Disclaimer: Due to work, I have not been able to play very much, and wont be able to for the next month or so. But I did keep up with the meta by reading articles and this is an idea I theory-crafted based around the current meta. I decided to put out there in case someone wishes to test with it.
Observation: The meta has an important share of go-wide decks (UW monument, zombies, mono R, and recently the gifts deck). Most of these even employ tokens in their go-wide strategy.
Observation: there are a couple of potent bounce spells, some of which can even bounce non-creature permanents. We already saw engulf the shore, and part the waterveil in this kind of strategy, and we now have commit and one of my personal favorites consign. The oblivion part can be cast w/ Torrential Gearhulk in opponent's draw/upkeep phase to take full control of the game.
Conclusion: Might there be a draw-go strategy that rutinely bounces the board until a moment when we can just hard counter their threats, make them discard their last cards, and beat down with hulks once they are cardless? I think there might... Here is a crude (untested) deck, but feel free to modify accordingly.
Question: Why bounce is better than wrath effects like Hour of Devastation?
Answer: By bouncing you solve a couple of problems: 1) indistructible from selfless spirit 2) 4 mana sweeper is better than 5 mana vs aggro decks, and by not tapping out at 3 for sweltering suns you don't risk a chandra/gideon resolving with the shields down, 3) because engulf is an instant you ca flash it back with hulk (while buying back your hulk for extra uses in the meanwhile).
I'm not sure if the deck, or even the strategy, will be competitive, but it sounds like something to at least check out for FNM.
PS: the 8 white sources (all of hch are islands for Engulf) are there for useful sideboard cards. I think that something like cast out or forsake the wordly (or even fragmentize) could be useful in certain matchups.
I disagree. In this day and age where creatures have ETB effects that replace themselves (rogue refiner, virtuoso, tireless tracker -which 99% of the time is played with a and in hand- cat blinking a permanent like oath of nissa, or the trials, etc) it is imperative to not let the creatures etb. Otherwise, every time you remove a creature that gave them value you loose a little bit of value yourself (i.e. you are not really trading 1-1, sometimes even 2-for-1ing yourself). Eventually that lost value adds up and they out grind you.
I think, in as sense, this is the crux of why standard is so bad. Developers scratch their head and say "what do you want, the removal is great, it can deal with everything". Well, not really, because if you have to spend a card to kill a cantrip creature, you really just cast a 2-1 on yourself... thats why countersspells need to be seriously pumped up in power (at least, if R&D wants to continue their quest for slapping more and more etb effects on already efficient creatures)
Has anyone seen or tried out that Mono U Control list that Chapin posted in his SCG Taking Control article? I have been playing it the past couple of days and I've been thoroughly impressed. Given all the counter magic, control mirrors almost seem like a bye. Additionally, against aggressive strategies you just counter the things that matter and grind them out. The deck sort of plays out like the elixir control decks of old (obviously not as good) where you play a long game one and just try not to die before time runs out.
Yeah, I don't have premium so I'm not sure what list you mean. With the spoiling of censor I thought about a countermagic-based mono U deck. But the problem is that there are no good answers to resolved permanents. There is no perilous vault or Nevinyrral's Disk to clean up resolved permanents. How does Chapin get around this?
It's not an engine you spend a turn or two durdling setting up. It's three mana you pay when you can hold open extra mana for an answer. The same as basicly every other sorcery speed thing you play in tap out control. Turn 5 you play it with a counterspell up, if they don't play something important you cycle a spell and use the second mana to make a drake. Simple and mana efficient.
Yes, but the difference is that the 3 mana sorcery speed plays a control deck would make (on turn 5 or 6, because you need to keep shields up) are impactful on their own. Example: turn 5, play haven, pass. Opponent plays land, does nothing worth countering/removing, you cycle (assuming you have a cycler, which was part of my argument), pay 1 mana and get a 2/2. So you effectively payed 4 to get a 2/2 flying token... that's not the greatest turn 5 play in this day and age. If I'm going to pay 3 mana for a permanent that does nothing on it's own, tower is probably the strongest play. Its a matter of testing, maybe in a couple of months I'll be proven very wrong, but I feel haven is more of a "combo/midrange" buildaround than a control buildaround.
Bottom line: I think the haven is a very powerful card, but I think it is a card that other archetypes are more interested in tha control (fwiw: Raph levy posted some drake decks in tcgplayer. HIs zombie/have decks that look great at extrating full value, and by comparison the control decks seem much weaker)
Crazy thought I posted in the unreleased card thread: almost nothing worth playing in standard can kill an awakened Cascading Cataracts. Is this a better end-game engine than Drake Haven, planeswalkers, or Torrential Gearhulk beats for control decks? You just bounce/counter/kill everything, drop counters on Cataracts, and enjoy the inevitability. Deck can comfortably be multicolor with all the fixing from Cataracts and everything else. Eventually you slam down an awakened Part the Waterveil and just win. Seems interesting.
I do think that the Drake Haven control deck seems strongest on paper, though. You get to freely run 4 copies each of Cast Out and Censor. Censor seems super undervalued; I know folks are salty it isn't Miscalculation but it's an easy cantrip that opponents have to respect less you use it to counter their stuff and gain huge tempo. If your deck has any amount of Havens, I feel like it should run 4 Censors. Early game counters and exiles are crucial in a format of Vehicles, Planeswalkers, and Indestructible Gods.
I agree that censor is undervalued. I'm skeptical of haven as a win con. Here is my reasoning:
The card on it's own does nothing. It needs other cards (and mana) to "do something". How many cards that on their own do nothing can a control deck run in this std? Also, it is bad in multiples* so this means that running 4 is a definite no-no for me (*if you could activate each haven only once per turn, then multiples are good; but as it is, a single one can be activated as much as you like, so the second is really dead). In order for haven to be the real deal, one of two things need to be true: (1) a few activations should be enough to generate a seizable advantage (so as to decrease the negative effect of it doing nothing on its own) you up, or (2) you should run a dedicated cycle cards so you can reliably turn on haven every other turn. There are good cycle cards out there (like censor) but I'm skeptical control can really run too many cycle cards (I posted some ideas revolving around 10 cycle cards, but that won't be enough to reliably trigger haven).
Regarding cataracts, I like the idea (someone posted an awaken driven deck a few posts up). But there are some powerful answers: Exile effects like cast out, declaration in stone, stasis snare and (though it sees very little play) crumble to dust. Also, edicts are a thing (to the slaughter being the strongest). None of these cards see too much play, so week 1-4 this could be a decent late game. But I'd doubt this could be a reliable end game if it becomes the wincon of choice.
I guess its just a matter of terminology. I'd say Dredge is flat out broken, but that could just as easily mean its unfair. But then UR Storm is also unfair with the cost reductions, Affinity and DSJ give completetly disproportional gains vs investments (Cranial Plating?), GW Tron likewise.
But is U Tron unfair because it uses the Tron lands and can outpace you mana wise in a few turns? How does GW Trons' easy Tron compare in fairness to U Tron's durdly draw into Tron plan?
Maybe strategies that demand super narrow answers are unfair because you have to warp your sideboard with some garbage you'd never play just to beat them.
But if that's true, many of the decks in modern are ripe for nuking. In that sense the Twin ban is difficult to defend.
There are two separate arguments intertwined here: 1) what is an unfair deck and 2) should unfair decks be banned? Below, I give an answer to 1. But I also maintain that not all unfair decks need to be banned. An unfair deck might still not have enough power to be oppressive (see the current iteration of storm: it is still an unfair deck, but it is not overpowered of opressive).
Definition: A deck is "unfair" if it can get a relevant resource without investing relevant resources (here, a "relevant resourse" is a resource that the deck cares about, given it's strategy.)
It does not imply that the player of the "unfair" deck is doing anything "evil" or "bad". It's just terminology (bad temrinology, because it is loaded with negative judgment, but it is what it is).
Typically, "unfairness" manifests in obtaining an effect without paying either mana or cards. Typically, the "effect" in question is netting mana without investing cards, and that is why it is easy to confuse ramp/combo with unfairness. Dark ritual is not unfair because even though it generates +2 net mana it costs you a card; dark ritual with a cantrip IS unfair, because you get +2 mana without costing you a card.
1) Dredge is "unfair" because it can get creatures into the battlefield without paying cards or mana,
2) Storm is unfair because the cost-reduced manamorphose generates +1 mana without costing you a card cantrip. Before this, probe contributed to the unfairness, because it gave you a +1 (a relevant resource) storm count without costing a relevant resource (sure, it costed 2 life, but storm is a combo deck that it generally could not care less about it's life total)
3) Tron, in all it's versions, is unfair because it gets +2 or +1 mana from it's lands without it costing them cards (playing lands is card advantage neutral). In this sense, both mono U and GW are unfair, the difference is one is quicker to get there than the other, but quickness has nothing to do with fairness. The existence of a land that can tap for more than one mana is the very definition of unfairness.
4) Affinity per se is not unfair. It does not play free effects. It plays very undercosted effects, and that makes it an efficient deck, but not "unfair" under the above definition of unfair.
I think that is a good midrange deck, but not a control deck. A control deck seeks to clear the battlefield (by removing/countering pponent's threats) and clear his hand (by outdrawing him). Once hand and battlefield are devoid of threats, we win with whatever.
Ali's deck seems to have a different plan. He tries to present reislient threats (i.e. threats that can't be removed profitably by point removal) and, use those threats to end the game quickly (i.e. before the opponent can start deploying sweepers into PW removal+card draw spells). That's why I find it more midrangey than controling.
Ohhhh.... awaken and cascading cataracts... That sounds like an interesting late game I completely missed! I don't think you have to go too hard on the awaken theme (10 awaken cards + 4 tidecallers seems a bit excessive). Each awaken card is slightly inefficient, because you are paying for the flexibility to awaken, and you don't want too many mana-inefficient cards in your deck.
I'd push more the control theme, using only a handful of good control cards that happen to have awaken: prolong the game, run them out of resources, and then win with one, perhaps two indestructible lands.
At the beginning of the format I would suggest essence scatter over negate in the main deck. Early creatures will be a bigger threat and more numerous than non creature spells so I want the best chance of being able to stop them. Cast out and more expensive counters can mop of the other threats.
With all of the embalm, torrential, and amalgam stuff that will be flying around void shatter seems like the best cancel option over disallow.
Essence scatter is a hard counter for any creature. Horribly awry only works on some creatures.
Yeah I know that. But you dont want to play Disallow because it doesnt exile. Yet Disallow does a lot more than Void Shatter. You are trying to have the argument both ways.
I don't think the argument is contradictory. You might have the following priorities: 1st, play the spell that targets the widest variety of threats, and (2nd, if there is a tie in the first criteria) play the spell that exiles. Then, you'd play scatter because it has more targets, but between two spells that have the same set of targets, you play the one that exiles.
Good suggestions everyone! Yeah, I agree that 3 colors w/ bicycle lands is not what we'd want to test right away (maybe it turns up being good, but that would reuqire a meta that does not punish you for having 8+ etb lands). So what about a UW list as follows:
Another wonky idea is to have -4 hulk and +2 As foretold +2 Approach of the second sun. The idea would be to cast as foretold so we can cast rise of the seocnd sun while having countermagic up. Might be a bit silly, but I'm a sucker for alternate win cons (and, in the process presenting a creatureless deck.)
Another option is to replace fumigate with dusk and have spell queller (notice that these two are best friends).
EDIT: I'm still torn between scatter and awry. Similarly, I'm torn between Fumigate and Descend upon the sinful, for very much the same reason.
EDIT 2: Here would be a much more sweeper heavy build:
I think failure is generally worse than remand. Does that make it bad? Not sure but probably yes.
consider evaluating the card like this: failure is a remand that "draws" you comply. Question: is comply better, worse, or the same as an average card from the top of your deck?
I'd say comply is slightly worse than an average card from a good deck. This is because the average card from your deck will either be a card that trades with an opponent's card, or a draw spell, both of which as better than a card disadvantage tempo play (which is what comply is). So in that sense failure is a remand that draws you a slightly worse card than the average card from your deck.
The only "advantage" is that failure gets around spells that can't be countered (at least for 2 turns), but I'm not sure that's enough to put it over the bar.
The problem is, Standard has been a slave to their marketing research driven Design/Development philosophy, and oddly enough, the masses do not know what makes for a good game..(hint, its not casting unanswerable bombs).
I slightly disagree. I don't think "people don't know what's good for them". I think what happened is wizards saw a fact (people like midrange) but ignored the causes of that fact (that people liked midrange because they were not playing 99% mirrors). In other words, market design asked the wrong question. The correct question is not "what's your favorite archetype" but, rather "what's your favorite archetype. Would you still like this archetype if you only played mirror matches". Had they asked THAT question, maybe they would have gotten a more informative answer...
I know it's a picky point, it's just that as a matter of principle I dislike the "people don't know what they like" philosophy... I think that when you observe people going "against their interest" what is really going on is that there is more to the story than meets the eye.
Observation: The meta has an important share of go-wide decks (UW monument, zombies, mono R, and recently the gifts deck). Most of these even employ tokens in their go-wide strategy.
Observation: there are a couple of potent bounce spells, some of which can even bounce non-creature permanents. We already saw engulf the shore, and part the waterveil in this kind of strategy, and we now have commit and one of my personal favorites consign. The oblivion part can be cast w/ Torrential Gearhulk in opponent's draw/upkeep phase to take full control of the game.
Conclusion: Might there be a draw-go strategy that rutinely bounces the board until a moment when we can just hard counter their threats, make them discard their last cards, and beat down with hulks once they are cardless? I think there might... Here is a crude (untested) deck, but feel free to modify accordingly.
Question: Why bounce is better than wrath effects like Hour of Devastation?
Answer: By bouncing you solve a couple of problems: 1) indistructible from selfless spirit 2) 4 mana sweeper is better than 5 mana vs aggro decks, and by not tapping out at 3 for sweltering suns you don't risk a chandra/gideon resolving with the shields down, 3) because engulf is an instant you ca flash it back with hulk (while buying back your hulk for extra uses in the meanwhile).
I'm not sure if the deck, or even the strategy, will be competitive, but it sounds like something to at least check out for FNM.
4 irrigated farmland
4 prairie stream
18 island
Draw/cycling Spells (16)
4 censor
4 Torrential Gearhulk
4 Glimmer of Genius
2 Hiegroglyphic Illumination
2 Pull from tomorrow
3 essence scatter
4 consign
4 supreme will
2 disallow
1 commit
4 engulf the shore
PS: the 8 white sources (all of hch are islands for Engulf) are there for useful sideboard cards. I think that something like cast out or forsake the wordly (or even fragmentize) could be useful in certain matchups.
I disagree. In this day and age where creatures have ETB effects that replace themselves (rogue refiner, virtuoso, tireless tracker -which 99% of the time is played with a and in hand- cat blinking a permanent like oath of nissa, or the trials, etc) it is imperative to not let the creatures etb. Otherwise, every time you remove a creature that gave them value you loose a little bit of value yourself (i.e. you are not really trading 1-1, sometimes even 2-for-1ing yourself). Eventually that lost value adds up and they out grind you.
I think, in as sense, this is the crux of why standard is so bad. Developers scratch their head and say "what do you want, the removal is great, it can deal with everything". Well, not really, because if you have to spend a card to kill a cantrip creature, you really just cast a 2-1 on yourself... thats why countersspells need to be seriously pumped up in power (at least, if R&D wants to continue their quest for slapping more and more etb effects on already efficient creatures)
Yeah, I don't have premium so I'm not sure what list you mean. With the spoiling of censor I thought about a countermagic-based mono U deck. But the problem is that there are no good answers to resolved permanents. There is no perilous vault or Nevinyrral's Disk to clean up resolved permanents. How does Chapin get around this?
Yes, but the difference is that the 3 mana sorcery speed plays a control deck would make (on turn 5 or 6, because you need to keep shields up) are impactful on their own. Example: turn 5, play haven, pass. Opponent plays land, does nothing worth countering/removing, you cycle (assuming you have a cycler, which was part of my argument), pay 1 mana and get a 2/2. So you effectively payed 4 to get a 2/2 flying token... that's not the greatest turn 5 play in this day and age. If I'm going to pay 3 mana for a permanent that does nothing on it's own, tower is probably the strongest play. Its a matter of testing, maybe in a couple of months I'll be proven very wrong, but I feel haven is more of a "combo/midrange" buildaround than a control buildaround.
Bottom line: I think the haven is a very powerful card, but I think it is a card that other archetypes are more interested in tha control (fwiw: Raph levy posted some drake decks in tcgplayer. HIs zombie/have decks that look great at extrating full value, and by comparison the control decks seem much weaker)
I agree that censor is undervalued. I'm skeptical of haven as a win con. Here is my reasoning:
The card on it's own does nothing. It needs other cards (and mana) to "do something". How many cards that on their own do nothing can a control deck run in this std? Also, it is bad in multiples* so this means that running 4 is a definite no-no for me (*if you could activate each haven only once per turn, then multiples are good; but as it is, a single one can be activated as much as you like, so the second is really dead). In order for haven to be the real deal, one of two things need to be true: (1) a few activations should be enough to generate a seizable advantage (so as to decrease the negative effect of it doing nothing on its own) you up, or (2) you should run a dedicated cycle cards so you can reliably turn on haven every other turn. There are good cycle cards out there (like censor) but I'm skeptical control can really run too many cycle cards (I posted some ideas revolving around 10 cycle cards, but that won't be enough to reliably trigger haven).
Regarding cataracts, I like the idea (someone posted an awaken driven deck a few posts up). But there are some powerful answers: Exile effects like cast out, declaration in stone, stasis snare and (though it sees very little play) crumble to dust. Also, edicts are a thing (to the slaughter being the strongest). None of these cards see too much play, so week 1-4 this could be a decent late game. But I'd doubt this could be a reliable end game if it becomes the wincon of choice.
There are two separate arguments intertwined here: 1) what is an unfair deck and 2) should unfair decks be banned? Below, I give an answer to 1. But I also maintain that not all unfair decks need to be banned. An unfair deck might still not have enough power to be oppressive (see the current iteration of storm: it is still an unfair deck, but it is not overpowered of opressive).
Definition: A deck is "unfair" if it can get a relevant resource without investing relevant resources (here, a "relevant resourse" is a resource that the deck cares about, given it's strategy.)
It does not imply that the player of the "unfair" deck is doing anything "evil" or "bad". It's just terminology (bad temrinology, because it is loaded with negative judgment, but it is what it is).
Typically, "unfairness" manifests in obtaining an effect without paying either mana or cards. Typically, the "effect" in question is netting mana without investing cards, and that is why it is easy to confuse ramp/combo with unfairness. Dark ritual is not unfair because even though it generates +2 net mana it costs you a card; dark ritual with a cantrip IS unfair, because you get +2 mana without costing you a card.
1) Dredge is "unfair" because it can get creatures into the battlefield without paying cards or mana,
2) Storm is unfair because the cost-reduced manamorphose generates +1 mana without costing you a card cantrip. Before this, probe contributed to the unfairness, because it gave you a +1 (a relevant resource) storm count without costing a relevant resource (sure, it costed 2 life, but storm is a combo deck that it generally could not care less about it's life total)
3) Tron, in all it's versions, is unfair because it gets +2 or +1 mana from it's lands without it costing them cards (playing lands is card advantage neutral). In this sense, both mono U and GW are unfair, the difference is one is quicker to get there than the other, but quickness has nothing to do with fairness. The existence of a land that can tap for more than one mana is the very definition of unfairness.
4) Affinity per se is not unfair. It does not play free effects. It plays very undercosted effects, and that makes it an efficient deck, but not "unfair" under the above definition of unfair.
Ali's deck seems to have a different plan. He tries to present reislient threats (i.e. threats that can't be removed profitably by point removal) and, use those threats to end the game quickly (i.e. before the opponent can start deploying sweepers into PW removal+card draw spells). That's why I find it more midrangey than controling.
I'd push more the control theme, using only a handful of good control cards that happen to have awaken: prolong the game, run them out of resources, and then win with one, perhaps two indestructible lands.
I don't think the argument is contradictory. You might have the following priorities: 1st, play the spell that targets the widest variety of threats, and (2nd, if there is a tie in the first criteria) play the spell that exiles. Then, you'd play scatter because it has more targets, but between two spells that have the same set of targets, you play the one that exiles.
3 essence scatter
2 negate
2 immolating glare
4 void shatter
4 Gideon of the Trials
1 Fumigate
4 Torrential Gearhulk
Card Draw (14)
4 censor
4 cast out
2 hieroglyphic illumination
2 Scour the laboratory
2 pull from tomorrow
Another wonky idea is to have -4 hulk and +2 As foretold +2 Approach of the second sun. The idea would be to cast as foretold so we can cast rise of the seocnd sun while having countermagic up. Might be a bit silly, but I'm a sucker for alternate win cons (and, in the process presenting a creatureless deck.)
Another option is to replace fumigate with dusk and have spell queller (notice that these two are best friends).
EDIT: I'm still torn between scatter and awry. Similarly, I'm torn between Fumigate and Descend upon the sinful, for very much the same reason.
EDIT 2: Here would be a much more sweeper heavy build:
3 essence scatter
2 negate
2 immolating glare
4 Spell Queller
4 Dusk
3 Fumigate
2 Descend upon the sinful
Card Draw (14)
4 censor
4 cast out
2 hieroglyphic illumination
2 Scour the laboratory
2 pull from tomorrow
consider evaluating the card like this: failure is a remand that "draws" you comply. Question: is comply better, worse, or the same as an average card from the top of your deck?
I'd say comply is slightly worse than an average card from a good deck. This is because the average card from your deck will either be a card that trades with an opponent's card, or a draw spell, both of which as better than a card disadvantage tempo play (which is what comply is). So in that sense failure is a remand that draws you a slightly worse card than the average card from your deck.
The only "advantage" is that failure gets around spells that can't be countered (at least for 2 turns), but I'm not sure that's enough to put it over the bar.
You sound like a certain US politician Sorry, couldn't help it, it was too easy
I slightly disagree. I don't think "people don't know what's good for them". I think what happened is wizards saw a fact (people like midrange) but ignored the causes of that fact (that people liked midrange because they were not playing 99% mirrors). In other words, market design asked the wrong question. The correct question is not "what's your favorite archetype" but, rather "what's your favorite archetype. Would you still like this archetype if you only played mirror matches". Had they asked THAT question, maybe they would have gotten a more informative answer...
I know it's a picky point, it's just that as a matter of principle I dislike the "people don't know what they like" philosophy... I think that when you observe people going "against their interest" what is really going on is that there is more to the story than meets the eye.