Yes for a part of Inn-RTR block UW control was the best deck as I said. Go look at the Top 8's of events from that time UW was the best performing deck with the most top 8's and taking down many events. It being as good as it was was the only thing that even kept me in standard at all.
Late December, and the metagame data is from the last 2 months, so therefore matching the time period on your claim. What has a higher metagame share than anything else? Naya/Selesnya Aggro, at 17%. You have to combine Bant, UWr, Esper, and UW to get that high, and even then it ends up as a tie, and Bant Control really wasn't Draw-Go (Esper and UW absolutely were Draw-Go, though).
So again, no, your claim that it was the best by a "wide margin" is clearly incorrect.
Going on and on about how it wasn't the best deck during the entire existence of RTR standard is really pointless since I used the qualifier "for a period of standard" I'm well aware that with cards like Voice of Resurgence being printed later in the block that it had the desired negative affects on draw-go control.
While I have demonstrated draw-go was not the best even in the time period you describe, if your reign lasts for only a few months that doesn't really mean much of anything. Your point was supposed to be about how draw-go decks, when viable, take over Standard, but if you can only stay on top of the metagame for a few months in the 24 months you're legal, that kind of disproves the argument.
I have to assume you are just being lazy in your "searching" UW sphinx's rev decks dominated states in 2012 took down multiple TCG and SCG events, not only winning more than any other decks but also dominating the top 16 listing. A Quick glace shows UWx decks dominating the meta-game for months pretty much any splash color was viable with Bant probably being the best since it had the best cards for the mirror. Naya was only a "ok" deck during that period because it could run cards that were naturally strong against Supreme Verdict like Thragtusk and Selesnya Charm. It isn't until 02/xx/13 that UW decks start to drop off in performances.
See my above source.
Pointing out that as future sets came out that Draw-go control fell out of viability in the Meta-game is almost like pointing out that designers of the game can influence which strategies are viable in a given standard format. Its almost like WotC designed the format to empower the up coming set over the previous.....
Uh, I was talking about the decks in general in that Standard, which would often go up and down with time, with my point that Jund managed to be the most consistent out of everything.
Also you lose points for attempting to put things in my mouth, I gave a very specific time in Standard and you took it upon yourself to then insist that i must have been speaking about a period over almost a entire year after the period that I mentioned. When did I say that it dominated Theros Standard? I didn't your just attempting to change the subject because you are so clearly wrong regarding UWx decks in the period I gave.
Here was what you said:
"uwx based control decks certainly was one of the best decks for a period of standard it was one of the highlights of the entire RTR block standard season"
RTR block was legal during Innistrad-RTR and RTR-Theros, so "the entire RTR block standard season" must logically refer to both. Perhaps you only meant Innistrad-RTR, but then you should have specified Innistrad-RTR rather than using a term that included both Innistrad-RTR and RTR-Theros.
You are grasping at straws trying to say that caw-blade was a aggro-control deck it was a deck with 4 1/1 fliers and 4 1/2 squires that only are playable in a control deck because they tutor up other cards. It was a counterspell (mana leak, spell pierce) Card advantatge (JtmS + fetchlands, preordain). It certainly was a Draw-go style control deck, counter relative spells, Day of Judgements to clear the board, stick JtmS and start working towards Colonnade beats
Yes for a part of Inn-RTR block UW control was the best deck as I said. Go look at the Top 8's of events from that time UW was the best performing deck with the most top 8's and taking down many events. It being as good as it was was the only thing that even kept me in standard at all.
Late December, and the metagame data is from the last 2 months, so therefore matching the time period on your claim. What has a higher metagame share than anything else? Naya/Selesnya Aggro, at 17%. You have to combine Bant, UWr, Esper, and UW to get that high, and even then it ends up as a tie, and Bant Control really wasn't Draw-Go (Esper and UW absolutely were Draw-Go, though).
So again, no, your claim that it was the best by a "wide margin" is clearly incorrect.
Going on and on about how it wasn't the best deck during the entire existence of RTR standard is really pointless since I used the qualifier "for a period of standard" I'm well aware that with cards like Voice of Resurgence being printed later in the block that it had the desired negative affects on draw-go control.
While I have demonstrated draw-go was not the best even in the time period you describe, if your reign lasts for only a few months that doesn't really mean much of anything. Your point was supposed to be about how draw-go decks, when viable, take over Standard, but if you can only stay on top of the metagame for a few months in the 24 months you're legal, that kind of disproves the argument.
I have to assume you are just being lazy in your "searching" UW sphinx's rev decks dominated states in 2012 took down multiple TCG and SCG events, not only winning more than any other decks but also dominating the top 16 listing. A Quick glace shows UWx decks dominating the meta-game for months pretty much any splash color was viable with Bant probably being the best since it had the best cards for the mirror. Naya was only a "ok" deck during that period because it could run cards that were naturally strong against Supreme Verdict like Thragtusk and Selesnya Charm. It isn't until 02/xx/13 that UW decks start to drop off in performances.
See my above source.
Pointing out that as future sets came out that Draw-go control fell out of viability in the Meta-game is almost like pointing out that designers of the game can influence which strategies are viable in a given standard format. Its almost like WotC designed the format to empower the up coming set over the previous.....
Uh, I was talking about the decks in general in that Standard, which would often go up and down with time, with my point that Jund managed to be the most consistent out of everything.
Also you lose points for attempting to put things in my mouth, I gave a very specific time in Standard and you took it upon yourself to then insist that i must have been speaking about a period over almost a entire year after the period that I mentioned. When did I say that it dominated Theros Standard? I didn't your just attempting to change the subject because you are so clearly wrong regarding UWx decks in the period I gave.
Here was what you said:
"uwx based control decks certainly was one of the best decks for a period of standard it was one of the highlights of the entire RTR block standard season"
RTR block was legal during Innistrad-RTR and RTR-Theros, so "the entire RTR block standard season" must logically refer to both. Perhaps you only meant Innistrad-RTR, but then you should have specified Innistrad-RTR rather than using a term that included both Innistrad-RTR and RTR-Theros.
You are grasping at straws trying to say that caw-blade was a aggro-control deck it was a deck with 4 1/1 fliers and 4 1/2 squires that only are playable in a control deck because they tutor up other cards. It was a counterspell (mana leak, spell pierce) Card advantatge (JtmS + fetchlands, preordain). It certainly was a Draw-go style control deck, counter relative spells, Day of Judgements to clear the board, stick JtmS and start working towards Colonnade beats
I don't know about you, but that sure looks like a deck running Stoneforge Mystic and Squadron Hawk that was definitely NOT a control deck!
Beyond that, I feel Cody_X's reply on this point was sufficient.
your post claiming the meta was had naya blitz as the best deck is again looking at RTR block as a whole which again i said wasn't the case to begin with so again your making a pointless statement. We were not talking about that I pointed to a specific period in which UW decks dominated standard events and I am aware that as more sets in the block rolled out it became less viable.
Also when did I ever say that a aggro deck wouldn't play hawks? I didn't I said the only reason they are playable in a Control deck, let me repeat that since you seem to like to esoterically divine things from sentences which no one ever said, the only reason they are playable in A Control Deck only wants hawks because it replaces itself. Do you understand how two different decks can run the same card even though the primary strategy is different? This seems like a difficulty your having in comprehending a basic element of magic, your either very poor at reading comprehension or a sophist who will make any claim in a attempt to bolster their argument, the poorest kind of logic.
your post claiming the meta was had naya blitz as the best deck is again looking at RTR block as a whole which again i said wasn't the case to begin with so again your making a pointless statement. We were not talking about that I pointed to a specific period in which UW decks dominated standard events and I am aware that as more sets in the block rolled out it became less viable.
No, I was not looking at the block as a whole. You claimed it was October to December 2012. The page I pointed to had metagame data for October to December 2012, the exact time frame you referenced!
Also when did I ever say that a aggro deck wouldn't play hawks? I didn't I said the only reason they are playable in a Control deck, let me repeat that since you seem to like to esoterically divine things from sentences which no one ever said, the only reason they are playable in A Control Deck only wants hawks because it replaces itself. Do you understand how two different decks can run the same card even though the primary strategy is different? This seems like a difficulty your having in comprehending a basic element of magic, your either very poor at reading comprehension or a sophist who will make any claim in a attempt to bolster their argument, the poorest kind of logic.
I am not poor at reading comprehension, you are simply poor at communicating (and possibly also reading comprehension, because I quite clearly pointed to metagame data that described the period you were talking about, and then you somehow thought I was talking about the full metagame). And I know that it's not problematic reading comprehension on my end because Cody_X took the same interpretation I did. If you don't want people to misinterpret your statements, then make them more clear than:
"You are grasping at straws trying to say that caw-blade was a aggro-control deck it was a deck with 4 1/1 fliers and 4 1/2 squires that only are playable in a control deck because they tutor up other cards."
Your phrasing here is very ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean either that "because they tutor up cards" is the reason they can only be played in a control deck, or that the only reason they can be played in a control deck is because they tutor up cards. Don't communicate poorly and then get upset when you're misunderstood.
At any rate, if you meant the second, that's still downright goofy. The only reason a control deck plays them is because of the tutor effect? The only reason any deck plays them is because of the tutor effect, otherwise those cards would be well behind the curve and unplayable in everything. This has nothing to do with control. The only reason RG Scapeshift runs Sakura-Tribe Elder is because of its tutor effect, that doesn't make it a control deck (I suppose someone can argue RUG Scapeshift is control, but RG definitely isn't).
I notice you also completely ignored Cody_X's quite valid points regarding how it wasn't Draw-Go.
...I personally miss playing against control. I learned back around Urza's Saga that I had to play differently if I was going up against a permission deck.
Then my meta changed and then finally I played against a legacy control deck around the time Oath of the Gatewatch came out.
My heart was pounding. Instead of taking my turn in seconds I was taking sometimes a full minute each phase. I kept cards in my hand at all times so I could always bluff if need be. It was one of the most amazing games I've ever played. I haven't had a match anywhere close to the excitement I felt in that match ever since.
When you bring a control deck into a duel, the game quickly goes from the standard psychology to one more akin to playing a multiplayer match. That weight when forced upon just two people's shoulders adds greatly to the tension and suspense aspect.
On a side note I've seen two monoblue control decks duke it out...didn't look nearly as enjoyable due to the fear of rejection from both sides.
Off the topic of caw-blade in general, I personally would rather just play control mirrors all day than actually have any kind of diversity in this format.
Trying to decide how to sequence cards, when and how to fight over what, figure out what to play around, how to pull ahead on resources, how to convert that into a win, or how to flip the tables on the other person is significantly more fun than most of the games of modern I play.
When two decks are both playing broadly powerful cards, and highly reactive, and are both slow, it reduces the amount of "I did(n't) draw my sideboard cards, I mulliganed into a slow/weak hand, some of my draws were garbage, etc, because control decks tend to be less punishing. Simply put, control mirrors tend to have far fewer non-games in addition to the games involving more important decisions.
your post claiming the meta was had naya blitz as the best deck is again looking at RTR block as a whole which again i said wasn't the case to begin with so again your making a pointless statement. We were not talking about that I pointed to a specific period in which UW decks dominated standard events and I am aware that as more sets in the block rolled out it became less viable.
No, I was not looking at the block as a whole. You claimed it was October to December 2012. The page I pointed to had metagame data for October to December 2012, the exact time frame you referenced!
Also when did I ever say that a aggro deck wouldn't play hawks? I didn't I said the only reason they are playable in a Control deck, let me repeat that since you seem to like to esoterically divine things from sentences which no one ever said, the only reason they are playable in A Control Deck only wants hawks because it replaces itself. Do you understand how two different decks can run the same card even though the primary strategy is different? This seems like a difficulty your having in comprehending a basic element of magic, your either very poor at reading comprehension or a sophist who will make any claim in a attempt to bolster their argument, the poorest kind of logic.
I am not poor at reading comprehension, you are simply poor at communicating (and possibly also reading comprehension, because I quite clearly pointed to metagame data that described the period you were talking about, and then you somehow thought I was talking about the full metagame). And I know that it's not problematic reading comprehension on my end because Cody_X took the same interpretation I did. If you don't want people to misinterpret your statements, then make them more clear than:
"You are grasping at straws trying to say that caw-blade was a aggro-control deck it was a deck with 4 1/1 fliers and 4 1/2 squires that only are playable in a control deck because they tutor up other cards."
Your phrasing here is very ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean either that "because they tutor up cards" is the reason they can only be played in a control deck, or that the only reason they can be played in a control deck is because they tutor up cards. Don't communicate poorly and then get upset when you're misunderstood.
At any rate, if you meant the second, that's still downright goofy. The only reason a control deck plays them is because of the tutor effect? The only reason any deck plays them is because of the tutor effect, otherwise those cards would be well behind the curve and unplayable in everything. This has nothing to do with control. The only reason RG Scapeshift runs Sakura-Tribe Elder is because of its tutor effect, that doesn't make it a control deck (I suppose someone can argue RUG Scapeshift is control, but RG definitely isn't).
I notice you also completely ignored Cody_X's quite valid points regarding how it wasn't Draw-Go.
My sentence was clear the only reason a control deck would play a 1/1 or 1/2 is because they have a relevant ability in this instance replacing itself with a card from the deck.
Not going to continue this since you seem to have a compulsion for injecting completely base less inferences into what I actually said. You did it the last two posts so to be honest I quit reading your post as soon as you defended your making things up and acting like I said them.
The only reason any deck would play a 1/1 or a 1/2 is because of a relevant ability. Turns out tiny bodies aren't valuable by their own.
Even memnite doesn't see play outside of affinity, and only as a 2 of there, and only because its an artifact.
If multiple people misinterpret what you say, don't assume the problem is only on our ends. You could have been much clearer in what you've said.
My sentence was clear the only reason a control deck would play a 1/1 or 1/2 is because they have a relevant ability in this instance replacing itself with a card from the deck.
The only reason any deck nowadays would play a 1/1 or 1/2 is because they have a relevant ability.
Not going to continue this since you seem to have a compulsion for injecting completely base less inferences into what I actually said. You did it the last two posts so to be honest I quit reading your post as soon as you defended your making things up and acting like I said them.
I don't inject baseless inferences into what you said, and if you had read my defenses (rather than ignoring them) you would understand why I took your posts the way you did. You just word things really poorly so that their meaning is either confusing or you end up saying something other than what you meant to say.
Don't get upset at someone for misunderstanding what you meant when you were the one communicating poorly to begin with.
My sentence was clear the only reason a control deck would play a 1/1 or 1/2 is because they have a relevant ability in this instance replacing itself with a card from the deck.
The only reason any deck nowadays would play a 1/1 or 1/2 is because they have a relevant ability.
Not going to continue this since you seem to have a compulsion for injecting completely base less inferences into what I actually said. You did it the last two posts so to be honest I quit reading your post as soon as you defended your making things up and acting like I said them.
I don't inject baseless inferences into what you said, and if you had read my defenses (rather than ignoring them) you would understand why I took your posts the way you did. You just word things really poorly so that their meaning is either confusing or you end up saying something other than what you meant to say.
Don't get upset at someone for misunderstanding what you meant when you were the one communicating poorly to begin with.
You are grasping at straws trying to say that caw-blade was a aggro-control deck it was a deck with 4 1/1 fliers and 4 1/2 squires that only are playable in a control deck because they tutor up other cards
that is the exact sentence i posted which part of this sentence implied any need for you point to aggro decks that played those creatures as some type of valid point? explain which part of the sentence isn't clear that I am specifically pointing to why a control deck would play those 8 creatures I made no reference to the ability of the cards to see or not see play in some other strategy, you injected that idea and went on for a paragraph arguing with essentially yourself. Done you did it twice don't respond back
You are grasping at straws trying to say that caw-blade was a aggro-control deck it was a deck with 4 1/1 fliers and 4 1/2 squires that only are playable in a control deck because they tutor up other cards
that is the exact sentence i posted which part of this sentence implied any need for you point to aggro decks that played those creatures as some type of valid point? explain which part of the sentence isn't clear that I am specifically pointing to why a control deck would play those 8 creatures I made no reference to the ability of the cards to see or not see play in some other strategy, you injected that idea and went on for a paragraph arguing with essentially yourself.
You're asking me to explain which part of the sentence wasn't clear when I already did so? Well, okay, here we go again: "Your phrasing here is very ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean either that "because they tutor up cards" is the reason they can only be played in a control deck, or that the only reason they can be played in a control deck is because they tutor up cards. Don't communicate poorly and then get upset when you're misunderstood."
Your sentence just wasn't phrased very well and thus can be interpreted in either way. I wasn't the only one who took it the way I did.
Done you did it twice don't respond back
How did I do it twice? You only cited one example, and I had already addressed that earlier.
http://web.archive.org/web/20121225131650/http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=ST
Late December, and the metagame data is from the last 2 months, so therefore matching the time period on your claim. What has a higher metagame share than anything else? Naya/Selesnya Aggro, at 17%. You have to combine Bant, UWr, Esper, and UW to get that high, and even then it ends up as a tie, and Bant Control really wasn't Draw-Go (Esper and UW absolutely were Draw-Go, though).
So again, no, your claim that it was the best by a "wide margin" is clearly incorrect.
While I have demonstrated draw-go was not the best even in the time period you describe, if your reign lasts for only a few months that doesn't really mean much of anything. Your point was supposed to be about how draw-go decks, when viable, take over Standard, but if you can only stay on top of the metagame for a few months in the 24 months you're legal, that kind of disproves the argument.
See my above source.
Uh, I was talking about the decks in general in that Standard, which would often go up and down with time, with my point that Jund managed to be the most consistent out of everything.
Here was what you said:
"uwx based control decks certainly was one of the best decks for a period of standard it was one of the highlights of the entire RTR block standard season"
RTR block was legal during Innistrad-RTR and RTR-Theros, so "the entire RTR block standard season" must logically refer to both. Perhaps you only meant Innistrad-RTR, but then you should have specified Innistrad-RTR rather than using a term that included both Innistrad-RTR and RTR-Theros.
Those cards were only playable in a control deck?
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=897&d=208485&f=ST
I don't know about you, but that sure looks like a deck running Stoneforge Mystic and Squadron Hawk that was definitely NOT a control deck!
Beyond that, I feel Cody_X's reply on this point was sufficient.
your post claiming the meta was had naya blitz as the best deck is again looking at RTR block as a whole which again i said wasn't the case to begin with so again your making a pointless statement. We were not talking about that I pointed to a specific period in which UW decks dominated standard events and I am aware that as more sets in the block rolled out it became less viable.
Also when did I ever say that a aggro deck wouldn't play hawks? I didn't I said the only reason they are playable in a Control deck, let me repeat that since you seem to like to esoterically divine things from sentences which no one ever said, the only reason they are playable in A Control Deck only wants hawks because it replaces itself. Do you understand how two different decks can run the same card even though the primary strategy is different? This seems like a difficulty your having in comprehending a basic element of magic, your either very poor at reading comprehension or a sophist who will make any claim in a attempt to bolster their argument, the poorest kind of logic.
I am not poor at reading comprehension, you are simply poor at communicating (and possibly also reading comprehension, because I quite clearly pointed to metagame data that described the period you were talking about, and then you somehow thought I was talking about the full metagame). And I know that it's not problematic reading comprehension on my end because Cody_X took the same interpretation I did. If you don't want people to misinterpret your statements, then make them more clear than:
"You are grasping at straws trying to say that caw-blade was a aggro-control deck it was a deck with 4 1/1 fliers and 4 1/2 squires that only are playable in a control deck because they tutor up other cards."
Your phrasing here is very ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean either that "because they tutor up cards" is the reason they can only be played in a control deck, or that the only reason they can be played in a control deck is because they tutor up cards. Don't communicate poorly and then get upset when you're misunderstood.
At any rate, if you meant the second, that's still downright goofy. The only reason a control deck plays them is because of the tutor effect? The only reason any deck plays them is because of the tutor effect, otherwise those cards would be well behind the curve and unplayable in everything. This has nothing to do with control. The only reason RG Scapeshift runs Sakura-Tribe Elder is because of its tutor effect, that doesn't make it a control deck (I suppose someone can argue RUG Scapeshift is control, but RG definitely isn't).
I notice you also completely ignored Cody_X's quite valid points regarding how it wasn't Draw-Go.
Then my meta changed and then finally I played against a legacy control deck around the time Oath of the Gatewatch came out.
My heart was pounding. Instead of taking my turn in seconds I was taking sometimes a full minute each phase. I kept cards in my hand at all times so I could always bluff if need be. It was one of the most amazing games I've ever played. I haven't had a match anywhere close to the excitement I felt in that match ever since.
When you bring a control deck into a duel, the game quickly goes from the standard psychology to one more akin to playing a multiplayer match. That weight when forced upon just two people's shoulders adds greatly to the tension and suspense aspect.
On a side note I've seen two monoblue control decks duke it out...didn't look nearly as enjoyable due to the fear of rejection from both sides.
Trying to decide how to sequence cards, when and how to fight over what, figure out what to play around, how to pull ahead on resources, how to convert that into a win, or how to flip the tables on the other person is significantly more fun than most of the games of modern I play.
When two decks are both playing broadly powerful cards, and highly reactive, and are both slow, it reduces the amount of "I did(n't) draw my sideboard cards, I mulliganed into a slow/weak hand, some of my draws were garbage, etc, because control decks tend to be less punishing. Simply put, control mirrors tend to have far fewer non-games in addition to the games involving more important decisions.
My sentence was clear the only reason a control deck would play a 1/1 or 1/2 is because they have a relevant ability in this instance replacing itself with a card from the deck.
Not going to continue this since you seem to have a compulsion for injecting completely base less inferences into what I actually said. You did it the last two posts so to be honest I quit reading your post as soon as you defended your making things up and acting like I said them.
Even memnite doesn't see play outside of affinity, and only as a 2 of there, and only because its an artifact.
If multiple people misinterpret what you say, don't assume the problem is only on our ends. You could have been much clearer in what you've said.
I don't inject baseless inferences into what you said, and if you had read my defenses (rather than ignoring them) you would understand why I took your posts the way you did. You just word things really poorly so that their meaning is either confusing or you end up saying something other than what you meant to say.
Don't get upset at someone for misunderstanding what you meant when you were the one communicating poorly to begin with.
You are grasping at straws trying to say that caw-blade was a aggro-control deck it was a deck with 4 1/1 fliers and 4 1/2 squires that only are playable in a control deck because they tutor up other cards
that is the exact sentence i posted which part of this sentence implied any need for you point to aggro decks that played those creatures as some type of valid point? explain which part of the sentence isn't clear that I am specifically pointing to why a control deck would play those 8 creatures I made no reference to the ability of the cards to see or not see play in some other strategy, you injected that idea and went on for a paragraph arguing with essentially yourself. Done you did it twice don't respond back
"Your phrasing here is very ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean either that "because they tutor up cards" is the reason they can only be played in a control deck, or that the only reason they can be played in a control deck is because they tutor up cards. Don't communicate poorly and then get upset when you're misunderstood."
Your sentence just wasn't phrased very well and thus can be interpreted in either way. I wasn't the only one who took it the way I did.
How did I do it twice? You only cited one example, and I had already addressed that earlier.