There is something to say about conventional wisdom and groupthink pitfalls, that often go completely unobserved in collective discussions like this.
Goyf is, and always has been, an attrition creature. There is a reason he works well in creature based decks and with discard and why he is less efficient in blue decks with disruption like counter magic. Counterspells are not attrition cards. Control decks are also not so much attrition based as they are preparation based. They reward set ups, not grindy maneuvering.
I think people get too lost in card tier that they simply forget about fundamental MTG theory and this is why Pro Tours feature breakout decks and SCG Opens often don't anymore. People favor groupthink and conventional wisdom over flexing fundamental game theory.
Control decks are attrition decks at heart. Attrition means outlasting, decks which play for the lategame, which control decks are doing moresoe than Midrange decks even. And Counterspells are one of the purest attrition cards out there, besides removal and discard. Just to correct your statement. And if you say Goyf only works in attrition decks then it would perfectly fit control decks according to your assessment.
It would be advisable to look up the basic defintions of magic deck archetypes up and using the terms correctly before accusing everybody else on not referring to fundamental MTG theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_deck_types
Reference: Control: "Control decks avoid racing and attempt to slow the game down by executing an attrition plan." etc. etc.
Another hint would be that control mirror matchups are often referred to as being attrition based matchups. Which they simply are.
And to add, the clock is definitely not the main problem of a UB style control deck. Its the lack of dealing with specific permanents. Delve threats are perfectly reasonable finishes if you want to play them. And so are goyfs, this is just completely biased assessments you give here. When you look up the most played removal spells in the format then Bolt is by far number 1, followed by Path. Both Goyf and delve threats are equal here (and to add, when you play a goyf into a bolt then its your own fault, this should be a thing to play around). Push as the only card would make goyf less good than delve threats, but thats about it and Push is played way less compared to the other 2 removal spells. So all your listing about goyf actually not really matter at all compared to a angler for example. And why I am saying this is because anglers or tasigurs have always been played in black style of control decks. So let alone for that goyfs should at least not be completely counterintuitive like you claim.
There is something to say about conventional wisdom and groupthink pitfalls, that often go completely unobserved in collective discussions like this.
Goyf is, and always has been, an attrition creature. There is a reason he works well in creature based decks and with discard and why he is less efficient in blue decks with disruption like counter magic. Counterspells are not attrition cards. Control decks are also not so much attrition based as they are preparation based. They reward set ups, not grindy maneuvering.
I think people get too lost in card tier that they simply forget about fundamental MTG theory and this is why Pro Tours feature breakout decks and SCG Opens often don't anymore. People favor groupthink and conventional wisdom over flexing fundamental game theory.
Control decks are attrition decks at heart. Attrition means outlasting, decks which play for the lategame, which control decks are doing moresoe than Midrange decks even. And Counterspells are one of the purest attrition cards out there, besides removal and discard. Just to correct your statement. And if you say Goyf only works in attrition decks then it would perfectly fit control decks according to your assessment.
It would be advisable to look up the basic defintions of magic deck archetypes up and using the terms correctly before accusing everybody else on not referring to fundamental MTG theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_deck_types
Reference: Control: "Control decks avoid racing and attempt to slow the game down by executing an attrition plan." etc. etc.
Another hint would be that control mirror matchups are often referred to as being attrition based matchups. Which they simply are.
And to add, the clock is definitely not the main problem of a UB style control deck. Its the lack of dealing with specific permanents. Delve threats are perfectly reasonable finishes if you want to play them. And so are goyfs, this is just completely biased assessments you give here. When you look up the most played removal spells in the format then Bolt is by far number 1, followed by Path. Both Goyf and delve threats are equal here (and to add, when you play a goyf into a bolt then its your own fault, this should be a thing to play around). Push as the only card would make goyf less good than delve threats, but thats about it and Push is played way less compared to the other 2 removal spells. So all your listing about goyf actually not really matter at all compared to a angler for example. And why I am saying this is because anglers or tasigurs have always been played in black style of control decks. So let alone for that goyfs should at least not be completely counterintuitive like you claim.
I like that I talk about the problem with conventional wisdom + groupthink and you link me to a wiki as a defense...
There is a difference between a deck that focuses on attrition and a deck that focuses on actual value. You seem to disambiguate the two based on slight commonalities. Even the wiki seems to disambiguate the two, which I find oddly satisfying given the current discussion.
Let's start with what we know about Tarmogoyf. Tarmogofy traditionally finds strong roles in GBx decks, which utilize attrition to grind out games through 1 for 1 trading via spells for spells or spells for creatures. The general premise of these decks, historically, is to throw down efficient creatures until one sticks - increasing the likelihood that one sticks through means of 1 for 1 trading. Either another creatures eats a removal spell or you trade a spell for a spell, such as Thoughtseize. Tarmogoyf plays a key role in these decks because it is a hit the ground running kind of card. Low mana cost, scales well, and can present a clock on a clean board. These decks do not care that the creature has conversion because it either dies or sticks and that is literally all they care about. If it dies, then something else lives - Voice of Resurgence, Knight of the Reliquary, Dark Confidant, Grim Flayer, Tireless Tracker, etc. The card is made to pay off when the game is grindy. Cards like Spiritmonger and Phyrexian Plaguelord are attrition cards. They don't generate inherent resource value they only cause the game to incrementally move forward until resources are depleted. Goyf is strong in these decks because it can demand a removal spell and pave the way for clean boards... or simply just run away with the game.
Now let's look at Control decks, decks that utilize attrition through the trading of spells. Examples are things like Doom Blade, Disallow, Force of Will. These are the things that you are attributing to attrition. But if you dig deeper, the real cards that are the most linear across Control decks are cards like Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Consecrated Sphinx, Bitterblossom, Grave Titan, Meloku the Clouded Mirror. Now we start to delineate between the key concepts of Control and the key Concepts of a Midrange deck when it comes to what attrition means and how it is used. GBx decks as stated above, lean into a straight up raw attrition game plan. That is how they win. Control on the other hand, while it may use methods of attrition, what it actually uses to win is raw value. Things snowball and generate additional resources vs deplete resources. You even touched on this in a prior comment when you quoted your lord and savior Todd Stevens, but you ignore it in making a muddied defense as to why Tarmogoyf belongs in Control as a finisher and why you think it is reasonable/viable. Talk about a contradiction.
So yes, you are correct in that Control used a method of attrition. But the archetype fundamentally wins through value cards that snowball.
Tarmogoyf is a midrange creature through and through. It is laughable that people think it is a Control finisher and the fact that people think that in Modern stands as a testament to the real problem of UB. It lacks a finisher, so much so that people are trying to justify Tarmogoyf as a finisher... That reeks of desperation to me.
You know who doesn't die to Fatal Push? Tasigur. You know who doesn't die to Abrupt Decay? Tasigur. You know who doesn't die Lightning Bolt? Tasigur. Consider something like Tasagur as a finisher if you want to focus on UBg and be real with yourself. Tasigur avoids all of the pitfalls Goyf has for a Control deck + he actually does what Control needs their finishers to do - convert resources or generate card advantage as raw value. He doesn't need you to continually spend resources to clear the board for him without offering a return. He doesn't need you to continually spend resources to protect him without offering a return.
I like that I talk about the problem with conventional wisdom + groupthink and you link me to a wiki as a defense...
You would be surprised how accurate wiki is more often than not. I genuenly think it has a bad reputation unjustified. If something is wrong on a given topic it is usually changed within hours on the site. Did you actually spend time and scroll through the whole content of a wiki page for example? There is a neat section which is reserved for discussion there, where you can find accurate commends on any topic of a given wiki page. And lets be honest, we are talking about magic here not about deeply complex science topics. You have to admit that what you said about counterspells not being attrition cards is just wrong. Doesn't matter where you search the defintion from. If you want to argue in that way I could also just say "even" wiki (like you put it) knows it better than you. So just please stick to actual arguments for the discussion, not this nonsense.
Let's start with what we know about Tarmogoyf. Tarmogofy traditionally finds strong roles in GBx decks, which utilize attrition to grind out games through 1 for 1 trading via spells for spells or spells for creatures. The general premise of these decks, historically, is to throw down efficient creatures until one sticks - increasing the likelihood that one sticks through means of 1 for 1 trading. Either another creatures eats a removal spell or you trade a spell for a spell, such as Thoughtseize. Tarmogoyf plays a key role in these decks because it is a hit the ground running kind of card. Low mana cost, scales well, and can present a clock on a clean board. These decks do not care that the creature has conversion because it either dies or sticks and that is literally all they care about. If it dies, then something else lives - Voice of Resurgence, Knight of the Reliquary, Dark Confidant, Grim Flayer, Tireless Tracker, etc. The card is made to pay off when the game is grindy. Cards like Spiritmonger and Phyrexian Plaguelord are attrition cards. They don't generate inherent resource value they only cause the game to incrementally move forward until resources are depleted. Goyf is strong in these decks because it can demand a removal spell and pave the way for clean boards... or simply just run away with the game.
That seems accurate, I agree with that.
Now let's look at Control decks, decks that utilize attrition through the trading of spells. Examples are things like Doom Blade, Disallow, Force of Will. These are the things that you are attributing to attrition. But if you dig deeper, the real cards that are the most linear across Control decks are cards like Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Consecrated Sphinx, Bitterblossom, Grave Titan, Meloku the Clouded Mirror. Now we start to delineate between the key concepts of Control and the key Concepts of a Midrange deck when it comes to what attrition means and how it is used. GBx decks as stated above, lean into a straight up raw attrition game plan. That is how they win. Control on the other hand, while it may use methods of attrition, what it actually uses to win is raw value. Things snowball and generate additional resources vs deplete resources. You even touched on this in a prior comment when you quoted your lord and savior Todd Stevens, but you ignore it in making a muddied defense as to why Tarmogoyf belongs in Control as a finisher and why you think it is reasonable/viable. Talk about a contradiction.
I disagree to a certain extent that control decks use always raw value to win the game. However, to explain why there, I think I need to ask a question (which is in my understanding at least clear): DO you think there is a difference in Goyf and Angler for control decks? Its just different stats and different mana and different colour. I think there is no difference of the role in general. Both are simply stats for mana. And the point is, there is one simple prominent example where Gurmag is actually played in a control deck: In legacy grixis control. So I don't think control always tries to win with value. We could now argue that gurmag is more worth it because as a single creature it sticks more, which is something I could get down to, but both cards are in the same category. So based on this, I could actually see a control deck running goyf for that reason. I think what your main point simply is, is that goyf dies to fast as a singlet creature which is supposed to win the game. And I can agree with that. Lastly, I never said Goyf just belongs into control. I said its imaginable for me. But not confirmed. Just stick to the facts please.
To conclude, I think control decks do often really win with value, but not 100 % of the time. Goyf may or not be a finisher for control, I am yet unsure about that. However I think it is worth investigating at least since it doesnt require cards like thoughtscour to build around goyf like delve threats demand. Delve threats are indeed very attractive for control since control wants be able to rely on them to not get removed easily. And I am split between those two. I also mentioned it could be viable to simply splash for trophy since it benefits the the decks actual problems. A threat is not the problem in ub. It is the lack of dealing with permanents.
You would be surprised how accurate wiki is more often than not. I genuenly think it has a bad reputation unjustified. If something is wrong on a given topic it is usually changed within hours on the site. Did you actually spend time and scroll through the whole content of a wiki page for example? There is a neat section which is reserved for discussion there, where you can find accurate commends on any topic of a given wiki page. And lets be honest, we are talking about magic here not about deeply complex science topics. You have to admit that what you said about counterspells not being attrition cards is just wrong. Doesn't matter where you search the defintion from. If you want to argue in that way I could also just say "even" wiki (like you put it) knows it better than you. So just please stick to actual arguments for the discussion, not this nonsense.
It isn't necessarily that a Wiki is inaccurate, it is that it is an open source encyclopedia and you linked me to one that is about theory. Do you not see how that becomes a problem when talking about groupthink? There is a difference between a wiki that sources scientific literature about something like quantum theory and something that talks about MTG theorycraft. A BIG difference. The fact that it is a) Content subject to a matter of opinion and b) Content that is editable to the point of finding general consensus - i.e conventional wisdom and groupthink.
These two things are not always bad, but you have to understand that they can absolutely lead to sub-optimization by nature and an audience would be none the wiser. Yes, they can also lead to ideal optimization in the same vein. But unless you are aware of the polarity, you likely would never really know or understand the difference.
If you think that just because this is MTG and that makes is non-complex... then you must not be that into something like Chess.
Anyways, if you want to exit this talking point, I am okay letting it go to rest.
I disagree to a certain extent that control decks use always raw value to win the game. However, to explain why there, I think I need to ask a question (which is in my understanding at least clear): DO you think there is a difference in Goyf and Angler for control decks? Its just different stats and different mana and different colour. I think there is no difference of the role in general. Both are simply stats for mana. And the point is, there is one simple prominent example where Gurmag is actually played in a control deck: In legacy grixis control. So I don't think control always tries to win with value. We could now argue that gurmag is more worth it because as a single creature it sticks more, which is something I could get down to, but both cards are in the same category. So based on this, I could actually see a control deck running goyf for that reason. I think what your main point simply is, is that goyf dies to fast as a singlet creature which is supposed to win the game. And I can agree with that. Lastly, I never said Goyf just belongs into control. I said its imaginable for me. But not confirmed. Just stick to the facts please.
Yes. There is a difference between Goyf and Angler for Control decks. Albiet I will admit that it is not entirely substantial. Angler lessens risk by comparison. It offers a flat rate body, meaning it isn't contingent on external factors that would determine if it dies to something like Burst Lightning or Bolt. It cost more than 2 mana, which means it isn't prone to dying to Fatal Push or Abrupt Decay. You could argue that they are simply stats for mana, but they also have external factors going on. DTR is a far more relevant argument when evaluating creatures for Control decks, because it determine if/when/how often, you will need to spend resources to ensure that it can actually put in an 8 hour shift. Something else you should consider when talking about Legacy, is that premier removal is extremely limited in this format. This means that you remove a lot of diversity when it comes to what can remove your creature and from there it is a matter of "does it dodge A, B, or C?" Instead of "Does it dodge A-z?. As I said, the DTR argument, as much as I think invoking that argument is invalid, is something that is a critical argument when evaluating creatures for Control. Bringing it back to my argument about decks like GBx - DTR becomes a less valuable argument because it is more about running them out of resources and having something naturally stick as a result. It doesn't care if Goyf dies because it has something else to stick. Control cares about DTR because it determines the level of investment when calculating the overall value. Less removal diversity = more value and that is the core DTR.
Modern has a vastly superior amount of removal diversity than Legacy which means stat based win conditions in control drops dramatically. This is also evident in Limited which shows that there is a correlation between the effectiveness of stats and the amount of available removal and how diverse said removal is.
You tell me that I am not sticking to facts, when I am literally telling you that this thread contains empirical data on BGx Sultai vs UBx Sultai based on a collective of top finishes.
The facts are that you said UB Control's problem in Modern is not the lack of a stable finisher. Yet you are advocating Tarmogoyf, a card I pointed out is a Midrange creature, over any of the other cards that are apparently proving that UB Control doesn't suffer from the lack of a playable finisher in Modern. I never said you called Goyf a control creature. So you if you want to try to call me out for putting words in your mouth, then I would argue that you let go of some of the contextual elements in the discussion... not that I am not sticking to facts.
To conclude, I think control decks do often really win with value, but not 100 % of the time. Goyf may or not be a finisher for control, I am yet unsure about that. However I think it is worth investigating at least since it doesnt require cards like thoughtscour to build around goyf like delve threats demand. Delve threats are indeed very attractive for control since control wants be able to rely on them to not get removed easily. And I am split between those two. I also mentioned it could be viable to simply splash for trophy since it benefits the the decks actual problems. A threat is not the problem in ub. It is the lack of dealing with permanents.
I think the notion that Tasigur, the Golden Fang needs something like Thoughtscour to power him is utter nonsense. Sure, Scour can help power him out - but if your game plan is to play the long game, he is going to convert resources all the same. I honestly doubt Tasigur is the answer to UB Control's lack of a playable finisher. But the fact that you are now encouraged to go into Green for Trophy means there is more inherent appeal to Tasigur over some other options.
You keep saying that UB Control does not suffer from the lack of a stable finisher in Modern yet the only UB Control variants we see are Esper which utilize cards like Creeping Tar Pit, Snapcaster Mage, and Lightning Bolt to chip away life totals. That becomes an entirely different situation when you remove Lightning Bolt from the equation because now you are skimming on your reach. IF you want to show me examples of UBx Control decks that are not Grixis that have shown that a lack of a finisher is not the issue - then I will wait.
I don't disagree that the inability to deal with a diverse selection of resolved permanents is a huge problem for UB Control in Modern. But I do disagree that it is the only serious issue the deck faces. I expect that after your stint of testing Sultai Control with the lack of a viable finisher, the same conclusion is inevitable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
If you think that just because this is MTG and that makes is non-complex... then you must not be that into something like Chess.
I love Chess. And I am not saying MTG is not complex. It might just be my own perspective as a chemist though but there are way more complex things out there compared to MTG. And therefore it seemed to me it would be overkill to argue over the credibility of a source when it comes down to that (which it seemed for me it was). However, just to clarify my point.
Yes. There is a difference between Goyf and Angler for Control decks. Albiet I will admit that it is not entirely substantial. Angler lessens risk by comparison. It offers a flat rate body, meaning it isn't contingent on external factors that would determine if it dies to something like Burst Lightning or Bolt. It cost more than 2 mana, which means it isn't prone to dying to Fatal Push or Abrupt Decay. You could argue that they are simply stats for mana, but they also have external factors going on. DTR is a far more relevant argument when evaluating creatures for Control decks, because it determine if/when/how often, you will need to spend resources to ensure that it can actually put in an 8 hour shift. Something else you should consider when talking about Legacy, is that premier removal is extremely limited in this format. This means that you remove a lot of diversity when it comes to what can remove your creature and from there it is a matter of "does it dodge A, B, or C?" Instead of "Does it dodge A-z?. As I said, the DTR argument, as much as I think invoking that argument is invalid, is something that is a critical argument when evaluating creatures for Control. Bringing it back to my argument about decks like GBx - DTR becomes a less valuable argument because it is more about running them out of resources and having something naturally stick as a result. It doesn't care if Goyf dies because it has something else to stick. Control cares about DTR because it determines the level of investment when calculating the overall value. Less removal diversity = more value and that is the core DTR.
Yeah basically this would also be my concern for goyf. Its the fact that is a less reliable sticky threat which a control deck cares about if it should finish the game. However, like you also mentioned, this all depends on the context of the meta and the prevalent removal spells. Yet alone for that reason, in a certain context, goyf could in a vacuum serve as a potential finisher imo. However, I am only arguing that way because I don't want to let that idea go alltogether already this early. The most likely scenario is that the delve threats are still the best finishers and that'll be it.
You tell me that I am not sticking to facts, when I am literally telling you that this thread contains empirical data on BGx Sultai vs UBx Sultai based on a collective of top finishes.
I am sorry but this is just shifting the focus on a compltely different topic. I only said that you changed the message of my statements, which delivers a wrong kind of statement subsequently. You said:
...but you ignore it in making a muddied defense as to why Tarmogoyf belongs in Control as a finisher and why you think it is reasonable/viable.
And my obvious response is that you paraphrasing me that way is not sticking to the facts. The fact is that I never said goyf belonged in control. So this does have nothing to do with that whole discussion.
And in any case, since there is a lot of GBx Sultai finishers, we should just close the door for any other flavour because those are the facts? We are not allowed to discuss and brainstorm about new ideas?
You keep saying that UB Control does not suffer from the lack of a stable finisher in Modern yet the only UB Control variants we see are Esper which utilize cards like Creeping Tar Pit, Snapcaster Mage, and Lightning Bolt to chip away life totals. That becomes an entirely different situation when you remove Lightning Bolt from the equation because now you are skimming on your reach. IF you want to show me examples of UBx Control decks that are not Grixis that have shown that a lack of a finisher is not the issue - then I will wait.
I literally showed you the UB control list which was created by Logan Nettles (and subsequently a few different people played it also) in different kind of versions often to a 5-0 finish (and you also acknowledged it). He mostly played delve threats as finishers alongside LtLH and Jace. In some version even Thing in the Ice. And that has always been the idea behind my appraoch, playing a Jaberwocki style of list splashing at least trophies that is.
be·long
verb
1. be the property of.
"the vehicle did not belong to him"
synonyms: be owned by, be the property of, be the possession of, be held by, be in the hands of "the house belongs to his mother"
2. be a member or part of (a particular group, organization, or class).
"they belong to garden and bridge clubs"
synonyms: be a member of, be in, be affiliated to/with, be allied to, be associated with, be linked to, be an adherent of "I belong to a book club"
This is my fault. You and I are using the word interchangeably and it is causing miscommunication. I don't think Goyf has a home in Control as you are suggesting, and understand that you don't think Goyf is a Control-centric creature.
Moving on.
I think Delve threats in Modern Control, by and large, suffer from the same pitfalls as Goyf does albiet have built in security features making them more plausible. As I said, Modern has a wide arrange of removal across a wide variety of decks and a vast array of playable removal means more often than not, DTR holds true for Delve threats in Modern. I believe Tasigur is more of an exception because of his unique ability to generate actual card advantage. Legacy has become a format so littered with a small but dense number of cards that limit the opportunity to use a diverse selection of removal - comparatively speaking when it comes to Legacy vs Modern. Modern has a more even level of power distribution meaning that the removal options naturally flourish in more ways.
Working with that, I really do not think Thing in the Ice is a viable finisher if you really expect the deck to perform well in Modern. It suffers from the exact same issue Tarmogoyf does except it isn't vanilla in the best case scenario. The problem is the workload necessary in Modern for it to reach the ceiling. The card probably gets a little better when Assassin's Trophy starts taking the driver's seat from Abrupt Decay, but that is a pretty marginal swing in TiTi's favor.
So that really just leaves us with Tasigur from these UB lists and from there I really ask again: Why would you run Tarmogoyf in UBg Control? If Tasigur is not enough, then Tasigur is not the right finisher. Notice that UW's primary wincon other than JTMS, is a card with heavy, built in protection. I don't expect UB to have a finisher on the same level as Teferi, Hero of Dominaria, but it illustrates my point that you don't want to be using finishers that require constant resource devotion in order to put in an 8 hour shift. This is why Control decks have always hinged upon value over attrition. That is where the bread and butter is stored.
Anyways. Moving on, because I think that is about all I have to say. I have made all the points I want to make and you are going to do you, regardless.
I think if you are looking for a Sultai Control list, your best option is going to be to toolbox. If there is really one thing that green does for decks like these, it is to allow them to toolbox. This becomes more valuable when you have playable finishers but they are too situational to make the deck cohesive enough to play against an open field. If there is a Gifts deck in Modern worth brewing, I have always felt it is likely some Sultai core. The problem with Esper cores or Grixis cores is - as you have said in regards to UB, that they historically have issues dealing with particular permanents. Trophy alleviates this, gifts lets you tutor scenario specific plays, and you can tie it all together with playable options like Thragtusk, Noxious Revival, Snapcaster Mage, and various spells without having to have awkward situations where you might just get blown out by Bloodmoon. You get bullets like Life from the Loam and Raven's Crime. Thrun, the Last Troll and Obstinate Baloth. Who knows, maybe this makes something like Emrakul, the Promised End a reasonable finisher.
I think no matter how it is swung, Midrange has the best chance for success with GRN and Sultai. It has a solid core with a foundation already built for it. It is also in a format where proactive play is heavily rewarded and reactive play can often be loose. Assassin's Trophy does solve a significant piece of the puzzle in terms of Modern UBx Control, but there are still some other issues the deck has and to deny them seems a bit silly.
We got a sultai control list from todays 5-0 leagues which is essentially the build I am trying to build. What do you think about this build? Amd personally not convinced of the TiTis, but the overall shell besides that seems reasonable for me.
I would try 2-3 Tasigur instead of Things, then add some Thoughtscour instead of serum visions and maybe run a maindeck damnation to improve creature matchups.
Still no goyfs, but this list has been working absolute wonders for me. It's a control deck though, so I'm mainly involved in the BUG Control thread over at the Deck Creation forums.
I think he mean to say that it would be "a savage play" as in a very good one. My point really is that if you go with the TiTi build shouldn't you just be running Thragtusk in the main? I think it can be reasonable since it can be another finisher in your control strategy.
Exactly.
It's not unreasonable to have just 1 Thragtusk main and then maybe 1 additional SB for Aggro and Burn.
I'm liking the UB/g plan more and more. I think Logic Knot should be the delve card of choice, rather than going all in on Delve threats. Especially if TITI becomes a thing (no pun intended)
Are there any other creatures that are powerful enough on their own to warrant main deck consideration, but also synergize with TITI rather than something like Scooze, Tracker, or Tas which have anti-synergy? The only thing that comes to mind is Vendilion Clique. I've always wanted to make TITI work alongside Hunted Horror but it's probably not modern playable.
Off topic here, but I think Thing and Hunted have a different allure because they're both threats in their own. There are already a bunch of single-use spells that deal with the tokens created from Hunted (Echoing Truth) but Thing is a threat on its own and sweeps the opposing board as well. Though it certainly takes some setup..
Agree with FlyingDelver, TITI is an awful topdeck. Considering the current discussion of fully fledged control lists, I don't know if we can afford to have anything be a worse topdeck than Serum Visions. At least SV fixes our next draws
We got a sultai control list from todays 5-0 leagues which is essentially the build I am trying to build. What do you think about this build? Amd personally not convinced of the TiTis, but the overall shell besides that seems reasonable for me.
Though I will say the list you posted is very interesting. Only 1x Trophy and 3x decay.. I know it's too early to tell but I can't help feel a bit vindicated (no pun intended)
Although the list FD linked is the polar opposite, with 4x Trophy and no decay.
Maybe mid-range will prefer decay (but not forgo Trophy entirely) because the tempo loss matters more to them. A control list like that Sultai Thing could easily take over the game still, regardless of ramping the opponent a couple times.
Results:
2-0 vs UB Fairies
1-0-1 vs Mono White Martyr (we went to time but I had game two locked with both lilis, nissa and tracker on table)
2-0 vs serum powder eldrazi
2-1 vs UR wizards
At first I planned to play 3-1 split of trophy/decay, but ended trying 4-0. I have one trophy foil so I paid attention to moments when I wished it was decay. Answer to that question is twice. First time because opp had chalice on two (and on one as well), second time because I didn't want to give opp a land and I had no other removal for his threat.
EE main was great, so was one copy of Maelstrom Pulse (killing 2 delvers, 2 chalices). Five basics shined vs mono white deck (every path/GQ/FoR gave me basic), I wouldn't play less.
I was debating whether to play this one or more blue heavy with Snap/JTMS main alongside some cantrips, but it felt all over the place with no cohesive game plan.
Overall I'm happy with how the deck played
Results:
2-0 vs UB Fairies
1-0-1 vs Mono White Martyr (we went to time but I had game two locked with both lilis, nissa and tracker on table)
2-0 vs serum powder eldrazi
2-1 vs UR wizards
At first I planned to play 3-1 split of trophy/decay, but ended trying 4-0. I have one trophy foil so I paid attention to moments when I wished it was decay. Answer to that question is twice. First time because opp had chalice on two (and on one as well), second time because I didn't want to give opp a land and I had no other removal for his threat.
EE main was great, so was one copy of Maelstrom Pulse (killing 2 delvers, 2 chalices). Five basics shined vs mono white deck (every path/GQ/FoR gave me basic), I wouldn't play less.
I was debating whether to play this one or more blue heavy with Snap/JTMS main alongside some cantrips, but it felt all over the place with no cohesive game plan.
Overall I'm happy with how the deck played
Sweet deck man! I love this approach to traditional midrange. I'm not crazy about Nissa, I experimented with that card for a bit but I think it's a bit underwhelming. I'm excited to see what new things Simic gets in the new Ravnica. Did you find the lack of cantrips to be a problem? I find that gives us a real edge in the late game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Control decks are attrition decks at heart. Attrition means outlasting, decks which play for the lategame, which control decks are doing moresoe than Midrange decks even. And Counterspells are one of the purest attrition cards out there, besides removal and discard. Just to correct your statement. And if you say Goyf only works in attrition decks then it would perfectly fit control decks according to your assessment.
It would be advisable to look up the basic defintions of magic deck archetypes up and using the terms correctly before accusing everybody else on not referring to fundamental MTG theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_deck_types
Reference: Control: "Control decks avoid racing and attempt to slow the game down by executing an attrition plan." etc. etc.
Another hint would be that control mirror matchups are often referred to as being attrition based matchups. Which they simply are.
And to add, the clock is definitely not the main problem of a UB style control deck. Its the lack of dealing with specific permanents. Delve threats are perfectly reasonable finishes if you want to play them. And so are goyfs, this is just completely biased assessments you give here. When you look up the most played removal spells in the format then Bolt is by far number 1, followed by Path. Both Goyf and delve threats are equal here (and to add, when you play a goyf into a bolt then its your own fault, this should be a thing to play around). Push as the only card would make goyf less good than delve threats, but thats about it and Push is played way less compared to the other 2 removal spells. So all your listing about goyf actually not really matter at all compared to a angler for example. And why I am saying this is because anglers or tasigurs have always been played in black style of control decks. So let alone for that goyfs should at least not be completely counterintuitive like you claim.
I like that I talk about the problem with conventional wisdom + groupthink and you link me to a wiki as a defense...
There is a difference between a deck that focuses on attrition and a deck that focuses on actual value. You seem to disambiguate the two based on slight commonalities. Even the wiki seems to disambiguate the two, which I find oddly satisfying given the current discussion.
Let's start with what we know about Tarmogoyf. Tarmogofy traditionally finds strong roles in GBx decks, which utilize attrition to grind out games through 1 for 1 trading via spells for spells or spells for creatures. The general premise of these decks, historically, is to throw down efficient creatures until one sticks - increasing the likelihood that one sticks through means of 1 for 1 trading. Either another creatures eats a removal spell or you trade a spell for a spell, such as Thoughtseize. Tarmogoyf plays a key role in these decks because it is a hit the ground running kind of card. Low mana cost, scales well, and can present a clock on a clean board. These decks do not care that the creature has conversion because it either dies or sticks and that is literally all they care about. If it dies, then something else lives - Voice of Resurgence, Knight of the Reliquary, Dark Confidant, Grim Flayer, Tireless Tracker, etc. The card is made to pay off when the game is grindy. Cards like Spiritmonger and Phyrexian Plaguelord are attrition cards. They don't generate inherent resource value they only cause the game to incrementally move forward until resources are depleted. Goyf is strong in these decks because it can demand a removal spell and pave the way for clean boards... or simply just run away with the game.
Now let's look at Control decks, decks that utilize attrition through the trading of spells. Examples are things like Doom Blade, Disallow, Force of Will. These are the things that you are attributing to attrition. But if you dig deeper, the real cards that are the most linear across Control decks are cards like Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Consecrated Sphinx, Bitterblossom, Grave Titan, Meloku the Clouded Mirror. Now we start to delineate between the key concepts of Control and the key Concepts of a Midrange deck when it comes to what attrition means and how it is used. GBx decks as stated above, lean into a straight up raw attrition game plan. That is how they win. Control on the other hand, while it may use methods of attrition, what it actually uses to win is raw value. Things snowball and generate additional resources vs deplete resources. You even touched on this in a prior comment when you quoted your lord and savior Todd Stevens, but you ignore it in making a muddied defense as to why Tarmogoyf belongs in Control as a finisher and why you think it is reasonable/viable. Talk about a contradiction.
So yes, you are correct in that Control used a method of attrition. But the archetype fundamentally wins through value cards that snowball.
Tarmogoyf is a midrange creature through and through. It is laughable that people think it is a Control finisher and the fact that people think that in Modern stands as a testament to the real problem of UB. It lacks a finisher, so much so that people are trying to justify Tarmogoyf as a finisher... That reeks of desperation to me.
You know who doesn't die to Fatal Push? Tasigur. You know who doesn't die to Abrupt Decay? Tasigur. You know who doesn't die Lightning Bolt? Tasigur. Consider something like Tasagur as a finisher if you want to focus on UBg and be real with yourself. Tasigur avoids all of the pitfalls Goyf has for a Control deck + he actually does what Control needs their finishers to do - convert resources or generate card advantage as raw value. He doesn't need you to continually spend resources to clear the board for him without offering a return. He doesn't need you to continually spend resources to protect him without offering a return.
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
It isn't necessarily that a Wiki is inaccurate, it is that it is an open source encyclopedia and you linked me to one that is about theory. Do you not see how that becomes a problem when talking about groupthink? There is a difference between a wiki that sources scientific literature about something like quantum theory and something that talks about MTG theorycraft. A BIG difference. The fact that it is a) Content subject to a matter of opinion and b) Content that is editable to the point of finding general consensus - i.e conventional wisdom and groupthink.
These two things are not always bad, but you have to understand that they can absolutely lead to sub-optimization by nature and an audience would be none the wiser. Yes, they can also lead to ideal optimization in the same vein. But unless you are aware of the polarity, you likely would never really know or understand the difference.
If you think that just because this is MTG and that makes is non-complex... then you must not be that into something like Chess.
Anyways, if you want to exit this talking point, I am okay letting it go to rest.
Yes. There is a difference between Goyf and Angler for Control decks. Albiet I will admit that it is not entirely substantial. Angler lessens risk by comparison. It offers a flat rate body, meaning it isn't contingent on external factors that would determine if it dies to something like Burst Lightning or Bolt. It cost more than 2 mana, which means it isn't prone to dying to Fatal Push or Abrupt Decay. You could argue that they are simply stats for mana, but they also have external factors going on. DTR is a far more relevant argument when evaluating creatures for Control decks, because it determine if/when/how often, you will need to spend resources to ensure that it can actually put in an 8 hour shift. Something else you should consider when talking about Legacy, is that premier removal is extremely limited in this format. This means that you remove a lot of diversity when it comes to what can remove your creature and from there it is a matter of "does it dodge A, B, or C?" Instead of "Does it dodge A-z?. As I said, the DTR argument, as much as I think invoking that argument is invalid, is something that is a critical argument when evaluating creatures for Control. Bringing it back to my argument about decks like GBx - DTR becomes a less valuable argument because it is more about running them out of resources and having something naturally stick as a result. It doesn't care if Goyf dies because it has something else to stick. Control cares about DTR because it determines the level of investment when calculating the overall value. Less removal diversity = more value and that is the core DTR.
Modern has a vastly superior amount of removal diversity than Legacy which means stat based win conditions in control drops dramatically. This is also evident in Limited which shows that there is a correlation between the effectiveness of stats and the amount of available removal and how diverse said removal is.
You tell me that I am not sticking to facts, when I am literally telling you that this thread contains empirical data on BGx Sultai vs UBx Sultai based on a collective of top finishes.
The facts are that you said UB Control's problem in Modern is not the lack of a stable finisher. Yet you are advocating Tarmogoyf, a card I pointed out is a Midrange creature, over any of the other cards that are apparently proving that UB Control doesn't suffer from the lack of a playable finisher in Modern. I never said you called Goyf a control creature. So you if you want to try to call me out for putting words in your mouth, then I would argue that you let go of some of the contextual elements in the discussion... not that I am not sticking to facts.
I think the notion that Tasigur, the Golden Fang needs something like Thoughtscour to power him is utter nonsense. Sure, Scour can help power him out - but if your game plan is to play the long game, he is going to convert resources all the same. I honestly doubt Tasigur is the answer to UB Control's lack of a playable finisher. But the fact that you are now encouraged to go into Green for Trophy means there is more inherent appeal to Tasigur over some other options.
You keep saying that UB Control does not suffer from the lack of a stable finisher in Modern yet the only UB Control variants we see are Esper which utilize cards like Creeping Tar Pit, Snapcaster Mage, and Lightning Bolt to chip away life totals. That becomes an entirely different situation when you remove Lightning Bolt from the equation because now you are skimming on your reach. IF you want to show me examples of UBx Control decks that are not Grixis that have shown that a lack of a finisher is not the issue - then I will wait.
I don't disagree that the inability to deal with a diverse selection of resolved permanents is a huge problem for UB Control in Modern. But I do disagree that it is the only serious issue the deck faces. I expect that after your stint of testing Sultai Control with the lack of a viable finisher, the same conclusion is inevitable.
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
I love Chess. And I am not saying MTG is not complex. It might just be my own perspective as a chemist though but there are way more complex things out there compared to MTG. And therefore it seemed to me it would be overkill to argue over the credibility of a source when it comes down to that (which it seemed for me it was). However, just to clarify my point.
Yeah basically this would also be my concern for goyf. Its the fact that is a less reliable sticky threat which a control deck cares about if it should finish the game. However, like you also mentioned, this all depends on the context of the meta and the prevalent removal spells. Yet alone for that reason, in a certain context, goyf could in a vacuum serve as a potential finisher imo. However, I am only arguing that way because I don't want to let that idea go alltogether already this early. The most likely scenario is that the delve threats are still the best finishers and that'll be it.
I am sorry but this is just shifting the focus on a compltely different topic. I only said that you changed the message of my statements, which delivers a wrong kind of statement subsequently. You said:
And my obvious response is that you paraphrasing me that way is not sticking to the facts. The fact is that I never said goyf belonged in control. So this does have nothing to do with that whole discussion.
And in any case, since there is a lot of GBx Sultai finishers, we should just close the door for any other flavour because those are the facts? We are not allowed to discuss and brainstorm about new ideas?
I literally showed you the UB control list which was created by Logan Nettles (and subsequently a few different people played it also) in different kind of versions often to a 5-0 finish (and you also acknowledged it). He mostly played delve threats as finishers alongside LtLH and Jace. In some version even Thing in the Ice. And that has always been the idea behind my appraoch, playing a Jaberwocki style of list splashing at least trophies that is.
verb
1. be the property of.
"the vehicle did not belong to him"
synonyms: be owned by, be the property of, be the possession of, be held by, be in the hands of "the house belongs to his mother"
2. be a member or part of (a particular group, organization, or class).
"they belong to garden and bridge clubs"
synonyms: be a member of, be in, be affiliated to/with, be allied to, be associated with, be linked to, be an adherent of "I belong to a book club"
This is my fault. You and I are using the word interchangeably and it is causing miscommunication. I don't think Goyf has a home in Control as you are suggesting, and understand that you don't think Goyf is a Control-centric creature.
Moving on.
I think Delve threats in Modern Control, by and large, suffer from the same pitfalls as Goyf does albiet have built in security features making them more plausible. As I said, Modern has a wide arrange of removal across a wide variety of decks and a vast array of playable removal means more often than not, DTR holds true for Delve threats in Modern. I believe Tasigur is more of an exception because of his unique ability to generate actual card advantage. Legacy has become a format so littered with a small but dense number of cards that limit the opportunity to use a diverse selection of removal - comparatively speaking when it comes to Legacy vs Modern. Modern has a more even level of power distribution meaning that the removal options naturally flourish in more ways.
I am not sure what Jabberwocki list you are referring to, because I see Snapcaster Mage, Thing in the Ice, and Tasigur, the Golden Fang. I don't see things like Gurmag Angler, Hooting Mandrills, or even Tombstalker. I think it is important not to refer to the lone Delve creature as if there are a lot of other prominent delve creatures in these UB lists, because as stated above Tasigur is an exception because of his unique ability.
Working with that, I really do not think Thing in the Ice is a viable finisher if you really expect the deck to perform well in Modern. It suffers from the exact same issue Tarmogoyf does except it isn't vanilla in the best case scenario. The problem is the workload necessary in Modern for it to reach the ceiling. The card probably gets a little better when Assassin's Trophy starts taking the driver's seat from Abrupt Decay, but that is a pretty marginal swing in TiTi's favor.
So that really just leaves us with Tasigur from these UB lists and from there I really ask again: Why would you run Tarmogoyf in UBg Control? If Tasigur is not enough, then Tasigur is not the right finisher. Notice that UW's primary wincon other than JTMS, is a card with heavy, built in protection. I don't expect UB to have a finisher on the same level as Teferi, Hero of Dominaria, but it illustrates my point that you don't want to be using finishers that require constant resource devotion in order to put in an 8 hour shift. This is why Control decks have always hinged upon value over attrition. That is where the bread and butter is stored.
Anyways. Moving on, because I think that is about all I have to say. I have made all the points I want to make and you are going to do you, regardless.
I think if you are looking for a Sultai Control list, your best option is going to be to toolbox. If there is really one thing that green does for decks like these, it is to allow them to toolbox. This becomes more valuable when you have playable finishers but they are too situational to make the deck cohesive enough to play against an open field. If there is a Gifts deck in Modern worth brewing, I have always felt it is likely some Sultai core. The problem with Esper cores or Grixis cores is - as you have said in regards to UB, that they historically have issues dealing with particular permanents. Trophy alleviates this, gifts lets you tutor scenario specific plays, and you can tie it all together with playable options like Thragtusk, Noxious Revival, Snapcaster Mage, and various spells without having to have awkward situations where you might just get blown out by Bloodmoon. You get bullets like Life from the Loam and Raven's Crime. Thrun, the Last Troll and Obstinate Baloth. Who knows, maybe this makes something like Emrakul, the Promised End a reasonable finisher.
I think no matter how it is swung, Midrange has the best chance for success with GRN and Sultai. It has a solid core with a foundation already built for it. It is also in a format where proactive play is heavily rewarded and reactive play can often be loose. Assassin's Trophy does solve a significant piece of the puzzle in terms of Modern UBx Control, but there are still some other issues the deck has and to deny them seems a bit silly.
Creature
2 Emrakul, the Promised End
1 Thragtusk
1 Grave Titan
2 Snapcaster Mage
Enchantment
2 Search for Azcanta
Planeswalker
3 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
Instant
3 Assassin's Trophy
2 Abrupt Decay
3 Gifts Ungiven
1 Noxious Revival
4 Remand
3 Cryptic Command
Sorcery
1 Damnation
1 Languish
4 Thoughtseize
2 Collective Brutality
4 Creeping Tar Pit
4 Verdant Catacombs
4 Polluted Delta
2 Darkslick Shores
1 Misty Rainforest
2 Overgrown Tomb
2 Watery Grave
1 Breeding Pool
2 Swamp
2 Island
1 Forest
1 Thrun, the Last Troll
3 Obstinate Baloth
2 Negate
1 Dispel
1 Assassin's Trophy
2 Fatal Push
2 Spell Snare
2 Liliana of the Veil
1 Collective Brutality
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
1 Liliana, the Last Hope
4 Snapcaster Mage
4 Thing in the Ice
1 Collective Brutality
2 Inquisition of Kozilek
4 Serum Visions
3 Thoughtseize
4 Assassin's Trophy
2 Cryptic Command
4 Fatal Push
1 Logic Knot
1 Mana Leak
4 Opt
1 Breeding Pool
2 Creeping Tar Pit
4 Darkslick Shores
1 Field of Ruin
1 Forest
2 Island
3 Misty Rainforest
1 Overgrown Tomb
4 Polluted Delta
1 Swamp
2 Watery Grave
2 Ancestral Vision
1 Bitterblossom
1 Damnation
1 Disdainful Stroke
1 Dispel
1 Engineered Explosives
1 Negate
1 Nihil Spellbomb
2 Surgical Extraction
1 Thrun, the Last Troll
1 Unmoored Ego
1 Vendilion Clique
We got a sultai control list from todays 5-0 leagues which is essentially the build I am trying to build. What do you think about this build? Amd personally not convinced of the TiTis, but the overall shell besides that seems reasonable for me.
Still no goyfs, but this list has been working absolute wonders for me. It's a control deck though, so I'm mainly involved in the BUG Control thread over at the Deck Creation forums.
Draft My Cube!
Exactly.
It's not unreasonable to have just 1 Thragtusk main and then maybe 1 additional SB for Aggro and Burn.
I'm liking the UB/g plan more and more. I think Logic Knot should be the delve card of choice, rather than going all in on Delve threats. Especially if TITI becomes a thing (no pun intended)
Are there any other creatures that are powerful enough on their own to warrant main deck consideration, but also synergize with TITI rather than something like Scooze, Tracker, or Tas which have anti-synergy? The only thing that comes to mind is Vendilion Clique. I've always wanted to make TITI work alongside Hunted Horror but it's probably not modern playable.
Draft My Cube!
Fixed!
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
Off topic here, but I think Thing and Hunted have a different allure because they're both threats in their own. There are already a bunch of single-use spells that deal with the tokens created from Hunted (Echoing Truth) but Thing is a threat on its own and sweeps the opposing board as well. Though it certainly takes some setup..
Agree with FlyingDelver, TITI is an awful topdeck. Considering the current discussion of fully fledged control lists, I don't know if we can afford to have anything be a worse topdeck than Serum Visions. At least SV fixes our next draws
Draft My Cube!
Draft My Cube!
Although the list FD linked is the polar opposite, with 4x Trophy and no decay.
Maybe mid-range will prefer decay (but not forgo Trophy entirely) because the tempo loss matters more to them. A control list like that Sultai Thing could easily take over the game still, regardless of ramping the opponent a couple times.
Draft My Cube!
long time lurker, I went 4-0 on Today's FNM with BGu midrange, here's the list:
3 Blooming Marsh
1 Breeding Pool
3 Creeping Tar Pit
2 Forest
1 Island
2 Misty Rainforest
2 Overgrown Tomb
3 Polluted Delta
2 Swamp
3 Verdant Catacombs
1 Watery Grave
Artifacts (1)
1 Engineered Explosives
Instants (8)
4 Assassin's Trophy
4 Fatal Push
1 Collective Brutality
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
1 Maelstrom Pulse
2 Thoughtseize
1 Traverse the Ulvenwald
Planeswalkers (5)
2 Liliana of the Veil
2 Liliana, the Last Hope
1 Nissa, Steward of Elements
Creatures (14)
2 Grim Flayer
1 Scavenging Ooze
3 Snapcaster Mage
4 Tarmogoyf
1 Tasigur, the Golden Fang
3 Tireless Tracker
1 Collective Brutality
2 Countersquall
1 Damnation
2 Disdainful Stroke
1 Gaze of Granite
1 Kitchen Finks
2 Nihil Spellbomb
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Unmoored Ego
1 Vendilion Clique
Results:
2-0 vs UB Fairies
1-0-1 vs Mono White Martyr (we went to time but I had game two locked with both lilis, nissa and tracker on table)
2-0 vs serum powder eldrazi
2-1 vs UR wizards
At first I planned to play 3-1 split of trophy/decay, but ended trying 4-0. I have one trophy foil so I paid attention to moments when I wished it was decay. Answer to that question is twice. First time because opp had chalice on two (and on one as well), second time because I didn't want to give opp a land and I had no other removal for his threat.
EE main was great, so was one copy of Maelstrom Pulse (killing 2 delvers, 2 chalices). Five basics shined vs mono white deck (every path/GQ/FoR gave me basic), I wouldn't play less.
I was debating whether to play this one or more blue heavy with Snap/JTMS main alongside some cantrips, but it felt all over the place with no cohesive game plan.
Overall I'm happy with how the deck played
Sweet deck man! I love this approach to traditional midrange. I'm not crazy about Nissa, I experimented with that card for a bit but I think it's a bit underwhelming. I'm excited to see what new things Simic gets in the new Ravnica. Did you find the lack of cantrips to be a problem? I find that gives us a real edge in the late game.