A very disrespectful response to a somewhat disrespectful post....
I emphasize abrupt decay. Every BG deck plays it and the only target your sample deck provides for it are your win conditions. Have fun playing topdeck wars with no clock when your opponent is free to draw and then play the card before you can sorcery speed Raven's Crime/Liliana of the Veil it away.
Please don't repeat your "Ill just discard it" argument. The point of nearly half of the examples you disingenuously countered was that discard CANT DO **** when the problem cards it wants to strip are top decks that run away with the game. His "you wont draw ensnaring bridge every game" point is just as in not more than valid as your Ill just discard every problem argument.
Your opponent has more ways of dealing with Goyf; requires green; costs less mana than Goyf.
You're already talking about splashing red and white, so what's so bad about splashing green? If you've discarded enough cards in your opponents hand to make affliction and the rack relevant, then it won't matter whether they can deal with Goyf or not. Goyf also can block, and kills your opponent much quicker than affliction or the rack.
You are comparing apples to oranges because you don't know any better. Board control and hand control are two different things. They seek to win by different methods.
I don't know any better!?!?!?!?
Let me offer a better explanation then... (although I am apparently an amateur deckbuilder who knows nothing about this game)
Jund and Junk play board control cards because mono black discard in any form flat out loses when their opponent resolves a difficult to kill threat. You attempt to mitigate this by magically drawing ensnaring bridge every game at just the right time. This is absurdly fragile and inconsistent for any competitive strategy. Instead, they aim for greater consistency and versatility by playing board control cards that are almost never dead after they've discarded the relevant cards that are difficult to deal with via removal. Any time after turn 2-3, abrupt decay and lightning bolt will be almost strictly superior to something such as Thoughtseize, Iok, or Duress.
This is a very basic concept in competitive deckbuilding. Versatility and consistency = better decks, and better tournament results.
Liliana of the Veil, Raven's Crime and Ensnaring Bridge disagree.
None of these cards do crap to lock your opponent except *maybe* Ensnaring bridge against the rare all-creature modern deck that has no way to deal with artifacts. But once again, you're making some sweeping assumption based off magical christmasland that you will always be drawing these cards right when you need them, and that your opponent won't have any way to answer them.
Don't be fooled. Affinity has a very hard time dealing with Ensnaring Bridge. Especially after I have destroyed their cranial platings / signal pests with my discard suite. Not as bad a matchup as you are implying. If really scared - use red splash for pyroclasm and the match is a bye.
Once again, you're going into magical-christmasland where you have ensnaring bridge, and your opponent has no way to deal with it on turn 3. Even in the ideal scenario, you still have 2-3 cards in hand after casting bridge on that turn, in which most of affinity's creatures still can swing through a bridge.
This isn't even accounting for game 2 and 3 where they board in their ancient grudges. Also, apparently you didn't read, but Affinity can get a lot of damage in via instant speed Cranial Plating equipping an Ornithopter or Signal pest, or saccing artifacts to put ravager counters on them via Arcbound ravager. By the way, this gets around ensnaring bridge as well. I know this because I've lost to this multiple times when trying to lock an opponent out with my own bridge. There is a big difference in theoretical magic where you always draw just what you need at just the right time, and actually learning stuff from testing and experience.
It doesnt resolve expect in a top deck scenario where I already have the upper hand. Can be played around even then. Sideboard hate
So once again... you're making sweeping assumptions that you somehow have the upper hand at this point. It's not like the only thing causing you problems here is going to be pod. They can tutor for just about any hate they need, their creatures can't be dealt with easily via removal, and they can combo out and kill you through a bridge quite easily (at least with melirapod).
Coudl careless about either of those cards. Smiter sees little play, and isn't relevant in any case. 2 tokens from lingering souls makes me /yawn. Again, if aggro is really scaring your meta - splash for Pyroclasm and bolt.
Smiter sees a ton of play in GW hatebears and Junk. Lighting bolt is awful against both of these cards, and pyroclasm only kills 1/2 of Lingering Souls. If aggro lost to pyroclasm and lightning bolt this easily, it wouldn't exist in the format.
Absurd. Those are board control decks. I could have stopped reading right here because you have just exposed yourself as an inexperienced deck builder / theorist.
Look, all your posts are very cocky, and you always seem to assume you have some grand meta scheme figured out and your opponents never have any way to deal with an ensnaring bridge.
You keep making threads like these as SCD's, but when anybody ever posts anything slightly disagreeing with what you post, you are here to refute them with stuff like "ensnaring bridge wins" or "leyline of sanctity beats x deck". Instead of title it SCD, why not just title it "this card is awesome and you should play it because I am always right"?
Second, what is this glorious meta that you play in that players can't deal with enchantments or artifacts? Do you play in some meta where players don't use sideboards? You keep mentioning that you "if x and x" deck is giving your problems, you can sideboard cards for it. Well, incase you haven't noticed, most competitive decks bring in anti-hate to protect their own strategies, and since your deck is pretty slow, it will be pretty common for them to find an answer before you kill them.
I'm not even saying Leyline or Bridge are bad cards. They aren't. But every time you refute a post, you simply say "x deck has a difficult time with ensnaring bridge", or "x deck loses to leyline of sanctity". Also, how do you magically draw bridge and leyline every game, and never get awkward hands in which you draw multiple bridges, or multiple leylines, or multiple shrieking afflictions. Splinter Twin has quite a few matches where it can't find it's combo pieces, and it runs 8-10 cantrips, and 7-8 copies of each relevant combo piece. That doesn't even account for the times where you draw multiple copies of cards like shrieking Affliction, the Rack, Ensnaring Bridge, or Leyline of Sanctity (all of which do nothing as multiples).
Long story short, this isn't a new strategy, and you're not the first one who thought of bridge-rack control. It's a cool and unique strategy, but it has a ton of weaknesses. But based off your description, it should be the best deck in the meta with zero bad matchups except tron. Please be a little bit more reasonable with people on here. We're not all idiots who just migrated from standard and have no clue how to play competitive magic, or how to build a competitive deck.
I would like to jump in for a second, MemoryLapse, and point out the [obvious] fact that you're being ridiculously stubborn and, frankly, ignorant. There is a reason Badd B won the first ever Best Modern Strategist award: he's an incredible strategist and theorist, and an incredible Modern player.
Not trying to sound like a kissass here, but honestly, I'm ****ing sick and tired of your downright stupidity and refusal to look at the other side. Hell, I can't stand bocephus in the B&R thread, but once in a while he actually makes a fair point and I can't do anything but concede the truth in his argument.
Badd B is among the most knowledgeable users on this forum when it comes to the Modern format. (I would include BlippytheSlug, Lectrys, and Rickster in this classification as well.) His points are well thought out and written in what seems to be a constant, patient tone, and he addresses every side of the issue, conceding where he may be wrong, and giving an overabundance of evidence when he is correct. He also has a nearly incomprehensible repertoire of decks and strategies that he has tested extensively, ranging between all archetypes in the format (though often focused on blue-based control [Thirst for Knowledge anyone?]).
You reiterate your same points, most of which appear to be smoke-and-mirrors or Magical Christmasland claims which often turn out to be incorrect, or at least stated without evidence or testing to back them up.
I will admit that I don't quite know what you have played, but I can guarantee it doesn't match up to Badd's wide variety and experience in this format. And, frankly, judging by the pile in the OP, I'd say there's proof in this very thread that I'm right.
I'm done.
(probably gonna get a flame warning or something.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Rivenor for the signature and XenoNinja for the Avi!
No one in this thread has flamed, baited or trolled, at least yet. I understand that arguments get heated, especially when your personally invested in it, but try to be a little more friendly. Everyone has a right to their own opinion.
Most games are won by a combination of Rack damage and recurring beats. What seems to be lost on you is that you can still play creatures. Just play ones that are either hard to kill (Mutavault/Bloodghast) or that have an effect then they go away.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In case I didn't tell you, I don't care about your opinion I just want your facts. And not the facts that make you seem smart. I want the ones that are actual facts.
You're already talking about splashing red and white, so what's so bad about splashing green? If you've discarded enough cards in your opponents hand to make affliction and the rack relevant, then it won't matter whether they can deal with Goyf or not. Goyf also can block, and kills your opponent much quicker than affliction or the rack. You claim to be a pro deck builder and theorist, yet you counsel using a huge dumb beater like Goyf as a finisher in a deck that uses Ensnaring Bridge as one of the primary defenses. Impressive.
I don't know any better!?!?!?!?
Let me offer a better explanation then... (although I am apparently an amateur deckbuilder who knows nothing about this game)
Jund and Junk play board control cards because mono black discard in any form flat out loses when their opponent resolves a difficult to kill threat. Ok I'll stop right there to comment. You are now acknowledging that Jund and Junk are board control strategies (after I pointed it out to you). This is a very small step in the right direction because it implies that you are now beginning to realize that there is a fundamental difference between what decks like Jund, Junk and MBC are doing when compared to Discard strategies. Previously you were claiming that discards strategies in modern WERE being represented by jund and Junk. The fact that you still think true discard is "bad" is irrelevant for now. I will take this stance reversal as a small victory towards the ultimate goal of educating you (and others like you) about what Discard actually is.
You attempt to mitigate this by magically drawing ensnaring bridge every game at just the right time. This is absurdly fragile and inconsistent for any competitive strategy. Instead, they aim for greater consistency and versatility by playing board control cards that are almost never dead after they've discarded the relevant cards that are difficult to deal with via removal. Any time after turn 2-3, abrupt decay and lightning bolt will be almost strictly superior to something such as Thoughtseize, Iok, or Duress. I will ignore your hyperbole. What you are essentially arguing here that board control is better than hand control. This is certainly a debatable issue. I never claimed board control was bad. I never claimed Discard was "strictly superior" to other control. I have only accurately pointed out that true Discard strategies as seen in Legacy and "old" Extended are basically unexplored territory in Modern.
This is a very basic concept in competitive deckbuilding. Versatility and consistency = better decks, and better tournament results.This statement is pretty absurd. The more versatile your deck becomes the less consistent it becomes. Finding a balance between the two is the key.
None of these cards do crap to lock your opponent except *maybe* Ensnaring bridge against the rare all-creature modern deck that has no way to deal with artifacts. But once again, you're making some sweeping assumption based off magical christmasland that you will always be drawing these cards right when you need them, and that your opponent won't have any way to answer them. You've never locked someone out with Liliana? Or Raven's Crime? No wonder you are advocating Goyf beaters in an Ensnaring Bridge shell.
Look, all your posts are very cocky, and you always seem to assume you have some grand meta scheme figured out and your opponents never have any way to deal with an ensnaring bridge. I'm not saying they can't deal with an Ensnaring Bridge, I am saying that they must deal with it while I am tearing apart their hand and draining their life pool.
You keep making threads like these as SCD's, but when anybody ever posts anything slightly disagreeing with what you post, you are here to refute them with stuff like "ensnaring bridge wins" or "leyline of sanctity beats x deck". Instead of title it SCD, why not just title it "this card is awesome and you should play it because I am always right"? Please understand this. I do not mind AT ALL if someone disagrees with me. What I mind is when people say "X or Y is bad" and then try to justify that statement with a pages of nonsense that basically amount to "Tier 1 decks are tier 1 for a reason - do not bother to exploit the weaknesses of the netdecking masses." If you have legitimate arguments then speak them and I will credit them as such. If you'll notice, I agreed with a few cogent points in your earlier rant, concerning Leyline and Tron.
Long story short, this isn't a new strategy, and you're not the first one who thought of bridge-rack control. It's a cool and unique strategy, but it has a ton of weaknesses. But based off your description, it should be the best deck in the meta with zero bad matchups except tron. Please be a little bit more reasonable with people on here. We're not all idiots who just migrated from standard and have no clue how to play competitive magic, or how to build a competitive deck.
Now you are just putting words in my mouth to give yourself something to argue against. I never said I was the first person to invent the strategy. I never said the strategy has zero bad matchups except tron. I never said you are all idiots. All that I have said is that Discard is an underrepresented strategy in Modern. My theory now (based off of your posts in this thread and others with simliar misconceptions) is that the reason Discard is unexplored is because it is not understood.
Raven's crime is sorcery speed, there is no way you're locking someone out with that. Also I'll concede that lil is closer to a true lock out in topdeck mode.
But any deck running planeswalkers or smiter (which is more decks than you think) will escape your 'lock' fairly easily. Hell even kitchen finks isn't great for your deck, lifegain + 2 bodies to dodge lil is bad.
Discard is a bad strategy because it has no impact on the board, it always has been. Jund/k are the best discard decks because they utilize hand attack to take away hard to deal with threats later in the game, they sculpt their opponents hand then grind them out.
Bad B never claimed to be a pro theorist actually that was from someone else.
Also can you link me to these mono-discard strategies from old extended and legacy? As a legacy player I'd be interested where these mythical monodiscard decks are, please don't say pox that's just a resource denial deck.
See, this is exactly what I am talking about when I say that Discard is not understood in Modern. There is nothing "awful" about this, and I am not saying or even implying that the author is an idiot. This deck list is perfectly fine and viable, but this is NOT a Discard list.
Pants: This is simply a MBC list, with a fairly heavy emphasis on resource denial. If you replace the (clearly out of place) racks with 4 more creatures or card advantage or removal, the fact that this is MBC becomes very obvious. You do not have enough hand control in this list to count on only 4 Racks to do any significant, consistent damage. Again, there is nothing wrong with MBC - but stop trying to pawn it off as the Modern version of a true Discard deck.
Raven's crime is sorcery speed, there is no way you're locking someone out with that. Also I'll concede that lil is closer to a true lock out in topdeck mode.
But any deck running planeswalkers or smiter (which is more decks than you think) will escape your 'lock' fairly easily. Hell even kitchen finks isn't great for your deck, lifegain + 2 bodies to dodge lil is bad.
Raven's Crime is the same speed as Liliana and it largely accomplishes the same goal - keep the opponent's hand empty. An opponent in topdeck mode is dying to at least 1 of my possible 8 "rack" effects. Liliana and Bridge are not there to provide a never ending hard lock of the game, they are simply holding things off while The racks do their evil work.
Also can you link me to these mono-discard strategies from old extended and legacy? As a legacy player I'd be interested where these mythical monodiscard decks are, please don't say pox that's just a resource denial deck.
You say I can;t talk to you about Pox, but it is a major component of many of my discard lists. Pox is another card that is underrated in modern, and it's rarely played correctly or put in decks that correctly abuse it. My original list didn't have pox in it, but my Primer will include several pox variations.
In old extended, any deck running Cabal Therapy+Nezumi was a hand control deck. It destroyed your hand with Cabal Therapy and rats, then finished you with rats and racks. We no longer need the rats or nezumi with the printing of cards like thougthseize, iok, Liliana and of course Shrieking affliction.
I'm trying here to understand what you mean by "true discard" and I sense that any deck that uses different finishers than the rack/affliction or have a heavier focus on board control are being called by you "not a discard deck". But if what you mean by discard deck is having discard as the only form of disruption, let me tell you I find that to be a weak strategy. One should not stay away from board control just because you are trying to be loyal to your "just discard" focus. You yourself splashed red for pyroclasm.
Regards the proposition of creature-finishers, I think they are still valid choices because by the moment you play your finishers, opponent has no hand already. Granted, opponent is much more likely to topdeck creature removal than abrupt decay for rack, but say you play gatekeeper of malakir sending a deathrite shaman to the grave. You then start beating, and as it's one of the few creatures you are running, opponent is going to eventually kill it, or it is going to act as another "rack" effect dealing 2 damage a turn. Either way, it's a 2 for 1!! By running no creatures, the only difference is that you are then forced to use your discard effects on the removal spells the opponent is keeping as dead cards, because if you don't your finishers won't trigger. Isn't it the same, or even better, make the opponent play the removal on a recursive beater or one that already did an effect? And they even must pay for it! Of course you are not going to run Goyf with bridge. That's just something to be tested or a matter of personal preference/metagaming: do you wish to abuse bridge, which is IMO completely nuts against many decks and a must-be-answered permanent in many matchups, and rely on finishers that are slower than creatures and can't block, or let bridge aside and use creatures that could synergize very well with a discard-heavy strategy?
Let's look back to The Rack, when it was last in standard:
The Rack was a major engine card for almost the entirety of Ravnica-Time Spiral standard. It was mostly a mono black build (with the occasional splash, a notable one being for Flagstones because of its interaction with Smallpox), then Future Sight came and Tarmogoyf was printed. Common discard spells in this deck were:
The deck (before Goyf was printed and gave it a very fast clock) also would often maindeck a small number of Extirpate, which handled the prominent counterspell deck (Teachings) by shutting down flashback draw spells to keep it from getting back into the game. The whole point was just to keep trading cards with the opponent and then even something like The Rack would end the game just fine--it's a 2-3 damage per turn clock, it lives through Smallpox (a core tool of the deck) and Damnation, and it's mana-efficient enough that it can be played with removal spell mana open/in the same turn as a discard spell.
The deck was known for efficient trading cards 1-for-1 or 2-for-1 with discard and removal, while either establishing a mana-efficient draw engine (Bob or Arena) and/or a fast clock (The Rack, Tarmogoyf, or a random dude and a Treetop Village). It was incredibly consistent and it made tons and tons of Top 8 finishes in all kinds of tournaments at all levels. If you google "Tarmorack Nationals," you'll see what I mean.
The deck died down after Lorwyn came because Phyrexian Arena had already rotated out with Tenth Edition and then Bob was gone without Ravnica. That was the problem: it simply couldn't draw cards. The Rack was a great deck because it was trading cards efficiently and then it could either restock its hand or just kill the opponent quickly--kind of like a Threshold deck in Legacy. But without a draw engine, it was losing to Mulldrifters and Makeshift Mannequins...Mannequin is a fantastic card, but if your discard deck has high power cards like Tarmogoyf and Thoughtseize but it still can't win games against Counsel of the Soratami, there's something seriously wrong with its engine. That's why you need to play draw engine(s) in a Rack deck.
Something else to think about: The Rack and then Tarmorack were both very strong iterations of an archetype. Raven's Crime didn't exist when they were doing work. Thoughtseize didn't exist until after that era of Standard was over, when the deck died (Let's face it, playing Goyf and Thoughtseize does not make your Rock deck a Discard deck). (I mean, Blackmail showed up in those decks, but Blackmail hits lands.) The deck wasn't winning games with those tools; it was winning games with a bunch of solid 2-for-1s and with Smallpox. Cry of Contrition is a 2-for-1. Augur of Skulls is a 2-for-1. Stupor is a 2-for-1. Smallpox will usually trade 3 cards for 3 (land, card in hand, the smallpox itself for land, card in hand, creature), but it's an Edict, LD, and discard spell all at once--so the power level makes it a worthwhile even trade). So if you have access to all of these, why bother playing Raven's Crime and Duress effects? Liliana of the Veil makes total sense because of how much it does in one card, but 1-for-1 discard spells just do not...just looking at the history of successful Rack decks.
Anyways, Badd Business pointed out a few rather intelligent hypothetical problems for a rack deck, so let's take a look at them one-by-one:
1. Tron will Gain inevitability faster than any discard deck can disrupt them. Even if they rip a few pieces in the opening hand away, tron will still set up their lands and start ripping Karns which there is zero way for discard to stop.
This is why Smallpox and supplemental LD (Fulminator Mage, Rain of Tears, Shadow of Doubt, and/or potentially a dip into another color for stronger LD like Sowing Salt or Blood Moon) are important to keep in the 75 of a discard deck. What you can't do with discard is stop topdecks from happening. What you can do is try to reduce your opponent's resources in the best way possible. In this case, making your opponent pitch most of his hand and then cutting him off of Tron mana will make the deck topdeck a bunch of bombs that he can't cast. Then on your turn, those keep getting discarded. The key is finding LD that works--but it's definitely possible.
2. Burn / RDW will just keep sending bolts and lava spikes their way until they're dead. Discard may get rid of 1-2 bolt style cards, but you're eventually just going to die to topdecked burn.
Actually, if you put a handful of lifegain cards in your board (or even some in your main; Kitchen Finks is already a fine creature to maindeck and there are plenty of board options), it's very difficult for a burn deck to beat a Rack deck. They're going to put you on a 4 turn clock from the beginning, but that usually requires either 1-2 creatures to live or for the burn deck to use all/almost all of the cards in its hand. If you're on the play and turn 2 Smallpox against a Goblin Guide or Deathrite Shaman, I like your odds. If you're on the draw and the same thing happens, but you instead Haunt a Cry of Contrition on their turn 1 dude, I really like your odds. Then you play something that gains you 2-4 life, a couple of turns later, and you have a pretty good position.
3. Affinity has half their hand on the table by turn 2, and topdecks kill you. Even if you have stuff like ensnaring bridge, competent affinity players can easily kill you with a swarm of 1/1's, 2/2's, or using combat tricks like instant-speed plating equip, or saccing their ravagers to amass a single alpha strike. Gruul Zoo is pretty similar, especially if they start out with an emissary or two. They can also just burn you off if you can't kill them quick enough.
Affinity probably would be rough. I have no experience seeing a Rack deck interact with an Affinity deck, so all I can think of is theory. Smallpox seems weak here (aside from ganking a land, which is always good against Affinity), and they do play Thoughtcasts--so that would be challenging. However, Affinity is one of those decks that loses to board sweepers if it doesn't have Cranial Plating...it would be safe to assume that a Modern Rack deck would maindeck at least a few ways to remove artifacts from the table, and with a potential to play creature-less (or almost creature-less) with manlands and 6-8 racks, it's possible that the deck is just built around Damnation in the first place. So while I think Affinity would be a difficult match-up, I also see very clear potential solutions to try.
As per Gruul, that deck is very bad in topdeck mode--a lot of its engine requires a bunch of cards in hand in order to create strong bursts based upon synergy. It's true that Smallpox on the draw isn't the most fantastic play against this kind of deck because of double BTE draws, but at worst it seems like this match-up is coin-flippy pre-board with the Rack deck probably wrecking on the aggro deck when Rack is on the play. And post-board, with more Kitchen Finks-type cards and set of Deathmarks to help slow down those nut draws...I like the Rack deck's position. Especially if you're playing Gatekeeper of Malakir and trading that with a pump/burn spell or a BTE, I really like the Rack against that kind of deck.
4. Lingering Souls and Loxodon Smiter destroy you. Even if you can answer them, you end up falling behind incredibly far just in trying to do so.
This is a much bigger issue.
Lingering Souls is a poweful card, but if you build board sweepers into the deck, that completely changes the dynamic. Since Souls is just a pair of 1/1s, you can ignore them while you shred your opponent's hand, then clean them up with a board sweeper when he's in topdeck mode. I'm not saying the card is bad against discard because it's clearly forcing some different lines of play, but it's also just a pair of tokens...it's something that can be solved.
Smiter...there has always been a Dodecapod or Wilt-Leaf Liege or Quagnoth there to make it hard on discard, but one 4/4 creature isn't the end of the world. Just Gatekeeper/Damnation/Smallpox it and move on.
5. A resolved birthing pod is game over.
Beast Within. Putrefy. Pithing Needle. Hit/Run. Oblivion Ring. It seems pretty clear that a Rack deck needs maindeck removal for artifacts, so I just don't agree with this point. Now, granted, you have to draw the artifact removal and if it's a Needle or ORing you don't want it to get ADecayed or blown up by a utility creature, but at least there are outs. It's not game over.
6. A Resolved Leyline of Sanctity is game over.
Definitely a bigger problem, but still solve-able. Does Beast Within look like it belongs in a Rack deck, or what?
7. A Resolved Gifts Ungiven is game over.
Well, yes and no. It's a powerful draw spell and powerful draw spells are one of the best ways to beat Rack decks. But what are they getting with Gifts? If it's a Loam package, grave hate shuts it down. If it's Snapcaster/Witness and other good stuff based on the yard, grave hate shuts that down too. If it's Lingering Souls and other random threats, you're dealing with roughly a 3-for-1, which is good--but not game-ending. In this metagame, Gifts is used for those 3 things: getting a Loam/other recursion soft-lock, getting Snapcaster/Witness and chaining Gifts together, or getting a bunch of threats (well, it could get answers, but against the Rack deck answers=more of a clock, right?). Since grave hate is really good against 2 of those 3 and just playing a lot of 2-for-1s and sweepers and removal is good for the other one...well, Gifts doesn't look as scary anymore.
8. Your entire gameplan is almost 100% dependent on drawing an ensaring bridge (which simply won't always happen), resolving it, and magically praying that your opponent can't deal with it. This almost never happens against any decent player. I've played quite a few blue black control decks with ensaring bridge (mostly tezzeret variety), and even with maindeck spellskites, discard, countermagic, and academy ruins, it's pretty darn tough to keep a bridge in play. This is also with way more protection for bridge than any discard deck normally plays, and was before the printing of abrupt decay.
Well, let's just ignore Ensaring Bridge because the deck should be actually killing creatures so things like Deathrite and Dark Confidant don't sit there and keep gaining value without attacking. You wouldn't need Bridge and you probably don't even want it over the removal spells on-color with black alone (much less whatever splash(es) you're using).
So I hope you get the idea. Discard might be decent at smashing tier 2/3 decks, and stealing an occasional win against a deck that randomly can't deal with it (which isn't many of the tier decks), but it's not consistent, and it's simply outclassed by true discard decks that don't get carried away by focusing too much on a mechanic just for the sake of it. Shrieking affliction is an alright finisher in any discard deck, but so is just about anything when your opponent doesn't have a hand. Also, drawing multiple afflictions / racks is really bad when you need to wittle your opponent's hand down to even remotely start progressing your gameplan.
What you're saying here, if I'm reading correctly, is that the issue is basically consistency. Well, if a draw engine fixes that problem, then the deck is fundamentally sound. Ironically, almost all of the lists in this thread seem to eschew draw engines because people like to build decks that don't win games.
I'm trying here to understand what you mean by "true discard" and I sense that any deck that uses different finishers than the rack/affliction or have a heavier focus on board control are being called by you "not a discard deck". But if what you mean by discard deck is having discard as the only form of disruption, let me tell you I find that to be a weak strategy. One should not stay away from board control just because you are trying to be loyal to your "just discard" focus. You yourself splashed red for pyroclasm.
Regards the proposition of creature-finishers, I think they are still valid choices because by the moment you play your finishers, opponent has no hand already. Granted, opponent is much more likely to topdeck creature removal than abrupt decay for rack, but say you play gatekeeper of malakir sending a deathrite shaman to the grave. You then start beating, and as it's one of the few creatures you are running, opponent is going to eventually kill it, or it is going to act as another "rack" effect dealing 2 damage a turn. Either way, it's a 2 for 1!! By running no creatures, the only difference is that you are then forced to use your discard effects on the removal spells the opponent is keeping as dead cards, because if you don't your finishers won't trigger. Isn't it the same, or even better, make the opponent play the removal on a recursive beater or one that already did an effect? And they even must pay for it! Of course you are not going to run Goyf with bridge. That's just something to be tested or a matter of personal preference/metagaming: do you wish to abuse bridge, which is IMO completely nuts against many decks and a must-be-answered permanent in many matchups, and rely on finishers that are slower than creatures and can't block, or let bridge aside and use creatures that could synergize very well with a discard-heavy strategy?
I hope I haven't alienated folks like you with my narrow focus in this thread. Let me back pedal a bit regarding creatures. They can work as finishers in a true discard deck, in the ways that you are describing.
Let's use your Gatekeeper of Malakir as an example. You make compelling points about him being a 2 for 1 because he draws an enemy removal spell while having already accomplished something, and possibly having dealt some damage along the way. Sounds great for 3 mana.
The problem is, I have no room in those specific lists for a card that does that at 3cc. If you look carefully at my lists, 3 mana is literally the top of my mana curve for both decks I posted. More importantly, I only have 2 cards with a 3cc. A card like Malakir is a very high investment. On turn 3 I want to play either a Liliana or a Bridge, I would not give up either of those cards to make room for malakir, so this only leaves the lower CC discard spells.
In this case, I would actually PREFER to have the discard spells in my hand over malakir and use them to control what threats the opponent is allowed to play. I completely understand that dead anti-creature cards in my opponents hand still need to be removed in order for my finishers to kick in. My deck's strategy is to ignore them initially, and let my opponent chose to dump them on his own to Raven's Crime, or Liliana or Mind Wrack. This is cheaper than removing the threat after the fact with malakir, and it gives me more proactive control over the game.
Now I realize that this is an isolated example on just one creature out of a pool of hundreds of potentials. To be sure there ARE creatures that could fit into my decks without disturbing the delicate balance, Deathrite Shaman for example has performed pretty well in some of my iterations.
The lists I posted were honestly meant to be EXAMPLE lists. They were specifically chosen to share because they are creature free in order to clearly demonstrate the core idea of true hand control. There is a LOT of room for variation and interpretation of the core concept, I said that in one of my first couple posts.
I think a lot of people tend to stray away from the idea of true hand control so they can make room for their favorite critters. Those kinds of decks can certainly work, but let's be honest, that kind of strategy has already been played out in a BUNCH of familiar Modern decks -jund junk and MBC are just a couple that we have been talking about. I want this thread to explore a NEW (to modern) kind of approach. Enter: creatureless discard lists.
I hope that makes sense, and that you understand my reasons for posting what I did. I am not trying to alienate smart people. I just want to share a "proof of concept" type of list and then get some meaningful discussion going as we explore new territory in Modern.
As an experiment, I took the original list verbatim into the MTGO Constructed Tourney room and played 6 heads up matches in a row. I normally don't play too many tournies since I have no need for more cards or more tix. Final record: 5-1. My only loss came to Blouses in game 3 where I mulled to 5 cards with 1 land. I lost on turn 4 still having only 1 land in play. I beat Affinity in the 1st and 4th matches. I also went 2-0 against RDW by mulling to 4 cards and 1 Leyline of Sanctity in game 2. My MTGO user name is Vizier if anyone wants to verify this. I'm not saying these results prove anything definitively, but infer from it what you will.
Using words like "true" or "pure" is only ever going to alienate people from an idea. Trust me on this one; I have first-hand experience. Even if you're right, it's still going to drive the crowds away.
I think you'd be better served using a card advantage engine like Life from the Loam in concert with Raven's Crime if you want to keep a relatively slow clock like Shrieking Affliction afloat. You trade a quick and effective creature clock into a much slower, slightly harder to kill game 1 noncreature one. You're going to want this stuff on lockdown, pretty much. There's pretty much no reason to stay monoblack here. Modern has great mana fixing to abuse, and little to punish you for playing two or even three colors. You also gain arguably the best removal spell in the format in Abrupt Decay. Zur's Weirding is legal in Modern and is a good way to make sure your opponent never draws another card, if you're not going the smallpox plan and are afraid of playing creatures to quicken the kill, I think this is a nice coup de grace against a lot of decks.
I think you'd be better served using a card advantage engine like Life from the Loam in concert with Raven's Crime if you want to keep a relatively slow clock like Shrieking Affliction afloat. You trade a quick and effective creature clock into a much slower, slightly harder to kill game 1 noncreature one. You're going to want this stuff on lockdown, pretty much. There's pretty much no reason to stay monoblack here. Modern has great mana fixing to abuse, and little to punish you for playing two or even three colors. You also gain arguably the best removal spell in the format in Abrupt Decay.
That's a completely different deck. Raven's Crime and Life from the Loam is a 2-piece, graveyard-based combo that takes a while to set up. Not that Loam is a bad card, but...now the deck is going a totally different direction, and for no actual reason.
Of course you can play 2-3 colors. I basically wrote an essay about that.
Zur's Weirding is legal in Modern and is a good way to make sure your opponent never draws another card, if you're not going the smallpox plan and are afraid of playing creatures to quicken the kill, I think this is a nice coup de grace against a lot of decks.
So now you're saying the deck should rely on a 4-mana blue enchantment, as well? What ever happened to just playing 2-3 efficient discard spells, clearing the board, and then putting a draw engine and a clock on the table?
See, this is exactly what I am talking about when I say that Discard is not understood in Modern. There is nothing "awful" about this, and I am not saying or even implying that the author is an idiot. This deck list is perfectly fine and viable, but this is NOT a Discard list.
Pants: This is simply a MBC list, with a fairly heavy emphasis on resource denial. If you replace the (clearly out of place) racks with 4 more creatures or card advantage or removal, the fact that this is MBC becomes very obvious. You do not have enough hand control in this list to count on only 4 Racks to do any significant, consistent damage. Again, there is nothing wrong with MBC - but stop trying to pawn it off as the Modern version of a true Discard deck.
Your labeling lists based on your personal beliefs. I've tailored the deck to play against a certain meta. Last I checked 18 discard spells is 30% of my deck. Not sure hos many cards you need to get your discard on but really? Did you notice that I was supporting your idea that a discard deck does in fact work in Modern? And if you would have played the list instead of just running of at the mouth you would see that the Racks fit in just fine. Only difference is this deck doesn't die to a EE set to 1 or even worse for you a Chalice set at 1. Diversity is always preferable to being completely all-in. While I'm not running 20 lands 8 rack effects and 32 discard spells, my deck is still a discard deck. As I-N-S already mentioned, perhaps you could work on the way you address other posters. Less personal beliefs in your arguments and more facts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In case I didn't tell you, I don't care about your opinion I just want your facts. And not the facts that make you seem smart. I want the ones that are actual facts.
Your labeling lists based on your personal beliefs. I've tailored the deck to play against a certain meta. Last I checked 18 discard spells is 30% of my deck. Not sure hos many cards you need to get your discard on but really? Did you notice that I was supporting your idea that a discard deck does in fact work in Modern? And if you would have played the list instead of just running of at the mouth you would see that the Racks fit in just fine. Only difference is this deck doesn't die to a EE set to 1 or even worse for you a Chalice set at 1. Diversity is always preferable to being completely all-in. While I'm not running 20 lands 8 rack effects and 32 discard spells, my deck is still a discard deck. As I-N-S already mentioned, perhaps you could work on the way you address other posters. Less personal beliefs in your arguments and more facts.
Ok I will try and be more flexible with my labeling. Looking back on your list I see 10 discard spell, 4 small pox and 4 lilianas. So while I dont really think Pox and Lili should necessarily be categorized as "discard spells" lets jsut say they are, so yes you have a "Discard List" (tm).
But the real difference difference between what you are attempting to do with your list, and what the lists I posted attempt to do is that you make no attempt to truly control your opponent's hand. Your discard suite + creature package + removal spells are a solid game plan to be sure, but this concept is fundamentally different from controlling your opponents hand and killing them with 1-8 Racks.
There is already metric tons of information that expands upon the game plan you are proposing in your list, but none at all on mine. Thus - the reason I am putting so much effort into this thread.
After reading a few posts at the start of this thread, I realized first thing I have to do is illustrate why hand control is different from board control. That nuance seems lost on a lot of folks. I have to stand my ground on this subtle, but important distinction or else this thread will just turn into a useless discussion about decks and strategies that have already been fairly well explored in modern.
Again - your deck is fine and viable. I just do not want to explore that type of game plan in this thread.
Ok I will try and be more flexible with my labeling. Looking back on your list I see 10 discard spell, 4 small pox and 4 lilianas. So while I dont really think Pox and Lili should necessarily be categorized as "discard spells" lets jsut say they are, so yes you have a "Discard List" (tm).
But the real difference difference between what you are attempting to do with your list, and what the lists I posted attempt to do is that you make no attempt to truly control your opponent's hand. Your discard suite + creature package + removal spells are a solid game plan to be sure, but this concept is fundamentally different from controlling your opponents hand and killing them with 1-8 Racks.
There is already metric tons of information that expands upon the game plan you are proposing in your list, but none at all on mine. Thus - the reason I am putting so much effort into this thread.
After reading a few posts at the start of this thread, I realized first thing I have to do is illustrate why hand control is different from board control. That nuance seems lost on a lot of folks. I have to stand my ground on this subtle, but important distinction or else this thread will just turn into a useless discussion about decks and strategies that have already been fairly well explored in modern.
Again - your deck is fine and viable. I just do not want to explore that type of game plan in this thread.
I'm going to ignore our previous arguments for constructive purposes here.
I think you're confusing yourself here. It's not that people don't understand the difference from hand control and board control, I just think they're opting for less hand control than you are since your variant is more "all in" on the hand disruption than they probably would like to be. I think they get your point in distinguishing "board control" from "hand control", they just don't feel your ratio of hand control to board control cards is optimal for their decklists. I mean... it's a pretty easy concept to know the difference between a removal spell and a discard spell. A 5 year old can tell the difference.. I wouldn't take the posters in here for being that stupid.
Second, there is more than 1 way to skin a cat as the saying goes. Why does a deck suddenly become not a "discard deck" when they add some board control elements or creature win conditions? It's still a discard deck, it just chooses to use a different win condition. And considering this is an SCD for shrieking affliction (your win condition), I think it's entirely reasonable for posters to have arguments in favor of whatever they believe is the optimal win condition (which may or may not be the rack/affliction). As for mono black discard with the rack and ensnaring bridge, it's not a new concept (I've played against it a few times in modern). It may not be discussed that much, but neither is Mythic Conscription, or Ghazi Glare, or any of a slew of old decks.
Third, this thread is a SCD thread for shrieking affliction. If you want to discuss your very specific variation of mono black discard that's 100% based on hand control, rack effects and ensnaring bridge, maybe you should post a few decklists in the developing deck forum and move the conversation there. I just think the nature of this thread is a bit confusing towards where the discussion has gone.
I'm going to ignore our previous arguments for constructive purposes here. As you wish
I think you're confusing yourself here. It's not that people don't understand the difference from hand control and board control, I just think they're opting for less hand control than you are since your variant is more "all in" on the hand disruption than they probably would like to be. I think they get your point in distinguishing "board control" from "hand control", they just don't feel your ratio of hand control to board control cards is optimal for their decklists. I mean... it's a pretty easy concept to know the difference between a removal spell and a discard spell. A 5 year old can tell the difference.. I wouldn't take the posters in here for being that stupid. I would have also assumed that the difference between hand control and board control was common knowledge, but if you reread the posts on this thread this is clearly not the case. You yourself mistook Jund and Junk for hand control strategies and only ceded that they were indeed board control after I pointed it out to you. So yeah, it seems obvious once someone points it out, but not everyone can be counted on to figure out the difference on their own. It's a subtle difference, but one of the secrets of deckbuilding is realizing how much power there is in nuance.
Second, there is more than 1 way to skin a cat as the saying goes. Why does a deck suddenly become not a "discard deck" when they add some board control elements or creature win conditions? It's still a discard deck, it just chooses to use a different win condition. A hand control deck ceases to be a hand control deck when it no longer attempts to control the opponents hand. Certainly you can use a number of different win conditions with a hand control strategy, but now with a total 8 Rack effects at your disposal, this should be a highly popular choice. So where exactly do we draw the line between hand control and board control? This is a gray area, akin to drawing a line between tempo decks and mid range decks. They are clearly two different things, but there is no precise line where one stops and the other begins. And considering this is an SCD for shrieking affliction (your win condition), I think it's entirely reasonable for posters to have arguments in favor of whatever they believe is the optimal win condition (which may or may not be the rack/affliction). As for mono black discard with the rack and ensnaring bridge, it's not a new concept (I've played against it a few times in modern). It may not be discussed that much, but neither is Mythic Conscription, or Ghazi Glare, or any of a slew of old decks.
Third, this thread is a SCD thread for shrieking affliction. If you want to discuss your very specific variation of mono black discard that's 100% based on hand control, rack effects and ensnaring bridge, maybe you should post a few decklists in the developing deck forum and move the conversation there. I just think the nature of this thread is a bit confusing towards where the discussion has gone. Actually I have already posted a few deck discussions in that forum. There was some interest but almost no innovation. I would be happy to make a full primer regarding this discussion, but I am wary of putting forth a lot of effort into it, only to have it disappear, buried under tons of other threads simply because folks aren't distinguishing between a unique hand control strategy and MBC. It's a shame really. I have already done a lot of the leg work into this area and I have lots of information to share. I have versions that include pox, pyroclasm, phyrexian arena, deathrite shaman and much more. You can basically tell me what your meta is like and I already have a list tailored to destroying that meta.
I emphasize abrupt decay. Every BG deck plays it and the only target your sample deck provides for it are your win conditions. Have fun playing topdeck wars with no clock when your opponent is free to draw and then play the card before you can sorcery speed Raven's Crime/Liliana of the Veil it away.
Please don't repeat your "Ill just discard it" argument. The point of nearly half of the examples you disingenuously countered was that discard CANT DO **** when the problem cards it wants to strip are top decks that run away with the game. His "you wont draw ensnaring bridge every game" point is just as in not more than valid as your Ill just discard every problem argument.
You're already talking about splashing red and white, so what's so bad about splashing green? If you've discarded enough cards in your opponents hand to make affliction and the rack relevant, then it won't matter whether they can deal with Goyf or not. Goyf also can block, and kills your opponent much quicker than affliction or the rack.
I don't know any better!?!?!?!?
Let me offer a better explanation then... (although I am apparently an amateur deckbuilder who knows nothing about this game)
Jund and Junk play board control cards because mono black discard in any form flat out loses when their opponent resolves a difficult to kill threat. You attempt to mitigate this by magically drawing ensnaring bridge every game at just the right time. This is absurdly fragile and inconsistent for any competitive strategy. Instead, they aim for greater consistency and versatility by playing board control cards that are almost never dead after they've discarded the relevant cards that are difficult to deal with via removal. Any time after turn 2-3, abrupt decay and lightning bolt will be almost strictly superior to something such as Thoughtseize, Iok, or Duress.
This is a very basic concept in competitive deckbuilding. Versatility and consistency = better decks, and better tournament results.
None of these cards do crap to lock your opponent except *maybe* Ensnaring bridge against the rare all-creature modern deck that has no way to deal with artifacts. But once again, you're making some sweeping assumption based off magical christmasland that you will always be drawing these cards right when you need them, and that your opponent won't have any way to answer them.
Once again, you're going into magical-christmasland where you have ensnaring bridge, and your opponent has no way to deal with it on turn 3. Even in the ideal scenario, you still have 2-3 cards in hand after casting bridge on that turn, in which most of affinity's creatures still can swing through a bridge.
This isn't even accounting for game 2 and 3 where they board in their ancient grudges. Also, apparently you didn't read, but Affinity can get a lot of damage in via instant speed Cranial Plating equipping an Ornithopter or Signal pest, or saccing artifacts to put ravager counters on them via Arcbound ravager. By the way, this gets around ensnaring bridge as well. I know this because I've lost to this multiple times when trying to lock an opponent out with my own bridge. There is a big difference in theoretical magic where you always draw just what you need at just the right time, and actually learning stuff from testing and experience.
So once again... you're making sweeping assumptions that you somehow have the upper hand at this point. It's not like the only thing causing you problems here is going to be pod. They can tutor for just about any hate they need, their creatures can't be dealt with easily via removal, and they can combo out and kill you through a bridge quite easily (at least with melirapod).
Smiter sees a ton of play in GW hatebears and Junk. Lighting bolt is awful against both of these cards, and pyroclasm only kills 1/2 of Lingering Souls. If aggro lost to pyroclasm and lightning bolt this easily, it wouldn't exist in the format.
Look, all your posts are very cocky, and you always seem to assume you have some grand meta scheme figured out and your opponents never have any way to deal with an ensnaring bridge.
You keep making threads like these as SCD's, but when anybody ever posts anything slightly disagreeing with what you post, you are here to refute them with stuff like "ensnaring bridge wins" or "leyline of sanctity beats x deck". Instead of title it SCD, why not just title it "this card is awesome and you should play it because I am always right"?
Second, what is this glorious meta that you play in that players can't deal with enchantments or artifacts? Do you play in some meta where players don't use sideboards? You keep mentioning that you "if x and x" deck is giving your problems, you can sideboard cards for it. Well, incase you haven't noticed, most competitive decks bring in anti-hate to protect their own strategies, and since your deck is pretty slow, it will be pretty common for them to find an answer before you kill them.
I'm not even saying Leyline or Bridge are bad cards. They aren't. But every time you refute a post, you simply say "x deck has a difficult time with ensnaring bridge", or "x deck loses to leyline of sanctity". Also, how do you magically draw bridge and leyline every game, and never get awkward hands in which you draw multiple bridges, or multiple leylines, or multiple shrieking afflictions. Splinter Twin has quite a few matches where it can't find it's combo pieces, and it runs 8-10 cantrips, and 7-8 copies of each relevant combo piece. That doesn't even account for the times where you draw multiple copies of cards like shrieking Affliction, the Rack, Ensnaring Bridge, or Leyline of Sanctity (all of which do nothing as multiples).
Long story short, this isn't a new strategy, and you're not the first one who thought of bridge-rack control. It's a cool and unique strategy, but it has a ton of weaknesses. But based off your description, it should be the best deck in the meta with zero bad matchups except tron. Please be a little bit more reasonable with people on here. We're not all idiots who just migrated from standard and have no clue how to play competitive magic, or how to build a competitive deck.
Not trying to sound like a kissass here, but honestly, I'm ****ing sick and tired of your downright stupidity and refusal to look at the other side. Hell, I can't stand bocephus in the B&R thread, but once in a while he actually makes a fair point and I can't do anything but concede the truth in his argument.
Badd B is among the most knowledgeable users on this forum when it comes to the Modern format. (I would include BlippytheSlug, Lectrys, and Rickster in this classification as well.) His points are well thought out and written in what seems to be a constant, patient tone, and he addresses every side of the issue, conceding where he may be wrong, and giving an overabundance of evidence when he is correct. He also has a nearly incomprehensible repertoire of decks and strategies that he has tested extensively, ranging between all archetypes in the format (though often focused on blue-based control [Thirst for Knowledge anyone?]).
You reiterate your same points, most of which appear to be smoke-and-mirrors or Magical Christmasland claims which often turn out to be incorrect, or at least stated without evidence or testing to back them up.
I will admit that I don't quite know what you have played, but I can guarantee it doesn't match up to Badd's wide variety and experience in this format. And, frankly, judging by the pile in the OP, I'd say there's proof in this very thread that I'm right.
I'm done.
(probably gonna get a flame warning or something.)
Thanks to Rivenor for the signature and XenoNinja for the Avi!
Quotes:
4 Smallpox
4 Liliana of the Veil
4 The Rack
4 Bloodghast
4 Mutavault
3 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
10 Swamp
4 Marsh Flats
4 Wrench Mind
3 Infest
3 Geth's Verdict
2 Vampire Nighthawk
4 Gatekeeper of Malakir
1 Dakmor Salvage
3 Duress
Most games are won by a combination of Rack damage and recurring beats. What seems to be lost on you is that you can still play creatures. Just play ones that are either hard to kill (Mutavault/Bloodghast) or that have an effect then they go away.
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
To Tinfoil Hat: White Knight
But any deck running planeswalkers or smiter (which is more decks than you think) will escape your 'lock' fairly easily. Hell even kitchen finks isn't great for your deck, lifegain + 2 bodies to dodge lil is bad.
Discard is a bad strategy because it has no impact on the board, it always has been. Jund/k are the best discard decks because they utilize hand attack to take away hard to deal with threats later in the game, they sculpt their opponents hand then grind them out.
Bad B never claimed to be a pro theorist actually that was from someone else.
Also can you link me to these mono-discard strategies from old extended and legacy? As a legacy player I'd be interested where these mythical monodiscard decks are, please don't say pox that's just a resource denial deck.
See, this is exactly what I am talking about when I say that Discard is not understood in Modern. There is nothing "awful" about this, and I am not saying or even implying that the author is an idiot. This deck list is perfectly fine and viable, but this is NOT a Discard list.
Pants: This is simply a MBC list, with a fairly heavy emphasis on resource denial. If you replace the (clearly out of place) racks with 4 more creatures or card advantage or removal, the fact that this is MBC becomes very obvious. You do not have enough hand control in this list to count on only 4 Racks to do any significant, consistent damage. Again, there is nothing wrong with MBC - but stop trying to pawn it off as the Modern version of a true Discard deck.
You say I can;t talk to you about Pox, but it is a major component of many of my discard lists. Pox is another card that is underrated in modern, and it's rarely played correctly or put in decks that correctly abuse it. My original list didn't have pox in it, but my Primer will include several pox variations.
In old extended, any deck running Cabal Therapy+Nezumi was a hand control deck. It destroyed your hand with Cabal Therapy and rats, then finished you with rats and racks. We no longer need the rats or nezumi with the printing of cards like thougthseize, iok, Liliana and of course Shrieking affliction.
Regards the proposition of creature-finishers, I think they are still valid choices because by the moment you play your finishers, opponent has no hand already. Granted, opponent is much more likely to topdeck creature removal than abrupt decay for rack, but say you play gatekeeper of malakir sending a deathrite shaman to the grave. You then start beating, and as it's one of the few creatures you are running, opponent is going to eventually kill it, or it is going to act as another "rack" effect dealing 2 damage a turn. Either way, it's a 2 for 1!! By running no creatures, the only difference is that you are then forced to use your discard effects on the removal spells the opponent is keeping as dead cards, because if you don't your finishers won't trigger. Isn't it the same, or even better, make the opponent play the removal on a recursive beater or one that already did an effect? And they even must pay for it! Of course you are not going to run Goyf with bridge. That's just something to be tested or a matter of personal preference/metagaming: do you wish to abuse bridge, which is IMO completely nuts against many decks and a must-be-answered permanent in many matchups, and rely on finishers that are slower than creatures and can't block, or let bridge aside and use creatures that could synergize very well with a discard-heavy strategy?
The Rack was a major engine card for almost the entirety of Ravnica-Time Spiral standard. It was mostly a mono black build (with the occasional splash, a notable one being for Flagstones because of its interaction with Smallpox), then Future Sight came and Tarmogoyf was printed. Common discard spells in this deck were:
- Cry of Contrition
- Funeral Charm
- Ravenous Rats
- Augur of Skulls
- Smallpox
- Stupor
The deck (before Goyf was printed and gave it a very fast clock) also would often maindeck a small number of Extirpate, which handled the prominent counterspell deck (Teachings) by shutting down flashback draw spells to keep it from getting back into the game. The whole point was just to keep trading cards with the opponent and then even something like The Rack would end the game just fine--it's a 2-3 damage per turn clock, it lives through Smallpox (a core tool of the deck) and Damnation, and it's mana-efficient enough that it can be played with removal spell mana open/in the same turn as a discard spell.The deck was known for efficient trading cards 1-for-1 or 2-for-1 with discard and removal, while either establishing a mana-efficient draw engine (Bob or Arena) and/or a fast clock (The Rack, Tarmogoyf, or a random dude and a Treetop Village). It was incredibly consistent and it made tons and tons of Top 8 finishes in all kinds of tournaments at all levels. If you google "Tarmorack Nationals," you'll see what I mean.
The deck died down after Lorwyn came because Phyrexian Arena had already rotated out with Tenth Edition and then Bob was gone without Ravnica. That was the problem: it simply couldn't draw cards. The Rack was a great deck because it was trading cards efficiently and then it could either restock its hand or just kill the opponent quickly--kind of like a Threshold deck in Legacy. But without a draw engine, it was losing to Mulldrifters and Makeshift Mannequins...Mannequin is a fantastic card, but if your discard deck has high power cards like Tarmogoyf and Thoughtseize but it still can't win games against Counsel of the Soratami, there's something seriously wrong with its engine. That's why you need to play draw engine(s) in a Rack deck.
Something else to think about: The Rack and then Tarmorack were both very strong iterations of an archetype. Raven's Crime didn't exist when they were doing work. Thoughtseize didn't exist until after that era of Standard was over, when the deck died (Let's face it, playing Goyf and Thoughtseize does not make your Rock deck a Discard deck). (I mean, Blackmail showed up in those decks, but Blackmail hits lands.) The deck wasn't winning games with those tools; it was winning games with a bunch of solid 2-for-1s and with Smallpox. Cry of Contrition is a 2-for-1. Augur of Skulls is a 2-for-1. Stupor is a 2-for-1. Smallpox will usually trade 3 cards for 3 (land, card in hand, the smallpox itself for land, card in hand, creature), but it's an Edict, LD, and discard spell all at once--so the power level makes it a worthwhile even trade). So if you have access to all of these, why bother playing Raven's Crime and Duress effects? Liliana of the Veil makes total sense because of how much it does in one card, but 1-for-1 discard spells just do not...just looking at the history of successful Rack decks.
Anyways, Badd Business pointed out a few rather intelligent hypothetical problems for a rack deck, so let's take a look at them one-by-one:
This is why Smallpox and supplemental LD (Fulminator Mage, Rain of Tears, Shadow of Doubt, and/or potentially a dip into another color for stronger LD like Sowing Salt or Blood Moon) are important to keep in the 75 of a discard deck. What you can't do with discard is stop topdecks from happening. What you can do is try to reduce your opponent's resources in the best way possible. In this case, making your opponent pitch most of his hand and then cutting him off of Tron mana will make the deck topdeck a bunch of bombs that he can't cast. Then on your turn, those keep getting discarded. The key is finding LD that works--but it's definitely possible.
Actually, if you put a handful of lifegain cards in your board (or even some in your main; Kitchen Finks is already a fine creature to maindeck and there are plenty of board options), it's very difficult for a burn deck to beat a Rack deck. They're going to put you on a 4 turn clock from the beginning, but that usually requires either 1-2 creatures to live or for the burn deck to use all/almost all of the cards in its hand. If you're on the play and turn 2 Smallpox against a Goblin Guide or Deathrite Shaman, I like your odds. If you're on the draw and the same thing happens, but you instead Haunt a Cry of Contrition on their turn 1 dude, I really like your odds. Then you play something that gains you 2-4 life, a couple of turns later, and you have a pretty good position.
Affinity probably would be rough. I have no experience seeing a Rack deck interact with an Affinity deck, so all I can think of is theory. Smallpox seems weak here (aside from ganking a land, which is always good against Affinity), and they do play Thoughtcasts--so that would be challenging. However, Affinity is one of those decks that loses to board sweepers if it doesn't have Cranial Plating...it would be safe to assume that a Modern Rack deck would maindeck at least a few ways to remove artifacts from the table, and with a potential to play creature-less (or almost creature-less) with manlands and 6-8 racks, it's possible that the deck is just built around Damnation in the first place. So while I think Affinity would be a difficult match-up, I also see very clear potential solutions to try.
As per Gruul, that deck is very bad in topdeck mode--a lot of its engine requires a bunch of cards in hand in order to create strong bursts based upon synergy. It's true that Smallpox on the draw isn't the most fantastic play against this kind of deck because of double BTE draws, but at worst it seems like this match-up is coin-flippy pre-board with the Rack deck probably wrecking on the aggro deck when Rack is on the play. And post-board, with more Kitchen Finks-type cards and set of Deathmarks to help slow down those nut draws...I like the Rack deck's position. Especially if you're playing Gatekeeper of Malakir and trading that with a pump/burn spell or a BTE, I really like the Rack against that kind of deck.
This is a much bigger issue.
Lingering Souls is a poweful card, but if you build board sweepers into the deck, that completely changes the dynamic. Since Souls is just a pair of 1/1s, you can ignore them while you shred your opponent's hand, then clean them up with a board sweeper when he's in topdeck mode. I'm not saying the card is bad against discard because it's clearly forcing some different lines of play, but it's also just a pair of tokens...it's something that can be solved.
Smiter...there has always been a Dodecapod or Wilt-Leaf Liege or Quagnoth there to make it hard on discard, but one 4/4 creature isn't the end of the world. Just Gatekeeper/Damnation/Smallpox it and move on.
Beast Within. Putrefy. Pithing Needle. Hit/Run. Oblivion Ring. It seems pretty clear that a Rack deck needs maindeck removal for artifacts, so I just don't agree with this point. Now, granted, you have to draw the artifact removal and if it's a Needle or ORing you don't want it to get ADecayed or blown up by a utility creature, but at least there are outs. It's not game over.
Definitely a bigger problem, but still solve-able. Does Beast Within look like it belongs in a Rack deck, or what?
Well, yes and no. It's a powerful draw spell and powerful draw spells are one of the best ways to beat Rack decks. But what are they getting with Gifts? If it's a Loam package, grave hate shuts it down. If it's Snapcaster/Witness and other good stuff based on the yard, grave hate shuts that down too. If it's Lingering Souls and other random threats, you're dealing with roughly a 3-for-1, which is good--but not game-ending. In this metagame, Gifts is used for those 3 things: getting a Loam/other recursion soft-lock, getting Snapcaster/Witness and chaining Gifts together, or getting a bunch of threats (well, it could get answers, but against the Rack deck answers=more of a clock, right?). Since grave hate is really good against 2 of those 3 and just playing a lot of 2-for-1s and sweepers and removal is good for the other one...well, Gifts doesn't look as scary anymore.
Well, let's just ignore Ensaring Bridge because the deck should be actually killing creatures so things like Deathrite and Dark Confidant don't sit there and keep gaining value without attacking. You wouldn't need Bridge and you probably don't even want it over the removal spells on-color with black alone (much less whatever splash(es) you're using).
What you're saying here, if I'm reading correctly, is that the issue is basically consistency. Well, if a draw engine fixes that problem, then the deck is fundamentally sound. Ironically, almost all of the lists in this thread seem to eschew draw engines because people like to build decks that don't win games.
I hope I haven't alienated folks like you with my narrow focus in this thread. Let me back pedal a bit regarding creatures. They can work as finishers in a true discard deck, in the ways that you are describing.
Let's use your Gatekeeper of Malakir as an example. You make compelling points about him being a 2 for 1 because he draws an enemy removal spell while having already accomplished something, and possibly having dealt some damage along the way. Sounds great for 3 mana.
In this case, I would actually PREFER to have the discard spells in my hand over malakir and use them to control what threats the opponent is allowed to play. I completely understand that dead anti-creature cards in my opponents hand still need to be removed in order for my finishers to kick in. My deck's strategy is to ignore them initially, and let my opponent chose to dump them on his own to Raven's Crime, or Liliana or Mind Wrack. This is cheaper than removing the threat after the fact with malakir, and it gives me more proactive control over the game.
The lists I posted were honestly meant to be EXAMPLE lists. They were specifically chosen to share because they are creature free in order to clearly demonstrate the core idea of true hand control. There is a LOT of room for variation and interpretation of the core concept, I said that in one of my first couple posts.
I think a lot of people tend to stray away from the idea of true hand control so they can make room for their favorite critters. Those kinds of decks can certainly work, but let's be honest, that kind of strategy has already been played out in a BUNCH of familiar Modern decks -jund junk and MBC are just a couple that we have been talking about. I want this thread to explore a NEW (to modern) kind of approach. Enter: creatureless discard lists.
I hope that makes sense, and that you understand my reasons for posting what I did. I am not trying to alienate smart people. I just want to share a "proof of concept" type of list and then get some meaningful discussion going as we explore new territory in Modern.
As an experiment, I took the original list verbatim into the MTGO Constructed Tourney room and played 6 heads up matches in a row. I normally don't play too many tournies since I have no need for more cards or more tix. Final record: 5-1. My only loss came to Blouses in game 3 where I mulled to 5 cards with 1 land. I lost on turn 4 still having only 1 land in play. I beat Affinity in the 1st and 4th matches. I also went 2-0 against RDW by mulling to 4 cards and 1 Leyline of Sanctity in game 2. My MTGO user name is Vizier if anyone wants to verify this. I'm not saying these results prove anything definitively, but infer from it what you will.
PS - Selling 5 packs of GTC in MTGO
Zur's Weirding is legal in Modern and is a good way to make sure your opponent never draws another card, if you're not going the smallpox plan and are afraid of playing creatures to quicken the kill, I think this is a nice coup de grace against a lot of decks.
That's a completely different deck. Raven's Crime and Life from the Loam is a 2-piece, graveyard-based combo that takes a while to set up. Not that Loam is a bad card, but...now the deck is going a totally different direction, and for no actual reason.
Of course you can play 2-3 colors. I basically wrote an essay about that.
So now you're saying the deck should rely on a 4-mana blue enchantment, as well? What ever happened to just playing 2-3 efficient discard spells, clearing the board, and then putting a draw engine and a clock on the table?
Your labeling lists based on your personal beliefs. I've tailored the deck to play against a certain meta. Last I checked 18 discard spells is 30% of my deck. Not sure hos many cards you need to get your discard on but really? Did you notice that I was supporting your idea that a discard deck does in fact work in Modern? And if you would have played the list instead of just running of at the mouth you would see that the Racks fit in just fine. Only difference is this deck doesn't die to a EE set to 1 or even worse for you a Chalice set at 1. Diversity is always preferable to being completely all-in. While I'm not running 20 lands 8 rack effects and 32 discard spells, my deck is still a discard deck. As I-N-S already mentioned, perhaps you could work on the way you address other posters. Less personal beliefs in your arguments and more facts.
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
Ok I will try and be more flexible with my labeling. Looking back on your list I see 10 discard spell, 4 small pox and 4 lilianas. So while I dont really think Pox and Lili should necessarily be categorized as "discard spells" lets jsut say they are, so yes you have a "Discard List" (tm).
But the real difference difference between what you are attempting to do with your list, and what the lists I posted attempt to do is that you make no attempt to truly control your opponent's hand. Your discard suite + creature package + removal spells are a solid game plan to be sure, but this concept is fundamentally different from controlling your opponents hand and killing them with 1-8 Racks.
There is already metric tons of information that expands upon the game plan you are proposing in your list, but none at all on mine. Thus - the reason I am putting so much effort into this thread.
After reading a few posts at the start of this thread, I realized first thing I have to do is illustrate why hand control is different from board control. That nuance seems lost on a lot of folks. I have to stand my ground on this subtle, but important distinction or else this thread will just turn into a useless discussion about decks and strategies that have already been fairly well explored in modern.
Again - your deck is fine and viable. I just do not want to explore that type of game plan in this thread.
I'm going to ignore our previous arguments for constructive purposes here.
I think you're confusing yourself here. It's not that people don't understand the difference from hand control and board control, I just think they're opting for less hand control than you are since your variant is more "all in" on the hand disruption than they probably would like to be. I think they get your point in distinguishing "board control" from "hand control", they just don't feel your ratio of hand control to board control cards is optimal for their decklists. I mean... it's a pretty easy concept to know the difference between a removal spell and a discard spell. A 5 year old can tell the difference.. I wouldn't take the posters in here for being that stupid.
Second, there is more than 1 way to skin a cat as the saying goes. Why does a deck suddenly become not a "discard deck" when they add some board control elements or creature win conditions? It's still a discard deck, it just chooses to use a different win condition. And considering this is an SCD for shrieking affliction (your win condition), I think it's entirely reasonable for posters to have arguments in favor of whatever they believe is the optimal win condition (which may or may not be the rack/affliction). As for mono black discard with the rack and ensnaring bridge, it's not a new concept (I've played against it a few times in modern). It may not be discussed that much, but neither is Mythic Conscription, or Ghazi Glare, or any of a slew of old decks.
Third, this thread is a SCD thread for shrieking affliction. If you want to discuss your very specific variation of mono black discard that's 100% based on hand control, rack effects and ensnaring bridge, maybe you should post a few decklists in the developing deck forum and move the conversation there. I just think the nature of this thread is a bit confusing towards where the discussion has gone.
Mine is in blue as usual.