Sure, "control" is doing fine when you include such stalwart gems, as BGx and URx Twin. LMAO. Do you guys even listen to yourselves here? Calling a mid-range deck a control deck and calling a tempo/combo deck a control deck is laughable beyond belief.
Well, the point was that they're not really "control" (which is by usually reactive), but they play controlling elements in proactive decks, and that the format's card availability seems to reward proactive design to playing reactive control, which is why such decks are placing better than "control".
If you actually read the post, you'd have seen that
Tron is a better example of control that is doing well, and mainly by being proactive (developing a powerful mana engine).
Also, please, just stop calling Counterspell OP. It burns the senses to hear such tripe. (Meanwhile 1 mana 4/5's with CA upside, and 1 mana 5/5's run rampant lmao)
"OP" has different interpretations. It's above the curve of what Wizards seems to want to print (Cancel.puke), but that doesn't mean that it would break Modern. The point is that when you are forced to run worse versions of Counterspell, your draws become more conditional, and therefore dependant on good draw control (which this format lacks).
How does any of that lead to discussion on how to fix control?
Better draw control would be nice, but that's probably not going to happen because those cards favor tempo and combo even more.
Better efficient control answers would be great, but they have to design ones that fit Modern but don't break Standard. What would such a card look like?
Delve was a great way to add cards with high power level in older formats without having as big an impact on Standard, since Standard doesn't fill its yard as efficiently. But it seems to favor being proactive, since you can just disrupt and deploy efficient threats. Dig Through Time is control friendly though, but apparently too strong. I guess that would be the sort of way to print tools for Modern?
Perhaps this better explains what I'm talking about. The labels of "midrange" and "control" loosely apply to a wide range of decks with different strategies. The article's Circle of Predation is perhaps a better model to explain deck roles.
My point is that "the counterspell" as an archetype is underpowered in Modern, probably because the power level of answers printed in newer sets relative to the level of threats. This is probably because Standard and Limited players used to complain about answers being too strong and ruining their Timmy day, so threats got better and answers got worse. Anyway, that seems to be where cards are at now.
Players wanting to implement controlling elements tend to choose to play "incremental card advantage" (which "midrange" decks are doing better) or "the big spell" (Tron, Twin, Scapeshift) or even "the one drop" (tempo).
To play true "control", as long as answers don't get stronger, "incremental card advantage" or "the big spell" look more profitable than "the counterspell". Could Esper be redesigned to be a more proactive deck?
As the Esper player being discussed here, I would just like to point out that the record from 16th to 51st at Charlotte were all the same at 12-3, which is a shame because it's really equivalent to a top 32 finish lol! But I digress.. I really think control is underrated. I'd say that a deck like the esper draw-go preys on BGx, Twin, and the "wide' creature decks, like Elves and Affinity. The worst match ups would be burn and tron, and that Ad Nauseum doesn't look too pleasant either. At the GP, I fought exactly one Twin deck and one BGx in those 15 rounds, while I fought Burn 4 times in total. My 3 losses were to Burn, Tron, and Infect, which is a coinflip. I realize one tournament doesn't account for much if anything, but I'd argue for the viability of a deck when you can go on a run of 12-3 and not even come across your "good" match-ups for the majority of it.
No offense intended friend. I have a lot of respect for you and other players who still try to make control work. However, even if you had made it into the top 32, it would still be only a couple of control decks, nothing compared to the other archetypes. There was also a single Ad Nauseam deck in the top four, that doesn't mean that it's a top tier deck that is likely to put up consistent results.
No, I said that none of the decks I played were represented (UW tron, Mono-U tron, Scapeshift, UWR control, Eternal command, and Esper control), and I meant with a good result. He pointed to a single Esper deck outside the top 32, which is irrelevant when discussing the viability of these decks.
Because obviously the arbitrary placement of the top 64 decks (which is largely outside of the players' control once they get to the win rate that they did) matters. It placed highly and was therefore represented. Your argument was false.
Next you're going to post a list of some poor soul playing Scapeshift who came in the top 500 to prove that it's still a good deck. Sigh.
topkek. Do you remember what they say about assuming? Because I do, and it's smelling pretty bad in here.
Why do you even bother posting in this thread? You have contributed nothing besides nitpicking generalized statements with extreme examples. A single example from the six decks I listed placed in the top 50, that does not mean it was well represented (compare it to the number of Twin/CoCo decks), or that control is in a good place in the metagame.
I think modern blu-based control decks (BLUE, to don't uspet pro-active/re-active players who want to be considerated control players) will be fixed with good draw engine.
Counterspell will be extraordinary but is a unprobable reprint. Dig resurrected UWR at that time and i belive that a more fair (was too strong, i'm sure about that) will give us new life. Something strong enough to compete with T1 - IoK or TS. CMC 2 instant speed draw 2 cards? I'm exagerating?
About counters...there are decent cards like Logic Knot or Deprive. Ofc i'll love counterspell but i dont' feel the late-game counter lack, i feel the need of findig answers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Decks on Paper: UWR Control/Midrange/Delver UWR Twin Miss you GBWJunk (still semi-budget; 3 tarmo only) GWAura Hexproof GWHatebears
For the record, I have played: UW tron, Mono-U tron, Scapeshift, UWR control, Eternal command, and Esper control. All of them are struggling, ~5% shared meta between them all, and none represented in GP Charlotte. It's not just draw-go control that is nonviable in modern, pretty much any control deck along the "spectrum" is irrelevant unless they are almost pure mid-range/combo. I would love to play any of those decks, but they are all weak. When the closest thing you have to a good control deck is twin, something is wrong.
There's a difference between a general strategy being bad and a deck being bad. The strategies behind the decks you listed are solid (except for what I'm assuming is the Wafo-Tapa Esper deck, which is draw-go), but the way those decks approach them is not.
UWR and Eternal command are aggro-control or midrange decks, but neither of them get to play Thoughtseize, Tasigur, the Golden Fang, or Inquisition of Kozilek (edit: and/or, judging by that Grixis control deck in the post above, Kolaghan's Command), which are way better than anything those decks are doing. This makes Grixis a more attractive option for this strategy. Those two decks also suffer from playing a larger percentage (compared to Grixis) of bad four+ drops - Eternal command is built on one. Lastly, UWR doesn't typically play enough red to play Blood Moon, a staple Grixis card (edit: though apparently not if you ask Patrick Chapin!) that single-handedly locks many decks out just as well as, if not better than, the Cryptic lock in Eternal command. If you want to play a deck like this, just play Grixis.
UW Tron and Blue Tron are both tap-out control decks that aren't tapping out for anything good. The only deck that's doing tap-out control well at the moment is GR Tron, so you could consider playing that. You lose Condescend and Thirst for Knowledge/Gifts Ungiven but you gain a whole bunch of tutors, your sweepers (mainly Pyroclasm) are better, artifact hate is less good against you, and you have the out of turn three Karn Liberated to try to win even bad matchups. It's not the controlling aspect that's keeping the blue tron decks down - none of these decks are playing not to lose - it's that they're durdling around with inferior threats that necessitate playing more weak disruption when you could just be playing a bunch of expensive colorless planeswalkers that disrupt your opponent while threatening to end the game. They're like Elesh Norn and Iona, except way faster and more effective.
Lastly, Scapeshift is, like Twin, a controlling deck that wins with a combo most of the time. Twin's combo just happens to be way better.
Has Eternal Ruse ever been a thing? Everyone always talks about Eternal Command, but I've never seen anyone talk about the version that uses a cheaper spell, Familiar's Ruse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
Perhaps this better explains what I'm talking about. The labels of "midrange" and "control" loosely apply to a wide range of decks with different strategies. The article's Circle of Predation is perhaps a better model to explain deck roles.
My point is that "the counterspell" as an archetype is underpowered in Modern, probably because the power level of answers printed in newer sets relative to the level of threats. This is probably because Standard and Limited players used to complain about answers being too strong and ruining their Timmy day, so threats got better and answers got worse. Anyway, that seems to be where cards are at now.
Players wanting to implement controlling elements tend to choose to play "incremental card advantage" (which "midrange" decks are doing better) or "the big spell" (Tron, Twin, Scapeshift) or even "the one drop" (tempo).
To play true "control", as long as answers don't get stronger, "incremental card advantage" or "the big spell" look more profitable than "the counterspell". Could Esper be redesigned to be a more proactive deck?
That was an excellent article/series and does a better job at expressing what myself and maybe a few others here were trying to say. Control in modern while hybridized like every archtype nowdays is not quite the typical so called 'counterspell' strategy expressed in the circle. This is due, in part, to lack of the necessary components such as counterspell and better card filtering (not for lack of finishers like those that are being suggested here) but also in part due to the creature centric nature of the format which generally promotes the 'two for one/incremental' strategy as the next best thing in the absence of those components.
So instead many control players gravitate towards this next closest viable thing to true control being 'aggro control' i.e. tempo which to me is still missing the virtual card advantage element I'm used to due to no wasteland equivalent to police modern manabases. In return this does allow for bigger spell inclusions that would otherwise not be viable in a tempo shell were wasteland/daze etc to be present. Otoh this is also less incentive to run the solid manabase that control usually enjoys since outside of blood moon there isn't much to punish greedy manabases. End result its a whole different world.
I'm not sure if Eternal Ruse has ever been a thing. Eternal Command mostly hasn't, so I'm not all that hopeful about a less powerful but more efficient variant. The main issue with that strategy is that the lock is very weak in the context of what the other decks in the format are capable of.
As the Esper player being discussed here, I would just like to point out that the record from 16th to 51st at Charlotte were all the same at 12-3, which is a shame because it's really equivalent to a top 32 finish lol! But I digress.. I really think control is underrated. I'd say that a deck like the esper draw-go preys on BGx, Twin, and the "wide' creature decks, like Elves and Affinity. The worst match ups would be burn and tron, and that Ad Nauseum doesn't look too pleasant either. At the GP, I fought exactly one Twin deck and one BGx in those 15 rounds, while I fought Burn 4 times in total. My 3 losses were to Burn, Tron, and Infect, which is a coinflip. I realize one tournament doesn't account for much if anything, but I'd argue for the viability of a deck when you can go on a run of 12-3 and not even come across your "good" match-ups for the majority of it.
You had an 80% overall match win percentage and went 3-1 against one of your worst matchups. This is a great individual performance, but it doesn't say much about how well we can expect the deck to perform in an arbitrary tournament. A much more useful metric would be the percentage of Esper players that day 2'd, which I don't think is available for GP Charlotte, but that would also probably suffer from a very small sample size.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am so stupid that I cannot understand philosophy; the antithesis of this is that philosophy is so clever that it cannot comprehend my stupidity. These antitheses are mediated in a higher unity; in our common stupidity."
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
A much more useful metric would be the percentage of Esper players that day 2'd, which I don't think is available for GP Charlotte, but that would also probably suffer from a very small sample size.
Well I recall someone saying there were only 4 players on Esper Control, and we know at least 2 made Day 2 (Sullivan and Piotrowiak) so it's at least 50% of the players on Esper, although not even a fraction of a percent of the total meta.
"He plays in a walk in humidor so keep his foils from bending. He once kept an all land hand just to know what it felt like to be mana flooded. He uses power nine for ante. He is the most interesting magic playing in the world." Old man, "I don't always tap basic lands for mana, but when i do, I tap Gurus."
Perhaps this better explains what I'm talking about. The labels of "midrange" and "control" loosely apply to a wide range of decks with different strategies. The article's Circle of Predation is perhaps a better model to explain deck roles.
My point is that "the counterspell" as an archetype is underpowered in Modern, probably because the power level of answers printed in newer sets relative to the level of threats. This is probably because Standard and Limited players used to complain about answers being too strong and ruining their Timmy day, so threats got better and answers got worse. Anyway, that seems to be where cards are at now.
Players wanting to implement controlling elements tend to choose to play "incremental card advantage" (which "midrange" decks are doing better) or "the big spell" (Tron, Twin, Scapeshift) or even "the one drop" (tempo).
To play true "control", as long as answers don't get stronger, "incremental card advantage" or "the big spell" look more profitable than "the counterspell". Could Esper be redesigned to be a more proactive deck?
That was an excellent article/series and does a better job at expressing what myself and maybe a few others here were trying to say. Control in modern while hybridized like every archtype nowdays is not quite the typical so called 'counterspell' strategy expressed in the circle. This is due, in part, to lack of the necessary components such as counterspell and better card filtering (not for lack of finishers like those that are being suggested here) but also in part due to the creature centric nature of the format which generally promotes the 'two for one/incremental' strategy as the next best thing in the absence of those components.
So instead many control players gravitate towards this next closest viable thing to true control being 'aggro control' i.e. tempo which to me is still missing the virtual card advantage element I'm used to due to no wasteland equivalent to police modern manabases. In return this does allow for bigger spell inclusions that would otherwise not be viable in a tempo shell were wasteland/daze etc to be present. Otoh this is also less incentive to run the solid manabase that control usually enjoys since outside of blood moon there isn't much to punish greedy manabases. End result its a whole different world.
You know, reading these threads I truely have no idea what Control players want.
I've heard that:
A) There's no reason to go long in this format, since you can just instantly win the game T4 with multiple decks.
B)There are very few good finishers for Control.
C) Need Counterspell.
and typically the people who say any of those points counteract the other two.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
More reliable versatile answers at 2 and 3 cmc in colors besides BG: perhaps not quite the same level, but still doing something (preferably lasting) against creatures, enchantments, and artifacts, that is worth the mana cost. New modal spells may be the key here, due to changes in how spells are designed and formatted as of late. Abrupt Decay and Maestrom Pulse are amazing cards, but right now it's hard to build a proper control deck around BG, mostly because the only good card advantage for control right now requires you to go Esper, and it's better to go midrange due to the creatures in the format in those colors, and the nature of Abrupt Decay's restrictions.
Cards that would help fix this problem would include Counterspell and a new non-land variant on Vindicate.
Powerful answers at 1 cmc in more colors: So stuff besides just Path to Exile and Mana Tithe (both of those being in the same color and Path making Mana Tithe worse is an issue)
Modern control relevant card advantage better than Think Twice:Esper Charm is god tier, but only in Esper colors, support for control in other colors is needed, also 4 cmc draw 3 instant speed stuff would help too, other color combinations may need relevant drawbacks, especially if they aren't as hard to cast as Esper Charm or are in less appropraite to card advantage color combinations, but instant speed is essential, and 2 cards at 3 cmc, and 3 cards at 4 cmc is needed.
Other sorts of options exist as well, such as perhaps a fixed Accumulated Knowledge that doesn't check global, the trick is making sure whatever it is doesn't break twin or scapeshift or whatnot, most likely, color restrictive mana costs wold help there, since those decks tend to have less forgiving mana bases than pure control decks like to use, although I also wouldn't mind some combo decks getting banned for newfound consistency in favor of card advantage for control
More options at different color combinations and cmcs that are relevant to control for card selection:Opt would be awesome, we already just got Anticipate
I'm sure they could come up with some stuff for 4 cmc as well, just make sure it's instant speed
Finishers that are competitive against midrange and tempo options: Right now control's finishers at modern relevant cmcs are terrible compared to the tempo and midrange options out there, like Goyf, Delver, Tasigur, and such. There needs to be good reasons to actually pay those higher cmcs, and/or some of the over-the-top midrange and tempo options need to be banned, control needs to effectively reward you for going the long game and fairly playing your mana costs
More reliable versatile answers at 2 and 3 cmc in colors besides BG:
Cards that would help fix this problem would include Counterspell and a new non-land variant on Vindicate.
I don't feel Counterspell is really required in Modern; at least with Vindicate you get ETB abilities and have a chance to go off at instant speed. The fact it requires two colors is another point in Vindicates favor.
Powerful answers at 1 cmc in more colors: So stuff besides just Path to Exile and Mana Tithe (both of those being in the same color and Path making Mana Tithe worse is an issue)
Don't really know if we would need eight copies of Force Spike, honestly. Agree with Innocent Blood.
Modern control relevant card advantage better than Think Twice:Esper Charm is god tier, but only in Esper colors, support for control in other colors is needed, also 4 cmc draw 3 instant speed stuff would help too, other color combinations may need relevant drawbacks, especially if they aren't as hard to cast as Esper Charm or are in less appropraite to card advantage color combinations, but instant speed is essential, and 2 cards at 3 cmc, and 3 cards at 4 cmc is needed.
Other sorts of options exist as well, such as perhaps a fixed Accumulated Knowledge that doesn't check global, the trick is making sure whatever it is doesn't break twin or scapeshift or whatnot, most likely, color restrictive mana costs wold help there, since those decks tend to have less forgiving mana bases than pure control decks like to use, although I also wouldn't mind some combo decks getting banned for newfound consistency in favor of card advantage for control
This I agree with, 100%. I've never felt that Control has a hard time with it's counters (We have some great counters in the format), but keeping the accessibility to cards flowing is what I've always felt it needed. Honestly, I've felt like Arcane Denial would be fine; Yes it's an easy to splash Hard Counter, but if your desperate enough to use it as such it has a heavy drawback. However, if you use it in conjunction with another card (Say Lightning Bolt) it draws you four cards at quasi-instant speed ( for 1RU).
And it might make Owling Mine a thing again.
Finishers that are competitive against midrange and tempo options: Right now control's finishers at modern relevant cmcs are terrible compared to the tempo and midrange options out there, like Goyf, Delver, Tasigur, and such. There needs to be good reasons to actually pay those higher cmcs, and/or some of the over-the-top midrange and tempo options need to be banned, control needs to effectively reward you for going the long game and fairly playing your mana costs
As I've said, this one is all on the players not testing things out. White Sun's Zenith probably was never seen as a finisher until it was used as one. BBoV is probably a nice finisher (in the process of testing it out).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
Why do you even bother posting in this thread? You have contributed nothing besides nitpicking generalized statements with extreme examples. A single example from the six decks I listed placed in the top 50, that does not mean it was well represented (compare it to the number of Twin/CoCo decks), or that control is in a good place in the metagame.
Because I enjoy nit picking people who say ridiculous things. You wouldn't deny me my entertainment, would you?
More reliable versatile answers at 2 and 3 cmc in colors besides BG:
Cards that would help fix this problem would include Counterspell and a new non-land variant on Vindicate.
I don't feel Counterspell is really required in Modern; at least with Vindicate you get ETB abilities and have a chance to go off at instant speed. The fact it requires two colors is another point in Vindicates favor.
Powerful answers at 1 cmc in more colors: So stuff besides just Path to Exile and Mana Tithe (both of those being in the same color and Path making Mana Tithe worse is an issue)
Don't really know if we would need eight copies of Force Spike, honestly. Agree with Innocent Blood.
Modern control relevant card advantage better than Think Twice:Esper Charm is god tier, but only in Esper colors, support for control in other colors is needed, also 4 cmc draw 3 instant speed stuff would help too, other color combinations may need relevant drawbacks, especially if they aren't as hard to cast as Esper Charm or are in less appropraite to card advantage color combinations, but instant speed is essential, and 2 cards at 3 cmc, and 3 cards at 4 cmc is needed.
Other sorts of options exist as well, such as perhaps a fixed Accumulated Knowledge that doesn't check global, the trick is making sure whatever it is doesn't break twin or scapeshift or whatnot, most likely, color restrictive mana costs wold help there, since those decks tend to have less forgiving mana bases than pure control decks like to use, although I also wouldn't mind some combo decks getting banned for newfound consistency in favor of card advantage for control
This I agree with, 100%. I've never felt that Control has a hard time with it's counters (We have some great counters in the format), but keeping the accessibility to cards flowing is what I've always felt it needed. Honestly, I've felt like Arcane Denial would be fine; Yes it's an easy to splash Hard Counter, but if your desperate enough to use it as such it has a heavy drawback. However, if you use it in conjunction with another card (Say Lightning Bolt) it draws you four cards at quasi-instant speed ( for 1RU).
And it might make Owling Mine a thing again.
Finishers that are competitive against midrange and tempo options: Right now control's finishers at modern relevant cmcs are terrible compared to the tempo and midrange options out there, like Goyf, Delver, Tasigur, and such. There needs to be good reasons to actually pay those higher cmcs, and/or some of the over-the-top midrange and tempo options need to be banned, control needs to effectively reward you for going the long game and fairly playing your mana costs
As I've said, this one is all on the players not testing things out. White Sun's Zenith probably was never seen as a finisher until it was used as one. BBoV is probably a nice finisher (in the process of testing it out).
The reason I want force spike is non-white control decks, and also because Cryptic Command means you tend to favor making sure more of your mana can make U in a 3 color deck, while white already has Path to Exile _and_ Mana Tithe
White Sun's Zenith used to be decent, but magic has sped up quite a bit and gotten a much more often used 3 cmc sweeper since it's heyday in Anger of the Gods, making it troublesome in the current metagame. I'll admit experimentation might find the right finisher, but I think more options would still be nice, the real problem is not really having ones that actually compare well against Goyf and Tasigur.
In the current metagame, something resilient against both discard and sacrifice effects would be nice, due to BGx midrange decks all over the place. Perhaps something castable form the graveyard for a higher mana cost might be worth testing?
Welcome to Type 2 circa Tempest/Urza blocks where every game was a scramble for survival. Of course, in that environment it was because every color could mono-OP a deck into something from a nightmare. My first suggestion is go into MTGO or OCTGN and create Randy Buehler's 1998 deck list card for card and play the hell out of it. You're going to learn how draw-go is supposed to be played and you'll learn what concepts you're comfortable with or not. In general here's what you need:
No more than eight creatures with secondary effects that compliment your overall objective. Snapcaster Mage is an obvious choice, Plumeveil is an excellent blocker that will keep the smaller guys from clocking you and will chump block the big boys. Were it Modern Legal, I'd suggest Thalakos Deceiver for some body snatcher action. Inkfathom Infiltrator is a Shadow creature in all but name and will put an opponent on the clock quick.
You need at least two card draw engines. Brainstorm is an obvious choice. The old trick of playing Arcane Denial on a free artifact is unfortunately not available to you. Visions of Beyond does essentially the same thing, for cheaper, but with conditions.
A crap ton of counters and some direct removal. Rune Snag and Circular Logic are hilarious and definitely better in the late game than Mana Leak. Counterbore is counter with attitude, if you can make it work cheaply. Etc, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ah yes, I was wondering what would break first. Your spirit... Or your body.
That doesn't mean that control is dead. And some reactive control decks are still doing well. But perhaps proactive control (like Tron or BGx decks) or control with a combo finish (like Scapeshift, UR Twin) is simply favored over keeping Islands untapped and trying to grind out games.
I'm trying a UWR brew this week, but in general control can't exist in Modern as a stock 70ish cards from week to week, it's a deck that involves metagaming heavily. This week my sideboard is doing a lot of neat things. I'm bringing Annul because it answers Spellskite, Keranos, Twin, Eidolon, and others. Slagstorm as a sweeper that goes to their face so it's not dead when I need to kill them, RIP for all the Delve, Snap's, etc, and some other stuff.
In general I think control is fine as an FNM deck where you have a small field but I wouldn't take it to anything larger than 5 rounds. Control needs to be focused in Modern, you can't answer everything but your clock is typically slow enough that you need to answer most things.
The "control" deck I've seen work best in the format is UWR Midrange, like the Geist decks backed with lots of burn. It's basically answer.dec but very proactive.
twin is the best control deck in the format.
If you want to play a control deck that just answers stuff for the first dozen turns, then plays a haymaker threat and wins then yes, modern doesn't have it. Those are typical standard control decks.
The format is about being proactive and about actively trying to win the game. The only decks that aren't mixing threats and answers are all in combo decks.
Look at every successful deck in the format. They all have a clear game plan and it isn't just "stop the other player from doing stuff" its "how do I win this game."
The reason control decks suck is because you can't answer every single thing thrown at you.
I'm assuming that when you're saying "no control deck in the format" you mean no deck that plays a whole bunch of counterspells and a bunch of hand filtering, then plays something big on turn 6 to win the game on the spot. No there isn't a deck like that.
The gist of that article is pretty much saying that control is not an optimal option at the highest level of competitive play because
With so many different combo decks in Modern that require different hate cards, a reactive deck like UW control just doesn't have enough sideboard slots to hate all of them effectively.
It all boils down to what you want to achieve with your control deck.
If you want to bring it to small to mid level local events where the metagame doesn't change much, traditional reactive control can be viable since you sort of have an idea of what you're going to face and can build your sideboard accordingly.
If you want to bring a durdly reactive control deck into a large unknown field like a GP where you have no idea what you're going to face, yeah probably a bad idea.
All things considered, control decks placing outside the top 8/16 or even 100 of a GP doesn't mean they're not viable.
UWR in 33rd, Esper in 45th and 4c control in 62nd.
Considering how low control was represented, I'd say those are highly respectable finishes.
In a field of 2780 players, is it really correct to say control is bad when there are at least 3 in the top 100 ? That's like the top 4% of the competitors.
At this point one might even wonder what the problem with control really is. The decks or the players ?
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
In a field of 2780 players, is it really correct to say control is bad when there are at least 3 in the top 100 ? That's like the top 4% of the competitors.
Yes, because control represented only 3% of the top 100 meta. Twin has more representation - when a single deck has more representation than an entire archetype, it is accurate to say that something is wrong.
If we compare control to combo over all, including Twin, CoCo and Amulet, it's a joke. Like....10 times the representation? LOL
I actually have no clue what tools will help modern control.
Legacy is the other non-rotating format and UW miracles is the only true control deck there. It relies on terminus and counterbalance to answer multiple threats with one card and create CA this way. The real engine is library manipulation, which will turbo-charge combo, which will necessitate force-of-will, which will turn modern into a blue format, and that's a BIG no-no.
I feel Myth Realised and Dragonlord Ojutai were genuine attempts. But... we already got instant-win threats, it's called splinter-twin, and that's really an aggro-control deck at heart despite it's win condition. Aggro-control means you can play either role, tempo and combo you can't.
Interestingly, modern's got it's first prison deck, the lantern deck, and there are some RW pillow-forts running around. Legacy's got Loam, D&T, you name it.
Maybe... non-rotating formats are more suited to prison than control? I'm pretty sure most control players wouldn't mind playing prison.
Reading some of the arguments in here have made me laugh. No win-cons? No combos? Even if we're talking about straight Draw-Go from when I started playing (Tempest/Urza Type 2), that's never been true. Find some variation of CMU Blue, study it to the point where you intimately know what makes it tick, and then start modifying it to use legal cards and tinker until it fits your play style. Blue players need to start brewing their own as a matter of course again and going back to basics probably isn't a bad place to start.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ah yes, I was wondering what would break first. Your spirit... Or your body.
The gist of that article is pretty much saying that control is not an optimal option at the highest level of competitive play because
With so many different combo decks in Modern that require different hate cards, a reactive deck like UW control just doesn't have enough sideboard slots to hate all of them effectively.
It all boils down to what you want to achieve with your control deck.
If you want to bring it to small to mid level local events where the metagame doesn't change much, traditional reactive control can be viable since you sort of have an idea of what you're going to face and can build your sideboard accordingly.
If you want to bring a durdly reactive control deck into a large unknown field like a GP where you have no idea what you're going to face, yeah probably a bad idea.
All things considered, control decks placing outside the top 8/16 or even 100 of a GP doesn't mean they're not viable.
UWR in 33rd, Esper in 45th and 4c control in 62nd.
Considering how low control was represented, I'd say those are highly respectable finishes.
In a field of 2780 players, is it really correct to say control is bad when there are at least 3 in the top 100 ? That's like the top 4% of the competitors.
At this point one might even wonder what the problem with control really is. The decks or the players ?
An entire archetype should be a lot more than 3-4% of the top 100.
I love that we can have this as a topic almost every 3 months. Even though I haven't posted here it's the same arguments and the same stuff over and over again. Good for mtg salvation!
When it comes to control, I consider any strategy that's reactive is control. I understand there's lots of people consider stuff like bgx and twin to be control, but they aren't to me and many others who really enjoy control.
You can't be reactive in modern. It's impossible thanks to wizards current design and development strategy.
I do think it's a shame that you can't be competitive that way, but I think people who are mad at people for complaining about not really being able to play they want to play are being childish. It's a valid criticism of modern that you can't really play control and it's ignorant to say otherwise
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage WWhite Trash
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, the point was that they're not really "control" (which is by usually reactive), but they play controlling elements in proactive decks, and that the format's card availability seems to reward proactive design to playing reactive control, which is why such decks are placing better than "control".
If you actually read the post, you'd have seen that
Tron is a better example of control that is doing well, and mainly by being proactive (developing a powerful mana engine).
"OP" has different interpretations. It's above the curve of what Wizards seems to want to print (Cancel.puke), but that doesn't mean that it would break Modern. The point is that when you are forced to run worse versions of Counterspell, your draws become more conditional, and therefore dependant on good draw control (which this format lacks).
How does any of that lead to discussion on how to fix control?
Better draw control would be nice, but that's probably not going to happen because those cards favor tempo and combo even more.
Better efficient control answers would be great, but they have to design ones that fit Modern but don't break Standard. What would such a card look like?
Delve was a great way to add cards with high power level in older formats without having as big an impact on Standard, since Standard doesn't fill its yard as efficiently. But it seems to favor being proactive, since you can just disrupt and deploy efficient threats. Dig Through Time is control friendly though, but apparently too strong. I guess that would be the sort of way to print tools for Modern?
Perhaps this better explains what I'm talking about. The labels of "midrange" and "control" loosely apply to a wide range of decks with different strategies. The article's Circle of Predation is perhaps a better model to explain deck roles.
My point is that "the counterspell" as an archetype is underpowered in Modern, probably because the power level of answers printed in newer sets relative to the level of threats. This is probably because Standard and Limited players used to complain about answers being too strong and ruining their Timmy day, so threats got better and answers got worse. Anyway, that seems to be where cards are at now.
Players wanting to implement controlling elements tend to choose to play "incremental card advantage" (which "midrange" decks are doing better) or "the big spell" (Tron, Twin, Scapeshift) or even "the one drop" (tempo).
To play true "control", as long as answers don't get stronger, "incremental card advantage" or "the big spell" look more profitable than "the counterspell". Could Esper be redesigned to be a more proactive deck?
No offense intended friend. I have a lot of respect for you and other players who still try to make control work. However, even if you had made it into the top 32, it would still be only a couple of control decks, nothing compared to the other archetypes. There was also a single Ad Nauseam deck in the top four, that doesn't mean that it's a top tier deck that is likely to put up consistent results.
Why do you even bother posting in this thread? You have contributed nothing besides nitpicking generalized statements with extreme examples. A single example from the six decks I listed placed in the top 50, that does not mean it was well represented (compare it to the number of Twin/CoCo decks), or that control is in a good place in the metagame.
Counterspell will be extraordinary but is a unprobable reprint. Dig resurrected UWR at that time and i belive that a more fair (was too strong, i'm sure about that) will give us new life. Something strong enough to compete with T1 - IoK or TS. CMC 2 instant speed draw 2 cards? I'm exagerating?
About counters...there are decent cards like Logic Knot or Deprive. Ofc i'll love counterspell but i dont' feel the late-game counter lack, i feel the need of findig answers.
UWR Control/Midrange/Delver
UWR TwinMiss youGBWJunk (still semi-budget; 3 tarmo only)
GWAura Hexproof
GWHatebears
Has Eternal Ruse ever been a thing? Everyone always talks about Eternal Command, but I've never seen anyone talk about the version that uses a cheaper spell, Familiar's Ruse.
That was an excellent article/series and does a better job at expressing what myself and maybe a few others here were trying to say. Control in modern while hybridized like every archtype nowdays is not quite the typical so called 'counterspell' strategy expressed in the circle. This is due, in part, to lack of the necessary components such as counterspell and better card filtering (not for lack of finishers like those that are being suggested here) but also in part due to the creature centric nature of the format which generally promotes the 'two for one/incremental' strategy as the next best thing in the absence of those components.
So instead many control players gravitate towards this next closest viable thing to true control being 'aggro control' i.e. tempo which to me is still missing the virtual card advantage element I'm used to due to no wasteland equivalent to police modern manabases. In return this does allow for bigger spell inclusions that would otherwise not be viable in a tempo shell were wasteland/daze etc to be present. Otoh this is also less incentive to run the solid manabase that control usually enjoys since outside of blood moon there isn't much to punish greedy manabases. End result its a whole different world.
You had an 80% overall match win percentage and went 3-1 against one of your worst matchups. This is a great individual performance, but it doesn't say much about how well we can expect the deck to perform in an arbitrary tournament. A much more useful metric would be the percentage of Esper players that day 2'd, which I don't think is available for GP Charlotte, but that would also probably suffer from a very small sample size.
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
Well I recall someone saying there were only 4 players on Esper Control, and we know at least 2 made Day 2 (Sullivan and Piotrowiak) so it's at least 50% of the players on Esper, although not even a fraction of a percent of the total meta.
I don't think Sullivan day 2'd, did he?
Modern - Esper Draw-Go (Best finish - 12-3, 45th at GP Charlotte 2015), Jeskai Control, UR Breach Moon
You know, reading these threads I truely have no idea what Control players want.
I've heard that:
A) There's no reason to go long in this format, since you can just instantly win the game T4 with multiple decks.
B)There are very few good finishers for Control.
C) Need Counterspell.
and typically the people who say any of those points counteract the other two.
More reliable versatile answers at 2 and 3 cmc in colors besides BG: perhaps not quite the same level, but still doing something (preferably lasting) against creatures, enchantments, and artifacts, that is worth the mana cost. New modal spells may be the key here, due to changes in how spells are designed and formatted as of late. Abrupt Decay and Maestrom Pulse are amazing cards, but right now it's hard to build a proper control deck around BG, mostly because the only good card advantage for control right now requires you to go Esper, and it's better to go midrange due to the creatures in the format in those colors, and the nature of Abrupt Decay's restrictions.
Cards that would help fix this problem would include Counterspell and a new non-land variant on Vindicate.
Powerful answers at 1 cmc in more colors: So stuff besides just Path to Exile and Mana Tithe (both of those being in the same color and Path making Mana Tithe worse is an issue)
Cards that would help fix this issue would be stuff like Innocent Blood and Force Spike would help.
Modern control relevant card advantage better than Think Twice: Esper Charm is god tier, but only in Esper colors, support for control in other colors is needed, also 4 cmc draw 3 instant speed stuff would help too, other color combinations may need relevant drawbacks, especially if they aren't as hard to cast as Esper Charm or are in less appropraite to card advantage color combinations, but instant speed is essential, and 2 cards at 3 cmc, and 3 cards at 4 cmc is needed.
Other sorts of options exist as well, such as perhaps a fixed Accumulated Knowledge that doesn't check global, the trick is making sure whatever it is doesn't break twin or scapeshift or whatnot, most likely, color restrictive mana costs wold help there, since those decks tend to have less forgiving mana bases than pure control decks like to use, although I also wouldn't mind some combo decks getting banned for newfound consistency in favor of card advantage for control
More options at different color combinations and cmcs that are relevant to control for card selection: Opt would be awesome, we already just got Anticipate
I'm sure they could come up with some stuff for 4 cmc as well, just make sure it's instant speed
Finishers that are competitive against midrange and tempo options: Right now control's finishers at modern relevant cmcs are terrible compared to the tempo and midrange options out there, like Goyf, Delver, Tasigur, and such. There needs to be good reasons to actually pay those higher cmcs, and/or some of the over-the-top midrange and tempo options need to be banned, control needs to effectively reward you for going the long game and fairly playing your mana costs
I don't feel Counterspell is really required in Modern; at least with Vindicate you get ETB abilities and have a chance to go off at instant speed. The fact it requires two colors is another point in Vindicates favor.
Don't really know if we would need eight copies of Force Spike, honestly. Agree with Innocent Blood.
This I agree with, 100%. I've never felt that Control has a hard time with it's counters (We have some great counters in the format), but keeping the accessibility to cards flowing is what I've always felt it needed. Honestly, I've felt like Arcane Denial would be fine; Yes it's an easy to splash Hard Counter, but if your desperate enough to use it as such it has a heavy drawback. However, if you use it in conjunction with another card (Say Lightning Bolt) it draws you four cards at quasi-instant speed ( for 1RU).
And it might make Owling Mine a thing again.
As I've said, this one is all on the players not testing things out. White Sun's Zenith probably was never seen as a finisher until it was used as one. BBoV is probably a nice finisher (in the process of testing it out).
Because I enjoy nit picking people who say ridiculous things. You wouldn't deny me my entertainment, would you?
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
The reason I want force spike is non-white control decks, and also because Cryptic Command means you tend to favor making sure more of your mana can make U in a 3 color deck, while white already has Path to Exile _and_ Mana Tithe
White Sun's Zenith used to be decent, but magic has sped up quite a bit and gotten a much more often used 3 cmc sweeper since it's heyday in Anger of the Gods, making it troublesome in the current metagame. I'll admit experimentation might find the right finisher, but I think more options would still be nice, the real problem is not really having ones that actually compare well against Goyf and Tasigur.
In the current metagame, something resilient against both discard and sacrifice effects would be nice, due to BGx midrange decks all over the place. Perhaps something castable form the graveyard for a higher mana cost might be worth testing?
No more than eight creatures with secondary effects that compliment your overall objective. Snapcaster Mage is an obvious choice, Plumeveil is an excellent blocker that will keep the smaller guys from clocking you and will chump block the big boys. Were it Modern Legal, I'd suggest Thalakos Deceiver for some body snatcher action. Inkfathom Infiltrator is a Shadow creature in all but name and will put an opponent on the clock quick.
You need at least two card draw engines. Brainstorm is an obvious choice. The old trick of playing Arcane Denial on a free artifact is unfortunately not available to you. Visions of Beyond does essentially the same thing, for cheaper, but with conditions.
A crap ton of counters and some direct removal. Rune Snag and Circular Logic are hilarious and definitely better in the late game than Mana Leak. Counterbore is counter with attitude, if you can make it work cheaply. Etc, etc.
I'm trying a UWR brew this week, but in general control can't exist in Modern as a stock 70ish cards from week to week, it's a deck that involves metagaming heavily. This week my sideboard is doing a lot of neat things. I'm bringing Annul because it answers Spellskite, Keranos, Twin, Eidolon, and others. Slagstorm as a sweeper that goes to their face so it's not dead when I need to kill them, RIP for all the Delve, Snap's, etc, and some other stuff.
In general I think control is fine as an FNM deck where you have a small field but I wouldn't take it to anything larger than 5 rounds. Control needs to be focused in Modern, you can't answer everything but your clock is typically slow enough that you need to answer most things.
The "control" deck I've seen work best in the format is UWR Midrange, like the Geist decks backed with lots of burn. It's basically answer.dec but very proactive.
Not making an endorsement or condemnation of it. Just figured I'd post it because it's related to the topic.
Yet, there are still people who argue otherwise. I guess MrM0nd4y and Galerion know better than a two time world champion.
As others have already stated, Chapin's list is not a control a deck, but a hybrid.
ROFLMAO, yep.
If you want to play a control deck that just answers stuff for the first dozen turns, then plays a haymaker threat and wins then yes, modern doesn't have it. Those are typical standard control decks.
The format is about being proactive and about actively trying to win the game. The only decks that aren't mixing threats and answers are all in combo decks.
Look at every successful deck in the format. They all have a clear game plan and it isn't just "stop the other player from doing stuff" its "how do I win this game."
The reason control decks suck is because you can't answer every single thing thrown at you.
I'm assuming that when you're saying "no control deck in the format" you mean no deck that plays a whole bunch of counterspells and a bunch of hand filtering, then plays something big on turn 6 to win the game on the spot. No there isn't a deck like that.
It all boils down to what you want to achieve with your control deck.
If you want to bring it to small to mid level local events where the metagame doesn't change much, traditional reactive control can be viable since you sort of have an idea of what you're going to face and can build your sideboard accordingly.
If you want to bring a durdly reactive control deck into a large unknown field like a GP where you have no idea what you're going to face, yeah probably a bad idea.
All things considered, control decks placing outside the top 8/16 or even 100 of a GP doesn't mean they're not viable.
this article here http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpcha15/archetype-exemplars-top-decks-of-grand-prix-charlotte-2015-06-13 shows that there are at least 3 control decks in the top 100. 4 if you count faeries. 5 if you count lantern mill.
UWR in 33rd, Esper in 45th and 4c control in 62nd.
Considering how low control was represented, I'd say those are highly respectable finishes.
In a field of 2780 players, is it really correct to say control is bad when there are at least 3 in the top 100 ? That's like the top 4% of the competitors.
At this point one might even wonder what the problem with control really is. The decks or the players ?
Yes, because control represented only 3% of the top 100 meta. Twin has more representation - when a single deck has more representation than an entire archetype, it is accurate to say that something is wrong.
If we compare control to combo over all, including Twin, CoCo and Amulet, it's a joke. Like....10 times the representation? LOL
Legacy is the other non-rotating format and UW miracles is the only true control deck there. It relies on terminus and counterbalance to answer multiple threats with one card and create CA this way. The real engine is library manipulation, which will turbo-charge combo, which will necessitate force-of-will, which will turn modern into a blue format, and that's a BIG no-no.
I feel Myth Realised and Dragonlord Ojutai were genuine attempts. But... we already got instant-win threats, it's called splinter-twin, and that's really an aggro-control deck at heart despite it's win condition. Aggro-control means you can play either role, tempo and combo you can't.
Interestingly, modern's got it's first prison deck, the lantern deck, and there are some RW pillow-forts running around. Legacy's got Loam, D&T, you name it.
Maybe... non-rotating formats are more suited to prison than control? I'm pretty sure most control players wouldn't mind playing prison.
An entire archetype should be a lot more than 3-4% of the top 100.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
When it comes to control, I consider any strategy that's reactive is control. I understand there's lots of people consider stuff like bgx and twin to be control, but they aren't to me and many others who really enjoy control.
You can't be reactive in modern. It's impossible thanks to wizards current design and development strategy.
I do think it's a shame that you can't be competitive that way, but I think people who are mad at people for complaining about not really being able to play they want to play are being childish. It's a valid criticism of modern that you can't really play control and it's ignorant to say otherwise
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash