All B/R update speculation.

[iatee]

Words can mean whatever you want them to mean but if your goal is to communicate with other people you have to accept that when you define control broadly enough to include decks that hardcast Emrakul on t5, you're not speaking the same language as most magic players. Yes, sure, lots of decks can do 'controlling' things, Delver controls whether you can cast spells, Storm controls whether you get to play more than 1 turn of magic. But when most magic players use the word 'control' they're thinking of blue-based decks with wraths and counterspells. And if you plan on communicating with them you need to speak the same language.

[Lemnear]

Words can mean whatever you want them to mean but if your goal is to communicate with other people you have to accept that when you define control broadly enough to include decks that hardcast Emrakul on t5, you're not speaking the same language as most magic players. Yes lots of decks can do 'controlling' things, Delver controls whether you can cast spells, Storm controls whether you get to play more than 1 turn of magic. But when most magic players use the word 'control' they're thinking of blue-based decks with wraths and counterspells. And if you plan on communicating with them you need to speak the same language.

Why should I care for other peoples narrow-minded definitions? Sorry, I don't root my arguments on dumb black/white perspectives of the metagame/decks

[dte]

But when most magic players use the word 'control' they're thinking of blue-based decks with wraths and counterspells. And if you plan on communicating with them you need to speak the same language.

That is a very surprising definition to me. I've seen controls were board control was done by red, black or white, and counterspells are not always part of the equation.

Isn't it easier to define "control" as the behaviour consisting in seeking to answer threats instead of playing some?
Decks that care more about their life total than their opponent's one?
And ultimately decks that have few win-conditions but many card to do either CA and/or neutralizing opponent's win condition.

Miracle is not always playing hard control: in a number of MUs, such as storm or the mirror, the miracle player seeks to resolve his main threat early: CB.

[aluisiocsantos]

Everybody knows that in the end of the day, the card that needs the ban is Brainstorm.

[Crimhead]

Which for whatever reason includes Elves and Dredge. The joke is that all those decks combined are 20% while Miracles alone is 18,3%

How is this comment consistent with your claim that combo doesn't need help - especially if you apparently don't conside Elves and Dredge to belong in that category

Maybe UR Landstill or BUG Control with Toxic Deluge would return? We don't know as long as Miracles has only Lands.dec and AbruptDecay as enemies in the format...
For me "control" does NOT equal "runs blue and a shitload of counterspells" per definition and nor is "permission" synonymous to "counterspells". "Controlling" the board with stuff like Punishing Fire is totally fitting the description

I think 'permission' does mean counter-magic. The idea is that you cast a spell, but need "permission" from the control layer in order to resolve that spell

I also do NOT think control = counter-spells! I do think counter-based (or 'permission') control is a different deck style. Delver, Maverick, and Zoo are all very aggressive decks, but I would still distinguish the styles as being tempo, midrange, and (linear) aggro. Likewise I want to distinguish between Lands and Enchantress being (pro-active) prison control vs (reactive) permission control. This is not a profound or controversial distinction!

As for Punishing Grove, that is an engine and does not determine the play-style of the deck which runs it. Maybe you want to say RUG Lands and Punishing Zoo play a similar strategy and game plan and should both be considered control decks? If not, you'll have to concede something here.

[iatee]

Why should I care for other peoples narrow-minded definitions? Sorry, I don't root my arguments on dumb black/white perspectives of the metagame/decks

I don't think you get it. If you use your personal preferred definition of words you are speaking to yourself in your own private language. You don't need a message board to do that. If you say "No there are tons of non-Miracles control decks in legacy" to someone and you assume that they can read your mind and know your personal definition of control, you are starting a nonsense argument.

You can present clear arguments about things without having to change commonly used definition of words. It doesn't change anything about the argument, it just makes it easier to follow because you're speaking a common language.

[aluisiocsantos]

As for Punishing Grove, that is an engine and does not determine the play-style of the deck which runs it. Maybe you want to say RUG Lands and Punishing Zoo play a similar strategy and game plan and should both be considered control decks? If not, you'll have to concede something here.

Punishing Grove is an extreme Control engine. Only decks that want to do some heavy grinding would run it, especially because you give life to the opponent. If Zoo would run it, it's not the Fireblast zoo, but the one with reliquary, gaddock main deck, possibly even Kavu Predator ones. That is control, yes. The same goes to Jund, or Aggro Loam who controls the game by a removal engine and prison cards such as Chalice of the void and Loam+Wasteland. That's also control.

There's no such a thing as Punishing RUG because people are retarded and only netdeck.
EDIT: The actual reason is that there are enough powerful blue cantrip spells that justify running only powerful and precise spells such as Lightning Bolt so that you don't need to rely on GY dependant cards as P.Fire. Brainstorm 9999 - Non-bluedecks -0

[Crimhead]

Isn't it easier to define "control" as the behaviour consisting in seeking to answer threats instead of playing some?
Decks that care more about their life total than their opponent's one?
And ultimately decks that have few win-conditions but many card to do either CA and/or neutralizing opponent's win condition.

Miracle is not always playing hard control: in a number of MUs, such as storm or the mirror, the miracle player seeks to resolve his main threat early: CB.

• The mirror is wholly irrelevant, as on the mirror neither deck is more likely than the other to be playing "beatdown".
• Is CB not played solely to seek answers to the threats (in this case Storm) plans to present? maybe we should be discussing the difference between a threat and an answer? Usually a 'threat' is something that threatens to kill/damage the opponent - not something that "threatens" to provide answers!
• Miracles does in fact sometimes play "beatdown". In fact, most of my matches against Miracles can be described as such. It's the fact Miracles is so awkward and inefficient in this role that I insist it's a purer control deck than D&T, Jund, etc (not the fact that those decks don't run counters).

[Megadeus]

In the storm match up, if the miracles player has a top, counter balance is most certainly a "threat". Especially in game 1 where it's probably unanswerable

[Crimhead]

In the storm match up, if the miracles player has a top, counter balance is most certainly a "threat". Especially in game 1 where it's probably unanswerable

No, it's an answer. It will stop Storm's threats and that's all.

Threats kill the opponent. Answers delay or prevent those threats from manifesting.

It wholly useless to simply state that X is or is not a threat. Let's sketch out a (rough) definition instead - then we can have a constructive discussion instead of repetitive an inane contradiction.

[Lemnear]

How is this comment consistent with your claim that combo doesn't need help - especially if you apparently don't conside Elves and Dredge to belong in that category

I don't get the question. I don't think Elves, Storm, S&T, Dredge need any buffs currently at all. Its independant from my POV that Elves isn't a combo deck today, easpecially after NO isn't even run that often anymore

I also do NOT think control = counter-spells! I do think counter-based (or 'permission') control is a different deck style. Delver, Maverick, and Zoo are all very aggressive decks, but I would still distinguish the styles as being tempo, midrange, and (linear) aggro. Likewise I want to distinguish between Lands and Enchantress being (pro-active) prison control vs (reactive) permission control. This is not a profound or controversial distinction!

As for Punishing Grove, that is an engine and does not determine the play-style of the deck which runs it. Maybe you want to say RUG Lands and Punishing Zoo play a similar strategy and game plan and should both be considered control decks? If not, you'll have to concede something here.

What kind of strawman is that? Where did I say anything about Maverick, Enchantress and the like in that context? Show me one example where Punishing Fire is successfully implemented in a viable aggro strategy, before coming up with something ridiculous like "Punishing Zoo".

I don't think you get it. If you use your personal preferred definition of words you are speaking to yourself in your own private language. You don't need a message board to do that. If you say "No there are tons of non-Miracles control decks in legacy" to someone and you assume that they can read your mind and know your personal definition of control, you are starting a nonsense argument.

You can present clear arguments about things without having to change commonly used definition of words. It doesn't change anything about the argument, it just makes it easier to follow because you're speaking a common language.

As said, I don't care if you believe "control" has to be blue or if the world was created in 6 days, but don't start to argue based on YOUR definition and hope that everyone else just swallows that narrow idea of what "control" is. I pointed to other control decks in that context, so no mindreading required.

[Crimhead]

Show me one example where Punishing Fire is successfully implemented in a viable aggro strategy, before coming up with something ridiculous like "Punishing Zoo".

http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12504&d=272052&f=LE
But I don't see how the successfulness of a deck has any bearing on whether or not it should be classed as control.

Where did I say anything about Maverick, Enchantress and the like in that context?

Never said you did!

I was making examples to show that categories like "agressive decks" and "control decks" can encompass more than one play-style.

What kind of strawman is that?

It's not a Straw-man because I haven't misrepresented your argument. Look it up! A Straw-man would be trying to suggest that I'm claiming contro = blue counter-spells.

I don't get the question. I don't think Elves, Storm, S&T, Dredge need any buffs currently at all. Its independant from my POV that Elves isn't a combo deck today, easpecially after NO isn't even run that often anymore.

I guess this means you are happy with a meta which is 78%-80% fair decks? I prefer combo to be 30%-35% myself.

Sorry, I don't root my arguments on dumb black/white perspectives of the metagame/decks

Really? Because it seems to me you want to label a deck as being either control or not control, with no consideration to the differences between board control, prison control, or permission contro; as well as no distinguishing between hard control decks vs more aggressive control deck.

I'd say that's pretty black & white.

[Dice_Box]

You've always had sympathy for people who want non-blue midrange decks to be a thing in Legacy; and for the banhammer to be used to fix the problem. Yet when somebody wants permission based (hard) control to be a thing in Legacy, and for the banned list to respect that, you show relative contempt?

No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the argument of "Insert play style here" should exist has long since stopped being valid in my eyes. The reason: Aggro is dead. I am not suggesting that we ban everything until Fish, Goblins and Zoo are in the DTB again but I feel like it's disingenuous that we accept that the time for Aggro in Legacy has come and gone but yet we make out that a meta shift is in some way the end of the world. It's happened before, the format survived. I mean, as a Goblins fan, it stings, but that's life.

As for Blue/non Blue Midrange, played Shardless for the first time a few weeks back. Fuck that deck is fun. It's just Jund. I mean, it played nothing like I expected out of a Blue deck. It felt so much like Jund it shocked me. If I was not married to Lands at this point, that would be my deck.

[Zombie]

As for Blue/non Blue Midrange, played Shardless for the first time a few weeks back. Fuck that deck is fun. It's just Jund. I mean, it played nothing like I expected out of a Blue deck. It felt so much like Jund it shocked me. If I was not married to Lands at this point, that would be my deck.

I mean, it *is* Jund. Shardless, Elves when they play fair and Jund are more or less the same deck. Jund's just more destructive, Elves and Shardless more focused on building their own resources, but they're the quintessential "drown opponent in CA" decks. It's just a question of where you want to place yourself on the shit on your table - masturbate continuum. Shardless is about midway.

[dte]

No, it's an answer.

No it's a threat.

:)

Your definition is too narrow. Here it is a threat: something that win the game if unanswered.

CB and top really are threats in the storm MU, which is why storm can aggressively play cabal therapy on CB or top instead of keeping it while sculpting is hand like against most other U.decks, and storm SB brings answers to this threat.

[Sidneyious]

Everybody knows that in the end of the day, the card that needs the ban is Brainstorm.

And kill every blue deck ever, if you want to play legacy modern go find another format.

Only card I'd ever consider for a ban is terminus, and I hate dredge engines more because I dont play mtgo and never ever see any of the decks that you all see 10 times in a setting.

Mtgo is the problem, ban mtgo.

[Crimhead]

No it's a threat.

:)

Your definition is too narrow. Here it is a threat: something that win the game if unanswered.

CB doesn't actually win the game. The Miracles player needs to drop an actual threat.

But yeah, answering your opponents threats will typically lead you to eventually winning the game. That doesn't mean answers are threats though! I guess RIP is a threat, Moat is a threat, Glacial Chasm is a threat - everything is a threat!

Edit:
This thread has reached a new low of willful ignorance. First aggressive control and hard control are the same thing. Then prison control and permission are the same thing. Now counter-spells are threats?

You guys must be blind with anti-miracles rage I guess. That or I'm being trolled hard.

[Fox]

CB doesn't actually win the game.

Neither does Time Vault and Voltaic Key? If something assures you can't lose, it won you the game.

[Crimhead]

If I crop into a bog I can assure victory against a Storm player. Invasive Surgery on Tendrils does the same. Most people would consider those answers to the the threat posed by Storm.

I guess we answer threats with threats not answers.
And I guess there's only one style of play - trying to win the game.

I hope you guys are having a good laugh. Enjoy your Miracles matches.

[Megadeus]

It's certainly a threat. And against Dredge, I would very much consider Rest in Peace to be a threat. CB lock in game one against storm is almost certainly GG. Just like 95% of the time RIP is GG. It doesn't actually kill the opponent, but it effectively wins the game. It's not blind hatred for the deck, but if you've ever been on the storm side of the match up you would know that often in Game 1, similar to playing against MUD with chalice, your first order of business is often to try to strip CB or Top from miracles hand.