For now I have sowing salt until I can get my hands on crumble to dust through trade. I'll buy them as a last resort if need be.
Same goes with damnation. Would love to have it but trying to trade for one before buying. Otherwise I'm grabbing 2 anger of the gods for now.
Last time I was super happy leaving the shop managing to trade for 4 polluted delta to add to my deck so that's a plus, and finished my playset of cryptic commands as well. Hopefully this week I can find the remainder of what I need.
Also are you running crumble to dust mb or sb? I'm assuming sb but just want to make sure.
And is it worth running hand disruption such as inquisition of kozilek like we have before? And thoughtseize? I'm thinking of running a 2/2 split of the pair.
Keep in mind that there are actually several issues with both Crumble to Dust and Sowing Salt alone that may actually weaken your ability to win a game.
Both are good sideboard cards, but do nothing against creatures on the field.
It is true that running sweepers like Damnation may help, but you also should consider the opponents topdeck and your ability to disable them from topdecking the advantage against you after you have used a sweeper.
Placing too many instants and sorceries and not enough relevant creatures and finishers from your sideboard into the deck often isn't a good idea.
This is why I recommend sideboarding a relevant finisher such as Deus of Calamity along with Fulminator Mage which, as I have stated before, justifies also sideboarding Magus of the Moon and/or Blood Moon. They can not top deck you anymore than they have mana to produce and they can not use mana outside of their own mana base for anything else. Also, cards like Crumble to Dust and Sowing Salt become more useful in a deck that gives you an advantage with red mana. Not to mention that Deus of Calamity and Fulminator Mage both have very good synastry with a full playset of 4 Kolaghan's Command.
BTW Thoughtseize > Inquisition of Kozilek when you are dealing with an opponent who runs anything like Obstinate Baloth (or depending upon how you look at it, it probably does not matter which you use).
Spreading Seas is a common one card version of the "turn lands to mountains strategy" and could also be an option for that reason.
I was just looking through Gatherer and found a "Modern Legal" card called Icefall which appears to combo with Kolaghan's Command and Fulminator Mage both. It might actually be more relevant to traditional Grixis "Cruel Control" style of recovering things things out of the graveyard than Sowing Salt and Crumble to Dust, such as recycling a Fulminator Mage with Kolaghan's Command to keep destroying lands. You can also bring this card back from the graveyard with RR every time you sacrifice Fulminator Mage (which Rise // Fall can bring back, too).
I would say that this deck list is good to confuse an opponent enough, so that they can not predict your cards (other than maybe your colors). Half the battle of winning a round is winning the first match and then your opponent not knowing what to sideboard, since they couldn't predict your deck the first time around. At least that often works until next time you face off entirely at the same location; by that time people bring different decks or tweak the same decks to beat your deck with minor mainboard changes, and also to the sideboard.
I am actually looking heavily @ Torrential Gearhulk myself, although you think maybe it might be too much running two? Are you deciding between putting Vendilion Clique or Jace, Vryn's Prodigy back in place of one of the Torrential Gearhulk ? I would consider doing that. Two of them seems a little bit much to me, but maybe it might work for you in your meta.
The likelihood is that I am going to keep the Archaeomancer and Grave Titan in for the simple fact that Archaeomancer, while being a combo card is still the one and only best combo piece to keep recasting Cruel Ultimatum every other turn .
Likewise Grave Titan is the best finisher and a much more reliable token producer for chump blocking, IMHO (along with Dark Salvation).
In comparison, Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet doesn't have the the same power of being a finisher and may be a slower token producer.
I have playtested changes even with the above named possible replacement cards and still have not found better for "Cruel Control."
My opinion is that people should play at most 1 Archaeomancer (probably should not play more than 1) with the "Cruel Control" archetype for the reason that it combos well, but it is a common and I can see why it is overlooked on account of the popular draw of Snapcaster Mage which does not combo as well with its exile ability (Snapcaster Mage is otherwise 2 mana instead of 4).
I've had quite a lot of success with the list, I think it has less surprise factor than your for sure! As for the Gearhulks, I am looking to make space for a full 4 Snapcaster Mage at some point (as I very slowly pick them up) and so one may go to make some room for them. I think I'd rather have Clique than Jace, who is fien but never really great, but tbh I'd probably add a second Tasigur in instead. He blocks so well in aggro matchups and can even sort of draw you cards.
I think Grave Titan is a good card, and one that I have considered (though I preferred other options), but I really don't like Archaeomancer. It costs 4 and the only thing it is really great for is looping Cruel, which is fine, but tbh thats a bit win-more, and I've never needed to cast more than 2 Cruels to win a game (rarely more than 1).
I would very much recommend Kalitas, if you ever face Abzan CoCo then he is amazing, and the lifelink is a very relevant ability. The fact that he makes your removal spells all produce a 2/2 is also amazing, and his ability to grow and make a huuuuge (5/6 being pretty huge) lifelinker is very good. So good that I'm even sideboarding one (though Abzan CoCo seems to have died down a little bit here so I might swap him out)!
Don't take this personally Dlanze, but to me your deck just kind of looks like it's all over the place. This almost seems like a midrange-ish deck, like you've got a million different one-of creatures that do different things and it doesn't seem like you can really answer non-creature decks like Ad Nauseam. I'm not sure if it's your meta being heavy on creature strategies or not, but it just seems like a lot of these cards are kind of eh. Like would you really want to play a T3 Pilgrim's Eye with your opponent staring you down with a Goyf and a T3 Lili or a monstrous Affinity boardstate or Scapeshift at enough lands to go off? Like why play 3-4 cost creatures just to chump with them when you can run 2 cost kill and counter spells that you can hold up at any time? Why run JVP if you've got no real way to flip him early on or protect him if he resolves late. How do you fight Harbinger Control or any other control deck when they've got answers for a lot of the cards you're packing and a lightning fast win con?
Your land base also concerns me a lot. the Ravnica karoo lands are really, really tough in modern as is, so it seems like being able to answer anything with this build is even harder when a lot of your lands enter tapped or force you to bounce other lands on top of having barely any deck thinning. If money's an issue, I can understand, but if it isn't why not run fetches and shocks to make your mana base more consistent? Why not run more of the checklands or try out the SOM fast lands or the Izzet fast land from Kaladesh once it drops? Why not run more Creeping Tar Pits over the manlands since Lavaclaw blows out easy if they have a bolt or a path or something and Fumarole is really slow?
Don't take this personally Dlanze, but to me your deck just kind of looks like it's all over the place. This almost seems like a midrange-ish deck, like you've got a million different one-of creatures that do different things
it doesn't seem like you can really answer non-creature decks like Ad Nauseam.
I don't run into this deck archetype that often at my locals and even the few times I have seen it, it has been incredibly obvious that the type archetype is inconsistent unless you basically get a perfect hand at the start of every match. Also, without getting certain cards, in a certain order, they usually just kill themselves. Its not popular where I am for that reason.
Like would you really want to play a T3 Pilgrim's Eye with your opponent staring you down with a Goyf and a T3 Lili?
Tarmogoyf won't be on the board when he is already in the graveyard, gets hit with a terminate while on the field, goes back to the hand or is sacrificed.
monstrous Affinity boardstate
They don't get monstrous when their creature cards are not on field and the word monstrous itself probably implies that this deck is losing already somehow or (at least that is a projection of the possibility).
Like why play 3-4 cost creatures just to chump with them when you can run 2 cost kill and counter spells that you can hold up at any time?
Because cards like Gifts Ungiven exist to guarantee that you can get certain cards, get your combo pieces and creature costs do not matter when you have enough of the right mana coming in.
Why run JVP if you've got no real way to flip him early on or protect him if he resolves late.
How do you fight Harbinger Control or any other control deck when they've got answers for a lot of the cards you're packing and a lightning fast win con?
If you are talking about "Jeskai Control" Mostly I rely on their own being dumb with cards like Path to Exile to fix my mana and otherwise not relying on a creature base myself. Typically when I win first game, it is usually from coming back from almost losing and often it was Cruel Ultimatum being recasted a few turns over by Archeomancer that had saved me. You would be surprised how many people just underestimate that you can win against most any deck archetype at that point.
Your land base also concerns me a lot. the Ravnica karoo lands are really, really tough in modern as is, so it seems like being able to answer anything with this build is even harder when a lot of your lands enter tapped or force you to bounce other lands on top of having barely any deck thinning.
Karoo lands take practice and you have to get into the habit of looking at ways to use your current mana more effectively before putting one of those lands down.
If money's an issue, I can understand, but if it isn't why not run fetches and shocks to make your mana base more consistent?
My opinion about Shock lands is that it is a terrible idea to run them with this setup. I am going to get one each of Bloodstained Mire and Polluted Delta.
Why not run more of the checklands or try out the SOM fast lands or the Izzet fast land from Kaladesh once it drops? Why not run more Creeping Tar Pits over the manlands since Lavaclaw blows out easy if they have a bolt or a path or something and Fumarole is really slow?
I agree with you that Creeping Tar Pit is the better of the 3, but I do not think that running more of a land that comes in tapped is going to help my deck any. I'll look into the new lands coming out.
Don't take this personally Dlanze, but to me your deck just kind of looks like it's all over the place. This almost seems like a midrange-ish deck, like you've got a million different one-of creatures that do different things
I have many disagreements with your deck choices and arguments but I really want to stand at this point. None of this cards is even close to Snapcaster Mage. 2 of these creatures put a card on your hand instead of giving them flash back (with many potential implications) and 3 of them don't have flash. Jace needs at least 1 turn to get this effect at sorcery speed, Archaeomancer needs 4 mana and Devils 6 mana AND a turn. If you play these 3 cards instead of 3 more Snapcaster Mage you are doing it wrong. I would suggest to just go for the full playset of SM. The only reason not to do it is budget. There is a reason Tiago is the most expensive blue card and it is because his power level is not comparable to anything else.
Insidious Will is an ok card I guess, but if I'm going to play a 4 mana modal counterspell I'm just going to play Cryptic Command
Yes, the completely overrated blue counter-spell called Cryptic Command that was originally intended by WoTC to be used in a mono-blue only sort of deck and can only be used very late game in any other sort of deck. Not that I blame anyone for wanting to use Cryptic Command instead of a card like Insidious Will, even I would rather play Gifts Ungiven maindeck; but, then it could be a good sideboard card to switch out with Gifts Ungiven and that is my main interest in it. That way you can sideboard this and it won't interfere with using at least 1 Cryptic Command.
Cryptic Command counter, bounce, fog and cantrips, I don't see any better 4 mana counterspell.
Specifically in the actual aggro-filled metagame, Insidious Will is clearly inferior. If I would point out Cryptic's weakness it would be against opposing blue decks using counterspells, where its cost will lose you the counter war.
As for the 3 blue mana spell cost, if your manabase can play Cruel ultimatum turn 7, it should be able to play Cryptic Command turn 4.
Still not any good instant speed card draw D: I'll continue trying to find a way to play AV but fact is, you need to commit too much of the deck into it >_>
I am by no means against using Cryptic Command. I just think that people should expand their horizons a little and find different ways to be competitive other than just finding out what cards are in decks that have top 8ed and suggesting those to death to everyone. And like I have said before, Cryptic Command is implied by the 3 mana cost to have been originally intended for only a mono-blue type of deck, not one that has 3 colors in it like Cruel Ultimatum Control. By all means people can and maybe should build around it in the "Cruel Control" archetype, but it is still way overhyped in my book and I think that is stifling growth away from discovering other ways to be competitive in the format.
Insidious Will is an ok card I guess, but if I'm going to play a 4 mana modal counterspell I'm just going to play Cryptic Command
Yes, the completely overrated blue counter-spell called Cryptic Command that was originally intended by WoTC to be used in a mono-blue only sort of deck and can only be used very late game in any other sort of deck. Not that I blame anyone for wanting to use Cryptic Command instead of a card like Insidious Will, even I would rather play Gifts Ungiven maindeck; but, then it could be a good sideboard card to switch out with Gifts Ungiven and that is my main interest in it. That way you can sideboard this and it won't interfere with using at least 1 Cryptic Command.
Cryptic Command counter, bounce, fog and cantrips, I don't see any better 4 mana counterspell.
Specifically in the actual aggro-filled metagame, Insidious Will is clearly inferior. If I would point out Cryptic's weakness it would be against opposing blue decks using counterspells, where its cost will lose you the counter war.
As for the 3 blue mana spell cost, if your manabase can play Cruel ultimatum turn 7, it should be able to play Cryptic Command turn 4.
Still not any good instant speed card draw D: I'll continue trying to find a way to play AV but fact is, you need to commit too much of the deck into it >_>
I am by no means against using Cryptic Command. I just think that people should expand their horizons a little and find different ways to be competitive other than just finding out what cards are in decks that have top 8ed and suggesting those to death to everyone. And like I have said before, Cryptic Command is implied by the 3 mana cost to have been originally intended for only a mono-blue type of deck, not one that has 3 colors in it like Cruel Ultimatum Control. By all means people can and maybe should build around it in the "Cruel Control" archetype, but it is still way overhyped in my book and I think that is stifling growth away from discovering other ways to be competitive in the format.
I am sorry if this will come across as mean, it isn't, but this is just bad card evaluation.
Firstly the intention the Wizards have for a card shouldn't dictate our choice of cards to play. It doesn't matter if they wanted it for a mono-blue style deck, if our mana base can support it we can play it.
Additionally the 3 blue mana cost wasn't not meant to dictate where the card should be played. It was used in order to balance out a powerful card by adding specific deck constrictions in order for the card to be used. However, Cruel Control mana bases often contain 19-20 blue sources which makes them perfectly fine to use Cryptic Command by T4. Therefore, if your mana base can support a powerful card why shouldn't you play it?
There is merit in exploring alternative ways of doing things but there is also merit in understanding why a card is strong. People don't play CC because some lists top 8ed events by using them. People play CC because it is a powerful card which can be effectively used if you build your deck accordingly. Whether we like it or not Cryptic Command is indeed the most powerful counter spell in the format currently. Maybe it is not that good in the current meta game, hence many people refrain from playing 4, but it is still quite good.
Personal preference is also one thing but that doesn't mean that the card is stifling growth. The major control deck of this format, Jeskai Nahiri, plays 0-2 Cryptic Commands, which means people don't just play it blindly. I would suggest, and this is not meant to insult, just a personal friendly advice, to be more careful when you evaluate cards.
Don't take this personally Dlanze, but to me your deck just kind of looks like it's all over the place. This almost seems like a midrange-ish deck, like you've got a million different one-of creatures that do different things
I have many disagreements with your deck choices and arguments but I really want to stand at this point. None of this cards is even close to Snapcaster Mage. 2 of these creatures put a card on your hand instead of giving them flash back (with many potential implications) and 3 of them don't have flash. Jace needs at least 1 turn to get this effect at sorcery speed, Archaeomancer needs 4 mana and Devils 6 mana AND a turn. If you play these 3 cards instead of 3 more Snapcaster Mage you are doing it wrong. I would suggest to just go for the full playset of SM. The only reason not to do it is budget. There is a reason Tiago is the most expensive blue card and it is because his power level is not comparable to anything else.
It sounds like the short form of your advice is the premise of "take out 3 cards" and add 3 Snapcaster Mages.
I have several issues with this premise. Read all of the the card descriptions and consider the following:
20 Reasons why the premise of "If you play these 3 cards (Archaeomancer,Charmbreaker Devils and Jace, Vryn's Prodigy) instead of 3 more Snapcaster Mage you are doing it wrong" is not going to work for this deck and instead I am going to propose the new premise of Archaeomancer should become a staple card in "Cruel Control" and used as a "1 of" in decks which have Cruel Ultimatum.
1.The deck itself is based around the card Gifts Ungiven to deliver combo pieces.
2.Because the deck itself is based around reading the card description of Gifts Ungiven it is counterproductive to exile cards from the graveyard for cost
3.Because based on reading the card description of Archaeomancer it does not exile any cards in the graveyard.
4.Because Archaeomancer does not exile any cards in the graveyard you can recast the same Cruel Ultimatum multiple times.
5.Because Archaeomancer is a good common that synergizes the best with Cruel Ultimatum, it should be considered in addition to Snapcaster Mage for the synergy.
6.Because Archaeomancer brings either both instants and sorceries back from the graveyard to hand it synergizes well with reading the card descriptions of the sorceries and instants named Rise // Fall,Kolaghan's Command and Cruel Ultimatum.
7.Rise // Fall,Kolaghan's Command and Cruel Ultimatum share a "bring a creature card from your graveyard to hand" text which can target Archaeomancer.
8.Because Archaeomancer is a good common at a 4 mana blue cost, any deck running Cryptic Command should be able to also cast Archaeomancer.
9.Because Archaeomancer is a good common at a 4 mana blue cost, a truly competitive deck should probably not run more than one Archaeomancer.
10.Because Archaeomancer is a good common at a 4 mana blue cost, one Snapcaster Mage at 2 mana blue cost is appropriate enough to speed up the deck without infringing too much on the concept of do not exile your own cards from the graveyard.
11.Because there is 1 Archaeomancer and 1 Snapcaster Mage it is logical to just have 1 of every other creature as well.
12.Because Augur of Bolas is not a competitive card for card draw, it is appropriate to add 1 competitive card in its place such as Jace, Vryn's Prodigy which also turns into a pseudo Snapcaster Mage and draws you cards in place of using Augur of Bolas.
13.Because the card Control Magic is not modern legal, because cards like Slave of Bolas may not be competitive and because we only have one of each creature, the appropriate modern legal compromise is to find the best competitive version of a card like Clone which happens to be Sakashima the Impostor
14. Because Sakashima the Impostor can copy any card on the field, you can copy your own cards to create more than one copy of a card or copy your opponents cards to chump block.
15. Because we should have chumpblockers to help make an instant and sorcery based deck more consistent, Grave Titan and Dark Salvation together make each other more competitive.
16. Because we should also have a finisher which can bring things back from the grave, Charmbreaker Devils does that every upkeep and also +4s its attack every time you cast a spell per turn and can win a game on its own merit.
17. Because Grave Titan and Charmbreaker Devils are not legendary, there can be multiple versions of them on the field created by Sakashima the Impostor.
18. Because the cards found in "Cruel Control" synergize well with Archaeomancer, there is absolute reason to consider Archaeomancer a staple in the Cruel Control format as a good common.
19. Because discard is a thing, you can chump block with it and it brings itself back, Squee, Goblin Cabob is in the deck.
20.Hopefully the logic of the way my deck works would be clear enough to understand that my version of "Cruel Control" is based primarily on casting Gifts Ungiven for combo pieces and not one of the other cards of the format such Snapcaster Mage, therefore having 4 Snapcaster Mages may be redundant, unnecessary and counterproductive to the workings of the deck.
Conclusion: I am hoping that this is sufficient explanation to warrant the understanding that taking out the 3 aforementioned cards Archaeomancer,Charmbreaker Devils and Jace, Vryn's Prodigy to make 4 Snapcaster Mages is a relatively bad idea in consideration to the build of the deck and that 1 Archaeomancer is a warranted staple card for "Cruel Control" archetype.
Public Mod Note
(ktkenshinx):
Warning for spamming (annoying text formatting) -ktkenshinx-
I see some spirited discussion going on here! Make sure to keep it civil before mods have to step in. Someone asked me for a list so I'll post a deck to combat the current metagame.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Level 2 in progress...
UUU Merfolk UUU "Above the waves you may be mighty indeed, but down here you belong to me."
-Empress Galina
UBR Cruel Control UBR "The essence of every world, every spell, and every thought is power. Nothing else matters, because nothing else exists."
-Nicol Bolas
I am by no means against using Cryptic Command. I just think that people should expand their horizons a little and find different ways to be competitive other than just finding out what cards are in decks that have top 8ed and suggesting those to death to everyone. And like I have said before, Cryptic Command is implied by the 3 mana cost to have been originally intended for only a mono-blue type of deck, not one that has 3 colors in it like Cruel Ultimatum Control. By all means people can and maybe should build around it in the "Cruel Control" archetype, but it is still way overhyped in my book and I think that is stifling growth away from discovering other ways to be competitive in the format.
Let me tell you a little story, because I thought the exact same way about cards like Cryptic and Kolaghan's when I was getting into CC.
Did having my deck built the way it was win games? Sometimes, it was especially funny pumping Moltensteel up to 10 power and then dropping and ulting Sarkhan in the second main or powering out enough tokens to ult Tezz for like 15.
Was it frequent that I won? Not at all, I came in dead last almost every FNM and it felt awful.
Did it get me screwed over and make me really frustrated in the end because my deck was performing really badly? Enough that I quit CC for a while to play Rakdos instead until March of this year when I got enough money off of selling an expedition Cascade Bluffs to buy back into CC after finally just breaking and trying out the parts I thought were overrated. Now I'm at worst getting bubble boy'd or going 2-2 and at best getting into the top four every week.
Also, and again don't take this personally, your card evaluation seems like it's kind of off. Like you're saying people that run Path to Exile against you are dumb because you get a basic out of it. Okay, in exchange, they take something like your Grave Titan or Charmbreaker Devils. Does that sound like a really bad trade-off to you? Removing the only GT you have in your deck from the game forever in exchange for you getting a basic land that will put you ahead landwise but cost you one of your win conditions? It's the same deal with Cryptic, you're assuming it's overrated because everyone uses it and that it was meant for Mono-blue when our mana bases are crafted to cast one of the most taxing 3-color spells in terms of color cost in the game at the same time. That's why all of our lists run the Fetch-Shock setup, so that we can get mana up to cast CC and so that we can be able to cast Cruel on T7.
The point I'm trying to make here is that people don't just run Cryptic because most blue control decks in the Top 8 run it, it's because it's just a ridiculously powerful card for what it does, and even then it's usually as a two-of at most. It's not something you can just jam in willy nilly and autowin with just like how having a full set of Terminate, Lightning Bolt, or Kolaghan's Command isn't going to assume an autowin. There's nothing bad or limiting about having some cards like CC in your deck while also trying to switch things up and try something different, that's why I mainboard Ob Nixilis Reignited, Jace, Architect of Thought, and Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker instead of having just one of them in the sideboard or something. I didn't write any of this to be a tool or anything like that, I'm just writing it to kind of explain where we're coming from and why thinking that every card used in Top 8 decks are overrated is a really bad line of thought.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Modern- UUBBBRR Cruel Control BRG BRgBurn BR URStorm
-Commander- B Chainer, Dementia Master - Reanimator U Teferi, Temporal Archmage - Calimari Tribal [Retired] GB Ishkanah, Grafwidow - Delirium/Tokens
I am by no means against using Cryptic Command. I just think that people should expand their horizons a little and find different ways to be competitive other than just finding out what cards are in decks that have top 8ed and suggesting those to death to everyone. And like I have said before, Cryptic Command is implied by the 3 mana cost to have been originally intended for only a mono-blue type of deck, not one that has 3 colors in it like Cruel Ultimatum Control. By all means people can and maybe should build around it in the "Cruel Control" archetype, but it is still way overhyped in my book and I think that is stifling growth away from discovering other ways to be competitive in the format.
Let me tell you a little story, because I thought the exact same way about cards like Cryptic and Kolaghan's when I was getting into CC.
Did having my deck built the way it was win games? Sometimes, it was especially funny pumping Moltensteel up to 10 power and then dropping and ulting Sarkhan in the second main or powering out enough tokens to ult Tezz for like 15.
Was it frequent that I won? Not at all, I came in dead last almost every FNM and it felt awful.
Did it get me screwed over and make me really frustrated in the end because my deck was performing really badly? Enough that I quit CC for a while to play Rakdos instead until March of this year when I got enough money off of selling an expedition Cascade Bluffs to buy back into CC after finally just breaking and trying out the parts I thought were overrated. Now I'm at worst getting bubble boy'd or going 2-2 and at best getting into the top four every week.
Also, and again don't take this personally, your card evaluation seems like it's kind of off. Like you're saying people that run Path to Exile against you are dumb because you get a basic out of it. Okay, in exchange, they take something like your Grave Titan or Charmbreaker Devils. Does that sound like a really bad trade-off to you? Removing the only GT you have in your deck from the game forever in exchange for you getting a basic land that will put you ahead landwise but cost you one of your win conditions? It's the same deal with Cryptic, you're assuming it's overrated because everyone uses it and that it was meant for Mono-blue when our mana bases are crafted to cast one of the most taxing 3-color spells in terms of color cost in the game at the same time. That's why all of our lists run the Fetch-Shock setup, so that we can get mana up to cast CC and so that we can be able to cast Cruel on T7.
The point I'm trying to make here is that people don't just run Cryptic because most blue control decks in the Top 8 run it, it's because it's just a ridiculously powerful card for what it does, and even then it's usually as a two-of at most. It's not something you can just jam in willy nilly and autowin with just like how having a full set of Terminate, Lightning Bolt, or Kolaghan's Command isn't going to assume an autowin. There's nothing bad or limiting about having some cards like CC in your deck while also trying to switch things up and try something different, that's why I mainboard Ob Nixilis Reignited, Jace, Architect of Thought, and Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker instead of having just one of them in the sideboard or something. I didn't write any of this to be a tool or anything like that, I'm just writing it to kind of explain where we're coming from and why thinking that every card used in Top 8 decks are overrated is a really bad line of thought.
You have to understand what I am really saying is that there are two sides to every coin. Yes, it is a good thing to filter the top 8 lists for cards you see pop up frequently, in the sense that there may be something about those individual cards that is superior in some way. I understand that. However, also understand that there is such a thing as "deck integrity" where each card in your deck is part of a hierarchy within your own deck structure. This is where the principle of "You can not have winners without losers" applies, meaning that it may actually make your deck lose against others if you do not have a good enough mixture of inferior to superior cards (ranked) within your own deck working together well enough (meaning that you shouldn't shove only all superior cards in your deck with no thought making them not work together). And this is why it is important that people realize that putting cards like Snapcaster Mage and Archaeomancer intentionally in the same deck together to synergize with Cruel Ultimatum is a very good thing (they work together on same, but slightly different tasks); instead of having an attitude that Snapcaster Mage is a better card, therefore you should exclude Archeomancer. But by having this attitude (exclude the inferior, only superior) you may also be denying yourself an opportunity to make a rather powerful sort of deck (your deck won't work together and is not powerful).
And again, if you can cast Cryptic Command on the 4th turn you should be able to cast something like Gifts Ungiven and Archaeomancer on the 4th turn as well (but you'll probably want to cast Archaeomancer on the 5th after Gifts Ungiven to get one of the cards you dropped back to hand).
Insidious Will is an ok card I guess, but if I'm going to play a 4 mana modal counterspell I'm just going to play Cryptic Command
Yes, the completely overrated blue counter-spell called Cryptic Command that was originally intended by WoTC to be used in a mono-blue only sort of deck and can only be used very late game in any other sort of deck. Not that I blame anyone for wanting to use Cryptic Command instead of a card like Insidious Will, even I would rather play Gifts Ungiven maindeck; but, then it could be a good sideboard card to switch out with Gifts Ungiven and that is my main interest in it. That way you can sideboard this and it won't interfere with using at least 1 Cryptic Command.
Cryptic Command counter, bounce, fog and cantrips, I don't see any better 4 mana counterspell.
Specifically in the actual aggro-filled metagame, Insidious Will is clearly inferior. If I would point out Cryptic's weakness it would be against opposing blue decks using counterspells, where its cost will lose you the counter war.
As for the 3 blue mana spell cost, if your manabase can play Cruel ultimatum turn 7, it should be able to play Cryptic Command turn 4.
Still not any good instant speed card draw D: I'll continue trying to find a way to play AV but fact is, you need to commit too much of the deck into it >_>
I am by no means against using Cryptic Command. I just think that people should expand their horizons a little and find different ways to be competitive other than just finding out what cards are in decks that have top 8ed and suggesting those to death to everyone. And like I have said before, Cryptic Command is implied by the 3 mana cost to have been originally intended for only a mono-blue type of deck, not one that has 3 colors in it like Cruel Ultimatum Control. By all means people can and maybe should build around it in the "Cruel Control" archetype, but it is still way overhyped in my book and I think that is stifling growth away from discovering other ways to be competitive in the format.
I am sorry if this will come across as mean, it isn't, but this is just bad card evaluation.
Firstly the intention the Wizards have for a card shouldn't dictate our choice of cards to play. It doesn't matter if they wanted it for a mono-blue style deck, if our mana base can support it we can play it.
Additionally the 3 blue mana cost wasn't not meant to dictate where the card should be played. It was used in order to balance out a powerful card by adding specific deck constrictions in order for the card to be used. However, Cruel Control mana bases often contain 19-20 blue sources which makes them perfectly fine to use Cryptic Command by T4. Therefore, if your mana base can support a powerful card why shouldn't you play it?
There is merit in exploring alternative ways of doing things but there is also merit in understanding why a card is strong. People don't play CC because some lists top 8ed events by using them. People play CC because it is a powerful card which can be effectively used if you build your deck accordingly. Whether we like it or not Cryptic Command is indeed the most powerful counter spell in the format currently. Maybe it is not that good in the current meta game, hence many people refrain from playing 4, but it is still quite good.
Personal preference is also one thing but that doesn't mean that the card is stifling growth. The major control deck of this format, Jeskai Nahiri, plays 0-2 Cryptic Commands, which means people don't just play it blindly. I would suggest, and this is not meant to insult, just a personal friendly advice, to be more careful when you evaluate cards.
Yes, but understand that I am actually not against finding out what the superior cards are by researching what has been in the top 8 decks. I am actually for doing that. However, what I see people doing sometimes is thinking that just because a bunch of cards have performed well means that they should do nothing but constantly try to put what they think are all of the most superior cards together in one deck and that is going to amount to something playable. The reality is that a good deck doesn't always have all of the best cards, sometimes there are cards added that look like they may not belong and yet do very well. It is like how Archaeomancer can allow you to recast Cruel Ultimatum over and over and yet people believe through some weird impulse that they have to cut out or not consider that card because Snapcaster Mage is 2 mana cost, when the reality is that Archaeomancer has better synastry through the long game; not even considering that there is a competitive edge to putting 1 Archaeomancer in. But I think the same lesson everyone is trying to tell me about Cryptic Command is the same lesson for accepting Archaeomancer as a valid staple, although you guys have to see that for yourselves. Same exact lesson.
Same goes with damnation. Would love to have it but trying to trade for one before buying. Otherwise I'm grabbing 2 anger of the gods for now.
Last time I was super happy leaving the shop managing to trade for 4 polluted delta to add to my deck so that's a plus, and finished my playset of cryptic commands as well. Hopefully this week I can find the remainder of what I need.
UUBBBRR
And is it worth running hand disruption such as inquisition of kozilek like we have before? And thoughtseize? I'm thinking of running a 2/2 split of the pair.
UUBBBRR
You can used Fulminator Mage to destroy a land, cause your opponent with Kolaghan's Command to discard/-2 life and bring back Fulminator Mage to destroy another land, put Deus of Calamity out, attack and keep destroying their lands. By doing this your opponent has less ability to topdeck you after you have used a Damnation which can happen otherwise. Deus of Calamity is also fully compatible with using Languish and Anger of the Gods.
BTW Thoughtseize > Inquisition of Kozilek when you are dealing with an opponent who runs anything like Obstinate Baloth (or depending upon how you look at it, it probably does not matter which you use).
Spreading Seas is a common one card version of the "turn lands to mountains strategy" and could also be an option for that reason.
Edit: Per the Icefall text it requires exactly 2 RR to come back to hand right when a creature goes into the graveyard or it exiles itself.
1 Dispel
2 Inquisition of Kozilek
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Spell Snare
1 Go for the Throat
2 Mana Leak
2 Remand
2 Terminate
3 Think Twice
1 Anger of the Gods
1 Electrolyze
2 Kolaghan's Command
2 Cryptic Command
1 Damnation
2 Cruel Ultimatum
Creatures
2 Snapcaster Mage
1 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
1 Keranos, God of Storms
1 Tasigur, the Golden Fang
2 Torrential Gearhulk
1 Blood Crypt
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Creeping Tar Pit
3 Island
1 Mountain
4 Polluted Delta
1 Reflecting Pool
2 Steam Vents
1 Sulfur Falls
2 Swamp
1 Temple of Deceit
1 Wandering Fumarole
2 Watery Grave
1 Engineered Explosives
2 Dispel
1 Nihil Spellbomb
1 Vandalblast
1 Dreadbore
2 Negate
1 Spellskite
1 Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
2 Izzet Staticaster
2 Crumble to Dust
1 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
In reality my list currently has Vendilion Clique, and Jace, Vryn's Prodigy until I get the Torrential Gearhulks, and a Languish until they reprint Damnation
I would say that this deck list is good to confuse an opponent enough, so that they can not predict your cards (other than maybe your colors). Half the battle of winning a round is winning the first match and then your opponent not knowing what to sideboard, since they couldn't predict your deck the first time around. At least that often works until next time you face off entirely at the same location; by that time people bring different decks or tweak the same decks to beat your deck with minor mainboard changes, and also to the sideboard.
I am actually looking heavily @ Torrential Gearhulk myself, although you think maybe it might be too much running two? Are you deciding between putting Vendilion Clique or Jace, Vryn's Prodigy back in place of one of the Torrential Gearhulk ? I would consider doing that. Two of them seems a little bit much to me, but maybe it might work for you in your meta.
The likelihood is that I am going to keep the Archaeomancer and Grave Titan in for the simple fact that Archaeomancer, while being a combo card is still the one and only best combo piece to keep recasting Cruel Ultimatum every other turn .
Likewise Grave Titan is the best finisher and a much more reliable token producer for chump blocking, IMHO (along with Dark Salvation).
In comparison, Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet doesn't have the the same power of being a finisher and may be a slower token producer.
I have playtested changes even with the above named possible replacement cards and still have not found better for "Cruel Control."
My opinion is that people should play at most 1 Archaeomancer (probably should not play more than 1) with the "Cruel Control" archetype for the reason that it combos well, but it is a common and I can see why it is overlooked on account of the popular draw of Snapcaster Mage which does not combo as well with its exile ability (Snapcaster Mage is otherwise 2 mana instead of 4).
Jace, Vryn's Prodigy is a great competitive replacement card for Augur of Bolas which use to be the goto card for draw power.
I have also considered Smallpox in place of Geth's Verdict
Here is my current deck list. So far I have only made some minor changes to the sideboard.
1x Creeping Tar Pit
1x Crumbling Necropolis
1x Dimir Aqueduct
1x Dragonskull Summit
1x Drowned Catacomb
5x Island
1x Izzet Boilerworks
1x Lavaclaw Reaches
5x Mountain
1x Rakdos Carnarium
1x Sulfur Falls
4x Swamp
1x Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
1x Wandering Fumarole
Artifact (2)
2x Chromatic Lantern
Creature (9)
1x Archaeomancer
1x Charmbreaker Devils
1x Grave Titan
1x Jace, Vryn's Prodigy
1x Pilgrim's Eye
1x Sakashima the Impostor
1x Snapcaster Mage
1x Solemn Simulacrum
1x Squee, Goblin Nabob
4x Geth's Verdict
2x Gifts Ungiven
4x Kolaghan's Command
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Terminate
Sorcery (6)
2x Cruel Ultimatum
1x Dark Salvation
3x Rise // Fall
2x Anger of the Gods
1x Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
1x Crumble to Dust
1x Cryptic Command
1x Damnation
1x Dreadbore
2x Far // Away
1x Fulminator Mage
1x Icefall
1x Izzet Staticaster
2x Languish
1x Slaughter Games
I think Grave Titan is a good card, and one that I have considered (though I preferred other options), but I really don't like Archaeomancer. It costs 4 and the only thing it is really great for is looping Cruel, which is fine, but tbh thats a bit win-more, and I've never needed to cast more than 2 Cruels to win a game (rarely more than 1).
I would very much recommend Kalitas, if you ever face Abzan CoCo then he is amazing, and the lifelink is a very relevant ability. The fact that he makes your removal spells all produce a 2/2 is also amazing, and his ability to grow and make a huuuuge (5/6 being pretty huge) lifelinker is very good. So good that I'm even sideboarding one (though Abzan CoCo seems to have died down a little bit here so I might swap him out)!
Your land base also concerns me a lot. the Ravnica karoo lands are really, really tough in modern as is, so it seems like being able to answer anything with this build is even harder when a lot of your lands enter tapped or force you to bounce other lands on top of having barely any deck thinning. If money's an issue, I can understand, but if it isn't why not run fetches and shocks to make your mana base more consistent? Why not run more of the checklands or try out the SOM fast lands or the Izzet fast land from Kaladesh once it drops? Why not run more Creeping Tar Pits over the manlands since Lavaclaw blows out easy if they have a bolt or a path or something and Fumarole is really slow?
UUBBBRR Cruel Control
BRG BRgBurn
BR URStorm
-Commander-
B Chainer, Dementia Master - Reanimator
U Teferi, Temporal Archmage - Calimari Tribal [Retired]
GB Ishkanah, Grafwidow - Delirium/Tokens
Not really. 2 of the creatures are mana fixers. 1 of them copies every other creature. Snapcaster Mage,Jace, Vryn's Prodigy,Archaeomancer,Charmbreaker Devils do the same exact thing at different points in the game and any of these can become a second copy with Sakashima the Impostor. Grave Titan and Dark Salvation for threat removal and chumping. You use Squee, Goblin Nabob whenever you have to discard a card and get him right back next turn.
I don't run into this deck archetype that often at my locals and even the few times I have seen it, it has been incredibly obvious that the type archetype is inconsistent unless you basically get a perfect hand at the start of every match. Also, without getting certain cards, in a certain order, they usually just kill themselves. Its not popular where I am for that reason.
Squee, Goblin Nabob, the -2 plus discard options on Kolaghan's Command and Lightning Bolt together more than handles Liliana of the Veil. You either block, attack with him or discard him until you stall and collect enough answers.
Tarmogoyf won't be on the board when he is already in the graveyard, gets hit with a terminate while on the field, goes back to the hand or is sacrificed.
They don't get monstrous when their creature cards are not on field and the word monstrous itself probably implies that this deck is losing already somehow or (at least that is a projection of the possibility).
Sideboard, but otherwise rarely see it.
Because cards like Gifts Ungiven exist to guarantee that you can get certain cards, get your combo pieces and creature costs do not matter when you have enough of the right mana coming in.
Gifts Ungiven ...
If you are talking about "Jeskai Control" Mostly I rely on their own being dumb with cards like Path to Exile to fix my mana and otherwise not relying on a creature base myself. Typically when I win first game, it is usually from coming back from almost losing and often it was Cruel Ultimatum being recasted a few turns over by Archeomancer that had saved me. You would be surprised how many people just underestimate that you can win against most any deck archetype at that point.
Karoo lands take practice and you have to get into the habit of looking at ways to use your current mana more effectively before putting one of those lands down.
My opinion about Shock lands is that it is a terrible idea to run them with this setup. I am going to get one each of Bloodstained Mire and Polluted Delta.
I agree with you that Creeping Tar Pit is the better of the 3, but I do not think that running more of a land that comes in tapped is going to help my deck any. I'll look into the new lands coming out.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
I am by no means against using Cryptic Command. I just think that people should expand their horizons a little and find different ways to be competitive other than just finding out what cards are in decks that have top 8ed and suggesting those to death to everyone. And like I have said before, Cryptic Command is implied by the 3 mana cost to have been originally intended for only a mono-blue type of deck, not one that has 3 colors in it like Cruel Ultimatum Control. By all means people can and maybe should build around it in the "Cruel Control" archetype, but it is still way overhyped in my book and I think that is stifling growth away from discovering other ways to be competitive in the format.
Firstly the intention the Wizards have for a card shouldn't dictate our choice of cards to play. It doesn't matter if they wanted it for a mono-blue style deck, if our mana base can support it we can play it.
Additionally the 3 blue mana cost wasn't not meant to dictate where the card should be played. It was used in order to balance out a powerful card by adding specific deck constrictions in order for the card to be used. However, Cruel Control mana bases often contain 19-20 blue sources which makes them perfectly fine to use Cryptic Command by T4. Therefore, if your mana base can support a powerful card why shouldn't you play it?
There is merit in exploring alternative ways of doing things but there is also merit in understanding why a card is strong. People don't play CC because some lists top 8ed events by using them. People play CC because it is a powerful card which can be effectively used if you build your deck accordingly. Whether we like it or not Cryptic Command is indeed the most powerful counter spell in the format currently. Maybe it is not that good in the current meta game, hence many people refrain from playing 4, but it is still quite good.
Personal preference is also one thing but that doesn't mean that the card is stifling growth. The major control deck of this format, Jeskai Nahiri, plays 0-2 Cryptic Commands, which means people don't just play it blindly. I would suggest, and this is not meant to insult, just a personal friendly advice, to be more careful when you evaluate cards.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
It sounds like the short form of your advice is the premise of "take out 3 cards" and add 3 Snapcaster Mages.
I have several issues with this premise. Read all of the the card descriptions and consider the following:
20 Reasons why the premise of "If you play these 3 cards (Archaeomancer,Charmbreaker Devils and Jace, Vryn's Prodigy) instead of 3 more Snapcaster Mage you are doing it wrong" is not going to work for this deck and instead I am going to propose the new premise of Archaeomancer should become a staple card in "Cruel Control" and used as a "1 of" in decks which have Cruel Ultimatum.
Premise to Prove: Archaeomancer should become a staple card in "Cruel Control" and used as a "1 of" in decks which have Cruel Ultimatum in addition to 1 Snapcaster Mage.
Premise to Disprove: Have 4 Snapcaster Mages instead and completely exclude Archaeomancer in any context.
1.The deck itself is based around the card Gifts Ungiven to deliver combo pieces.
2.Because the deck itself is based around reading the card description of Gifts Ungiven it is counterproductive to exile cards from the graveyard for cost
3.Because based on reading the card description of Archaeomancer it does not exile any cards in the graveyard.
4.Because Archaeomancer does not exile any cards in the graveyard you can recast the same Cruel Ultimatum multiple times.
5.Because Archaeomancer is a good common that synergizes the best with Cruel Ultimatum, it should be considered in addition to Snapcaster Mage for the synergy.
6.Because Archaeomancer brings either both instants and sorceries back from the graveyard to hand it synergizes well with reading the card descriptions of the sorceries and instants named Rise // Fall,Kolaghan's Command and Cruel Ultimatum.
7.Rise // Fall,Kolaghan's Command and Cruel Ultimatum share a "bring a creature card from your graveyard to hand" text which can target Archaeomancer.
8.Because Archaeomancer is a good common at a 4 mana blue cost, any deck running Cryptic Command should be able to also cast Archaeomancer.
9.Because Archaeomancer is a good common at a 4 mana blue cost, a truly competitive deck should probably not run more than one Archaeomancer.
10.Because Archaeomancer is a good common at a 4 mana blue cost, one Snapcaster Mage at 2 mana blue cost is appropriate enough to speed up the deck without infringing too much on the concept of do not exile your own cards from the graveyard.
11.Because there is 1 Archaeomancer and 1 Snapcaster Mage it is logical to just have 1 of every other creature as well.
12.Because Augur of Bolas is not a competitive card for card draw, it is appropriate to add 1 competitive card in its place such as Jace, Vryn's Prodigy which also turns into a pseudo Snapcaster Mage and draws you cards in place of using Augur of Bolas.
13.Because the card Control Magic is not modern legal, because cards like Slave of Bolas may not be competitive and because we only have one of each creature, the appropriate modern legal compromise is to find the best competitive version of a card like Clone which happens to be Sakashima the Impostor
14. Because Sakashima the Impostor can copy any card on the field, you can copy your own cards to create more than one copy of a card or copy your opponents cards to chump block.
15. Because we should have chumpblockers to help make an instant and sorcery based deck more consistent, Grave Titan and Dark Salvation together make each other more competitive.
16. Because we should also have a finisher which can bring things back from the grave, Charmbreaker Devils does that every upkeep and also +4s its attack every time you cast a spell per turn and can win a game on its own merit.
17. Because Grave Titan and Charmbreaker Devils are not legendary, there can be multiple versions of them on the field created by Sakashima the Impostor.
18. Because the cards found in "Cruel Control" synergize well with Archaeomancer, there is absolute reason to consider Archaeomancer a staple in the Cruel Control format as a good common.
19. Because discard is a thing, you can chump block with it and it brings itself back, Squee, Goblin Cabob is in the deck.
20.Hopefully the logic of the way my deck works would be clear enough to understand that my version of "Cruel Control" is based primarily on casting Gifts Ungiven for combo pieces and not one of the other cards of the format such Snapcaster Mage, therefore having 4 Snapcaster Mages may be redundant, unnecessary and counterproductive to the workings of the deck.
Conclusion: I am hoping that this is sufficient explanation to warrant the understanding that taking out the 3 aforementioned cards Archaeomancer,Charmbreaker Devils and Jace, Vryn's Prodigy to make 4 Snapcaster Mages is a relatively bad idea in consideration to the build of the deck and that 1 Archaeomancer is a warranted staple card for "Cruel Control" archetype.
Level 2 in progress...
UUU Merfolk UUU
"Above the waves you may be mighty indeed, but down here you belong to me."
-Empress Galina
UBR Cruel Control UBR
"The essence of every world, every spell, and every thought is power. Nothing else matters, because nothing else exists."
-Nicol Bolas
Let me tell you a little story, because I thought the exact same way about cards like Cryptic and Kolaghan's when I was getting into CC.
I wanted to go for a flavor win and I built my deck around Sarkhan the Mad and Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas on top of having Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker because nobody else was doing it and I didn't have any copies of Remand, Snapcaster Mage, Cryptic Command, Serum Visions, or any of the other Non-planeswalker win cons I have in my deck today and I instead ran some ridiculously janky combo involving Moltensteel Dragon and Nuisance Engine to fuel Tezz and Sarkhan at the same time.
Did having my deck built the way it was win games? Sometimes, it was especially funny pumping Moltensteel up to 10 power and then dropping and ulting Sarkhan in the second main or powering out enough tokens to ult Tezz for like 15.
Was it frequent that I won? Not at all, I came in dead last almost every FNM and it felt awful.
Did it get me screwed over and make me really frustrated in the end because my deck was performing really badly? Enough that I quit CC for a while to play Rakdos instead until March of this year when I got enough money off of selling an expedition Cascade Bluffs to buy back into CC after finally just breaking and trying out the parts I thought were overrated. Now I'm at worst getting bubble boy'd or going 2-2 and at best getting into the top four every week.
Also, and again don't take this personally, your card evaluation seems like it's kind of off. Like you're saying people that run Path to Exile against you are dumb because you get a basic out of it. Okay, in exchange, they take something like your Grave Titan or Charmbreaker Devils. Does that sound like a really bad trade-off to you? Removing the only GT you have in your deck from the game forever in exchange for you getting a basic land that will put you ahead landwise but cost you one of your win conditions? It's the same deal with Cryptic, you're assuming it's overrated because everyone uses it and that it was meant for Mono-blue when our mana bases are crafted to cast one of the most taxing 3-color spells in terms of color cost in the game at the same time. That's why all of our lists run the Fetch-Shock setup, so that we can get mana up to cast CC and so that we can be able to cast Cruel on T7.
The point I'm trying to make here is that people don't just run Cryptic because most blue control decks in the Top 8 run it, it's because it's just a ridiculously powerful card for what it does, and even then it's usually as a two-of at most. It's not something you can just jam in willy nilly and autowin with just like how having a full set of Terminate, Lightning Bolt, or Kolaghan's Command isn't going to assume an autowin. There's nothing bad or limiting about having some cards like CC in your deck while also trying to switch things up and try something different, that's why I mainboard Ob Nixilis Reignited, Jace, Architect of Thought, and Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker instead of having just one of them in the sideboard or something. I didn't write any of this to be a tool or anything like that, I'm just writing it to kind of explain where we're coming from and why thinking that every card used in Top 8 decks are overrated is a really bad line of thought.
UUBBBRR Cruel Control
BRG BRgBurn
BR URStorm
-Commander-
B Chainer, Dementia Master - Reanimator
U Teferi, Temporal Archmage - Calimari Tribal [Retired]
GB Ishkanah, Grafwidow - Delirium/Tokens
You have to understand what I am really saying is that there are two sides to every coin. Yes, it is a good thing to filter the top 8 lists for cards you see pop up frequently, in the sense that there may be something about those individual cards that is superior in some way. I understand that. However, also understand that there is such a thing as "deck integrity" where each card in your deck is part of a hierarchy within your own deck structure. This is where the principle of "You can not have winners without losers" applies, meaning that it may actually make your deck lose against others if you do not have a good enough mixture of inferior to superior cards (ranked) within your own deck working together well enough (meaning that you shouldn't shove only all superior cards in your deck with no thought making them not work together). And this is why it is important that people realize that putting cards like Snapcaster Mage and Archaeomancer intentionally in the same deck together to synergize with Cruel Ultimatum is a very good thing (they work together on same, but slightly different tasks); instead of having an attitude that Snapcaster Mage is a better card, therefore you should exclude Archeomancer. But by having this attitude (exclude the inferior, only superior) you may also be denying yourself an opportunity to make a rather powerful sort of deck (your deck won't work together and is not powerful).
And again, if you can cast Cryptic Command on the 4th turn you should be able to cast something like Gifts Ungiven and Archaeomancer on the 4th turn as well (but you'll probably want to cast Archaeomancer on the 5th after Gifts Ungiven to get one of the cards you dropped back to hand).
Yes, but understand that I am actually not against finding out what the superior cards are by researching what has been in the top 8 decks. I am actually for doing that. However, what I see people doing sometimes is thinking that just because a bunch of cards have performed well means that they should do nothing but constantly try to put what they think are all of the most superior cards together in one deck and that is going to amount to something playable. The reality is that a good deck doesn't always have all of the best cards, sometimes there are cards added that look like they may not belong and yet do very well. It is like how Archaeomancer can allow you to recast Cruel Ultimatum over and over and yet people believe through some weird impulse that they have to cut out or not consider that card because Snapcaster Mage is 2 mana cost, when the reality is that Archaeomancer has better synastry through the long game; not even considering that there is a competitive edge to putting 1 Archaeomancer in. But I think the same lesson everyone is trying to tell me about Cryptic Command is the same lesson for accepting Archaeomancer as a valid staple, although you guys have to see that for yourselves. Same exact lesson.