
• Plays under Standstill

Sacred Mesa:

• Scales with mana
• Tutorable, not wasting space.
• Usable even in the early game.
• Converts unused mana over time into raw board advantage
• Chumps like a pro early, ends games in a few turns in the late.
• Fundamentally excellent at helping you transition from the control role to the aggro role, and a tool towards stabilization

Elspeth:

• Excellent mid-game mana cost
• Chumps when you are down, builds a board when you are even, and wins in 5 turns when you are up.
• Hilariously, feared enough to force your opponent into mistakes.
• Ultimate ability can be excellent against LD or opposing non-RFG removal.

Multiple Runed Halos on decks with a serious lack of threat diversity and answers...
Moat (even stronger with Humility) ...
Chantlock

If they get locked out, then it becomes academic. In some ways, comparable to an activate Staff of Domination. It doesn't directly win the game, but if it is active and potent, then they aren't coming back. The difference is that Chantlock and Moat, for example, are very easy to achieve even in the early or mid game, and fairly consistent given the draw engine.

@ Rico Suave

I'm assuming you are speaking in the context of monocolor dedicated control decks.

White control will always be inferior to blue/black control for 2 reasons:

1) It cannot control non-permanent spells.

Why is control of non-permanent spells a back-breaking point to this discussion?

It is my wet-dream as a combo player to face MUC. Dedicate control fails to put up a real clock, which is absolutely necessary against decks which rely the most upon non-permanent spells.

Further, I'll grant it MWC does not control them as well as black and blue; It would, however, be incorrect to state that there is no control. Orim's Chant and Abeyance actually do help control non-permanent spells, both offensively and defensively. Chantlock is extremely powerful. Additionally, the sideboard and E-tutor engine is excellent for tuning against multiple spells/strategies. Geddon meets Sacred Ground, etc.





peace,
4eak

[Jon Stewart]

TooClosetotheSun, Wildfire is indeed a solid card, and very playable in a Red Control deck should one ever emerge. The remainder of the cards in your list seem very weak compared to the far alternatives available in legacy (cards like Braid of Fire, disruption like Chalice and Blood Moon and removal like Pyroclasm and Firespout)

White control will always be inferior to blue/black control for 2 reasons:

1) It cannot control non-permanent spells.

2) Its draw engines are bad.

All three colors have their own merits. You're right that MWC has weaknesses and a draw engine that requires a lot more mana and multiple cards, but blue and black have weaknessess too.

In this particular meta, I would probably rank from weakest to strongest MUC, MWC and MBC respecitvely.

[The_Red_Panda]

TooClosetotheSun, Wildfire is indeed a solid card, and very playable in a Red Control deck should one ever emerge. The remainder of the cards in your list seem very weak compared to the far alternatives available in legacy (cards like Braid of Fire, disruption like Chalice and Blood Moon and removal like Pyroclasm and Firespout)

I'm sorry, were you not reading?

it is crazy.

it is crazy.

If you build any deck that isn't wildfire you're basically a huge pussy.

[Rico Suave]

Why is control of non-permanent spells a back-breaking point to this discussion?

Because the most dangerous cards in this game must be stopped before they resolve.

There are 2 directions mono-white control can go:

1) Splash green for Enchantresses to get draw. In addition you get Sterling Grove and a variety of silver bullets that the deck needs.

2) Prison.

Both are just...better than a reactive mono-white deck. Extended and T2 decks beat mono-white control, let alone Legacy decks.

[Jak]

Because the most dangerous cards in this game must be stopped before they resolve.

What cards are those?

[oRen]

without reading 3 pages i assume:

- Mono R Painter
- Dragon Stompy (Faerie Stompy and Green Chalice Aggro are less playable imo)
- Dutch Staxx or any other White Staxx build (other colors and brown is not playable at all imo)

regards :)

[Rico Suave]

What cards are those?

How about this: Ad Nauseam

[Jak]

How about this: Ad Nauseam

That card alone keeps MWC from being competitive (in your eyes)? I fail to see how you addvocate MBC and call white "inferior" because of Ad Nauseum. The card isn't even in hand on the opponent's turn.

I hope you have more.

[Nessaja]

@ NessajaYes, they are poor cards in general. When enough very specific conditions are met, they can be quite good. Overall, they are still pretty poor. There are serious deckbuilding costs to benefit from those cards.
I'm fairly sure that you wouldn't need to pack +/- 5 GY hate cards in every deck if it weren't for those 2 + roughly 20 other cards which are the precondition to their viability.

And this is where we disagree. Just because a card is good without building around it doesn't mean a card can't be a a good card if a deck needs to build around it. What you are arguing right now is that synergy based cards are worse by definition. We disagree and I do not believe that this is a point I even consider arguing.

Who said I'm arguing for a vacuum? I've demonstrated some context in thinking about the StP and Innocent Blood comparison. Every example I brought up happens on fairly often in Legacy.

I said you are arguing in vacuum when you're comparing individual cards without their context. This is the same point as above.

In a specific deck (let's pretend the only plays black mana sources), Innocent Blood is always better than StP. When we have to open the context up a bit further (let's just try and generalize Legacy for a moment), I don't think Innocent Blood is as good as StP on average, and that is the point.

I think two points are getting intertwined here, first off, a card can be the absolute best choice for a specific deck. One could say that Innocent Blood is better in a deck build around Pox then STP because the neccesary splash isn't worth it, within the Pox deck, the effect of both cards is more or less the same and Innocent Blood can even be seen as superior in cases because it bypasses immunity. Note that this is not something I neccesarily agree with. I just believe that within a deck a card can be the superior choice even though in many other decks this wouldn't be the superior choice.

[4eak]

@ Nessaja

I said you are arguing in vacuum when you're comparing individual cards without their context. This is the same point as above.

Ah, I really disagree with the idea that I'm not trying to understand these cards in context. I was trying to give context; although, I don't claim I did it completely. Please, lead me by example. It is your turn to give a detailed analysis.

Show me how or where Innocent Blood = StP

If you are going to speak in context, then do so in the context of the Legacy format and the full metagame which springs forth from it. I'm not trying to put this in a vacuum; I'm trying to extend the context. Show me why Innocent blood is ever as good a card as StP in either the universal Legacy metagame or even specific ones (I suggested a top 8 to make it easy for you).

Give an example deck that should have been played in the metagame whereby Innocent Blood was merited as much or more than StP. I'm betting there aren't many (if any at all) of such cases, while I can find the opposite in favor of StP, and that is the reason Innocent Blood isn't in the same league.

Additionally, How do you propose we measure card value?

I think when you sit down to think about how one might theoretically conceive of an algorithm to produce the answer, you're going to find cards like Dread Return pretty marginal (although, extant!) in overall value to the legacy metagame, as most of the value contribution comes from Wasteland/Force/StP/Goyf/Vial/Dual Lands.






peace,
4eak

[Skeggi]

Dutch Staxx

I heard from a reliable source that that deck sucks. I wouldn't play it.

[Rico Suave]

That card alone keeps MWC from being competitive (in your eyes)? I fail to see how you addvocate MBC and call white "inferior" because of Ad Nauseum. The card isn't even in hand on the opponent's turn.

I hope you have more.

You also failed to see that I listed more than one critical problem of the archetype.

[emidln]

I think his point is that a traditional ANT list playing 4 Duress, 4 Orim's Chant can optimize better and quicker than MWC and thus present 2 disruption + Ad Nauseam over the course of the early turns (including some games where Duress + win happens because MWC only has 1 chant effect in hand. Alternately, ANT can simply cast Ad Nauseam end step to go down to some amount of life (5-6 is probably safe), untap and blow you out with a ton of disruption (even if you have a chant, they can keep something like duress, chant, chant, led, led, it and you basically have no outs.

I guess the moral of the story is that decks without Counterbalance + pressure or Trinisphere + pressure don't have a ton of game against the format's premier combo deck. However, I don't know that not beating competent ANT players is the biggest problem for MWC. Zoo and 43Lands are currently tier 1-1.5 and have similar (or worse) matchups.

[Nessaja]

[B][SIZE=3]Ah, I really disagree with the idea that I'm not trying to understand these cards in context. I was trying to give context; although, I don't claim I did it completely. Please, lead me by example. It is your turn to give a detailed analysis.

I don't believe there is a need to give a detailed analysis, what I say is rather straightforward. There are decks that can create ideal circumstances for a card like Innocent Blood - these decks include creatureless decks and decks that often sweep the board. If your deck is build like that (think trainwreck, pox, loam control, trisomy etc) then the drawback on Innocent Blood is neglectable, that doesn't mean that the card is better it does mean that the effect the card has within the deck is either equal or can even be considered better.

If you are going to speak in context, then do so in the context of the Legacy format and the full metagame which springs forth from it. I'm not trying to put this in a vacuum; I'm trying to extend the context. Show me why Innocent blood is ever as good a card as StP in either the universal Legacy metagame or even specific ones (I suggested a top 8 to make it easy for you).

What you are attempting to discuss here is whether a deck is playable in the metagame, but that wasn't what the issue here was. If you are comparing individual cards within a context why would you suddenly jump to the effectiveness of the deck? To put it simply;

Take Wren's Run Vanquisher
1G 3/3 Elf, Deathtouch
If ~ comes into play flash an elf card or pay 3 extra.

Then take the New Guy On the Block
1G 3/3 Human, Deatouch

In a vacuum, you can consider the second guy strictly better as it doesn't have a drawback at all. But the vanquisher can be played in an Elf deck were tribal synergies almost certainly will make it better. The rest of the deck didn't need to be build around the Elf either, it fitted in already. Whether that deck will be a good deck for the metagame is irrelevant when you're comparing single cards.

I understand you would like to put this on just Innocent Blood and Swords to Plowshares but what I say doesn't just apply to this. In my opinion, you cannot evaluate a card without its context - in this case the deck. A card doesn't need to be good in every deck, if it's an effective card in its deck then that could make it a good card. When you start factoring in the meta game you can once again consider that the Elf card is inferior for instance when there is a lot of tribal hate within the meta, the Vanquisher becomes easier to deal with then the New Guy On the Block, I fully acknowledge this as something that also counts for Innocent Blood vs STP but I do not think that the answer to that one is quite that easy.

Additionally, How do you propose we measure card value?

I propose you look at the effect a card has within a deck and evaluate whether its effects (so not the oracle printing) are valuable within the metagame. For Innocent Blood it is "Target opponent sacrifices a creature" for B (in the right deck) which is actually pretty damn good. As I said, I think we (as in, humans, and players of the legacy format) are perfectly capable of looking beyond numerical values and reason what the effects of a card are within context.

I believe your problem here is that you want a numerical solution to this problem, it is my believe that what you are suggesting will simply give us a list of the cards that are most played in the format. But most played does not mean that it is the most effective at what it does within a deck. For instance, when you're looking at the most effective card drawing you might name Standstill when you look at "most played" but I'm fairly sure that when it comes to drawing cards Ad Nauseum is the most effective one, your deck just needs to be build around it.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

If you build any deck that isn't wildfire you're basically a huge pussy.

This.

BTW
The deck is called wildfire.

You should throw the list together on workstation and play some people with it.

[Malchar]

Malchar, It would be very cool to play a Red Control deck. Red Elemental Blast and Pyroblast would have to be in the board rather than MD unfortunately.

Check out the Imperial Painter deck. It plays very much like a control deck with a combo finish. While some people play an aggro version of the deck, I prefer to use Jaya Ballard + Painter's Servant and 8 blasts maindeck. All of this tucked under 8 blood moons and the stompy land base. It's not game-breaking, but it's quite interesting to play a true monored control deck.