Hmm, for a deck like this, I like playing 2 colors. 3 Seems kinda silly and unneeded. I was thinking of a variant similar to Patrick Chapin's UB control list he played at Pro Tour Dark Ascension. So, something like this,
Creatures- 10
4 {Invisible Stalker}
3 {Snapcaster Mage}
3 {Grave Titan}
Equipment- 3
2 {Sword of Feast and Famine}
1 {Batterskull}
Spells- 21
4 {Mana Leak}
3 {Forbidden Alchemy}
4 {Think Twice}
2 {Doom Blade}
3 {Tribute to Hunger}
2 {Tragic Slip}
2 {Black Sun's Zenith}
1 {Go for the Throat}
Lands- 26
2 {Ghost Quarter}
2 {Nephalia Drownyard}
4 {Drowned Catacomb}
4 {Darkslick Shores}
8 {Island}
6 {Swamp}
SB- 15
1 {Bloodline Keeper}
1 {Jace, Memory Adept}
2 {Phantasmal Image}
1 {Black Sun's Zenith}
1 {Blue Sun's Zenith}
1 {Nephalia Drownyard}
3 {Nihil Spellbomb}
3 {Ratchet Bomb}
2 {Negate}
What makes this unique is the ability to play a tap out style control early, and then a traditional style control in the late game. Swords go well with all of the creatures in the deck and give protection from black and green kill spells. I noticed you said UB control is giving you problems. The stalkers, batterskull, Grave Titans, Swords, and Drownyard will all act as threats against UB control. Then in the SB blue zenith, negates, jace, and the 3rd drownyard will improve the matchup. Ratchet bomb is used for token decks, while spell bomb hits frites players. The phantasmal image will allow you to play a cheap grave titan (copying yours), copying opponents titans, and hitting annoying legends like thrun, elesh, and geist in the aggro/frites/UW control match ups. Ghost Quarter hits wolf run, while tragic slips, go for the throat and tribute to hungers all hit grave titan and other annoying black creatures. Tribute to hunger and black zenith can also hit hexproof guys. All of the removal in this deck hits delver. Feast and famine lets you spend mana on your turn and then untap due to ability to have counter magic mana and removal mana open. War and Peace will get you past tokens when you cant find your board wipes and will gain you some life. War and peace also punishes control decks. Keep in mind there is a huge downside to this deck. It will be extremely difficult to pilot. If you are newer to the game or lack experience piloting difficult decks, you will need alot of play test games. A deck like this will have many hard decisions, and one play mistake means you are probably going to die. You have to have a good grasp on the concept of magic theory to do well with this list. After some play testing, it should start to get easier to play.
Gave some TLC (linkage) due to awesomeness
~BlackJester
I have a b/u control similar to this lol I kinda wanna try this variation
Quote from: Elitehalo360 on April 19, 2012, 02:28:10 PM
I have a b/u control similar to this lol I kinda wanna try this variation
Ok let me know how this works out. I built this for somebody else. Although I wouldnt call it UB control (even though thats what the title is). I think if you want more of a streamlined control list, there are better options. But what I like about this list is the ability to have so many different angles of attack (kinda like wolf run ramp has multiple angles of attack). If anything, it will make a nice rouge list to storm a few FNMs and maybe a qualifier/ptq given proper playtesting.
What would you like this renamed as? I'll use my godly MOD POWERS! 👊💪
Why 26 lands? I've always heard 23 is a rounded average for land count...still gettin into the game.
Quote from: BlackJester on April 19, 2012, 05:17:36 PM
What would you like this renamed as? I'll use my godly MOD POWERS! 👊💪
Just put UB Stalker Control or UB Blade Control. I think Stalker control sounds better, but its up to you. Just so nobody gets the wrong idea. People looking for a streamlined control list should not even bother looking at this unless then want to go rouge under the radar (which is always fun IMO).
Quote from: Willthomjr on April 19, 2012, 05:47:40 PM
Why 26 lands? I've always heard 23 is a rounded average for land count...still gettin into the game.
Standard magic theory. 24 lands is generally the most optimal for aggro decks. Control decks however, want to hit each and every land drop so they have counter mana or mana for bombs with counter mana open afterwards. I realize that you are new, but as you get more familiar with the concepts and play styles of control decks and their pilots, the number of lands should become more clear. So for future reference, aggro and other decks = 24 lands, while control decks = 25-26 depending on the control deck in question. Keep in mind these numbers are not set in stone and there are some exceptions (see tron), but they are the general basis that competitive players go off of.
I've heard lower numbers, ~19 to 20 for really low cost aggro, 21-22 midrange, 23-24 control. I do think that more land isn't a bad thing.
Quote from: BlackJester on April 19, 2012, 06:52:40 PM
I've heard lower numbers, ~19 to 20 for really low cost aggro, 21-22 midrange, 23-24 control. I do think that more land isn't a bad thing.
How closely do you follow the pro circuit? Most control builds always play 26 lands for the reasons I described above. Playing with 24 lands and hoping to hit all your land drops is an option, but it is not the best way to go about it. Look at Patrick Chapin's UW list he played back after Jace was released. It played somewhere around 30 just because of {Treasure Hunt} and the ability to manipulate the top of the library with {Jace, the Mindsculptor} and fetchlands. 24 is right for most aggro and midrange. 20 is fine for white weenie, while 19 is what I play in my current tron build.
Quote from: Death Gaara on April 19, 2012, 06:57:57 PM
How closely do you follow the pro circuit? Most control builds always play 26 lands for the reasons I described above. Playing with 24 lands and hoping to hit all your land drops is an option, but it is not the best way to go about it. Look at Patrick Chapin's UW list he played back after Jace was released. It played somewhere around 30 just because of {Treasure Hunt} and the ability to manipulate the top of the library with {Jace, the Mindsculptor} and fetchlands. 24 is right for most aggro and midrange. 20 is fine for white weenie, while 19 is what I play in my current tron build.
My numbers may be a little dated, but when I say fast aggro, I mean RDW and WW. Cheap mono-color where once you hit three mana, you'd rather keep drawing spells. And no, I don't follow Pro, I'm all about Casual FFA Multiplayer. Competitive players would do well not to listen to me very much. ;)
Quote from: BlackJester on April 19, 2012, 07:04:38 PM
Quote from: Death Gaara on April 19, 2012, 06:57:57 PM
How closely do you follow the pro circuit? Most control builds always play 26 lands for the reasons I described above. Playing with 24 lands and hoping to hit all your land drops is an option, but it is not the best way to go about it. Look at Patrick Chapin's UW list he played back after Jace was released. It played somewhere around 30 just because of {Treasure Hunt} and the ability to manipulate the top of the library with {Jace, the Mindsculptor} and fetchlands. 24 is right for most aggro and midrange. 20 is fine for white weenie, while 19 is what I play in my current tron build.
My numbers may be a little dated, but when I say fast aggro, I mean RDW and WW. Cheap mono-color where once you hit three mana, you'd rather keep drawing spells. And no, I don't follow Pro, I'm all about Casual FFA Multiplayer. Competitive players would do well not to listen to me very much. ;)
Its okay ;) I tend to play in GPT's, Qualifiers, Regionals, etc. So staying up to date on the pros in the circuit and having a good grasp of magic theory is a must. 19-20 is okay for white weenie build, but whenever I sling RDW around (not often as I like playing a form of control or a midrange), I never drop below 22 lands. I certainly dont claim to be an expert at RDW so maybe 22 is wrong, but I have gotten good results whenever i do tend to play with it (about once a millenia). Even though I am a competitive player, I feel that I can still learn something from you. If watching and reading John Finkel and Patrick Chapin's material has taught me one thing, its that no matter how good you are, you can always learn something from someone else. Even if they just started playing the game and you have been playing for years, everyone can teach you something. Even if its the smallest change in perspective on a card or as huge as an advanced play that was unclear, you now learned something you did not know before.
It doesn't scream "awesome", it relies on 13 cards and pretty standard U/B control package, lots of potential land draws too...
But if you say it works well I can pretty easily put this together and try it out. On my way to my Casual MtG group now, I'll let ya know, you seem adamant about this.
Quote from: Dudecore2012 on April 19, 2012, 08:15:23 PM
It doesn't scream "awesome", it relies on 13 cards and pretty standard U/B control package, lots of potential land draws too...
But if you say it works well I can pretty easily put this together and try it out. On my way to my Casual MtG group now, I'll let ya know, you seem adamant about this.
When did I ever say it works well? I never once stated that. I simply stated that it would need some playtesting and is rouge idea for FNMs. Nothing more. As stated earlier, this was something I built for someone else who wanted a Stalker deck. I have no intentions of playing this deck and really dont even like it. It is not a matter of being adamant. Its a matter of giving people what they want. Someone made a request, and I simply complied. Nothing more. Once again this list was off the top of my head. It will more than likely fold at high level events. But for FNM purposes, this list should be okay unless you have a room full of people playing the number 1 deck of the format all the time. Furthermore, check your calculations. 13 cards (almost 25% of the deck) is fine to rely on since the draw in the deck is fine. Also, some of the win conditions are very hard to get at (stalkers having hexproof, and drownyard being a land). This is a deck that was built and based on the most fundamental basics of magic theory, nothing more. I dont really care if you like it or not or even if it does well for that matter. But if somebody wants to play it because they like the idea, and wants to tell me X and Y is not working, I have no problems revising the list further. This was created for those who want/need it. Not everyone out there is looking to win a GP or a Pro tour, perhaps the original user who requested this wants to use it as a kitchen table casual deck. Thats up to him. I was simply just giving him something to start with if anything else.
Death Garaa, you seem like a pretty respectable guy.
Quote from: loop-s-pool on April 19, 2012, 10:19:25 PM
Death Garaa, you seem like a pretty respectable guy.
Thank you. I appreciate your positive comment. You seem respectable as well ;)
I think you've taken this the wrong way. I believe you've been offended by my suggestion. To which I "give up" because I am not interested in arguing.
Quote from: Dudecore2012 on April 20, 2012, 01:17:53 AM
I think you've taken this the wrong way. I believe you've been offended by my suggestion. To which I "give up" because I am not interested in arguing.
No, I am not offended by anyone. I was just stating the deck was not designed to win high level events and that I had never said it would be good. I am sorry if my post came off as angry, but I wasnt. I was just mostly stating the obvious data in a firm manor. I look at statistics and theories seriously, and as such, that is how I go about explaining them. Again, sorry if I came off as offended, but trust me, I am not ;)
Quote from: Death Gaara on April 20, 2012, 01:35:20 AM
Quote from: Dudecore2012 on April 20, 2012, 01:17:53 AM
I think you've taken this the wrong way. I believe you've been offended by my suggestion. To which I "give up" because I am not interested in arguing.
No, I am not offended by anyone. I was just stating the deck was not designed to win high level events and that I had never said it would be good. I am sorry if my post came off as angry, but I wasnt. I was just mostly stating the obvious data in a firm manor. I look at statistics and theories seriously, and as such, that is how I go about explaining them. Again, sorry if I came off as offended, but trust me, I am not ;)
If we're on the up and up, I did play your deck, because I am genuinely interested in finding decks that play against top decks. WW wiped the floor with me, and I didn't present enough aggro to make wolf run bat an eye at me. I didn't wanna act like its a trash deck, and I can be admittedly abrasive. I am having so much trouble beating WW and Wolf Run with anything other then mono-aggro
I would just like to second your 22 land RDW theory. Anymore is a flood for your low cost burn spells, any less and you're dead on board
Quote from: Dudecore2012 on April 20, 2012, 01:58:23 AM
Quote from: Death Gaara on April 20, 2012, 01:35:20 AM
Quote from: Dudecore2012 on April 20, 2012, 01:17:53 AM
I think you've taken this the wrong way. I believe you've been offended by my suggestion. To which I "give up" because I am not interested in arguing.
No, I am not offended by anyone. I was just stating the deck was not designed to win high level events and that I had never said it would be good. I am sorry if my post came off as angry, but I wasnt. I was just mostly stating the obvious data in a firm manor. I look at statistics and theories seriously, and as such, that is how I go about explaining them. Again, sorry if I came off as offended, but trust me, I am not ;)
If we're on the up and up, I did play your deck, because I am genuinely interested in finding decks that play against top decks. WW wiped the floor with me, and I didn't present enough aggro to make wolf run bat an eye at me. I didn't wanna act like its a trash deck, and I can be admittedly abrasive. I am having so much trouble beating WW and Wolf Run with anything other then mono-aggro
Of course we are cool :) I am just a very serious Magic theorist (see my article for my sense of style). It may often come across as offensive, when actually, its just firmness. I understand you dont want to act like it was a trash deck, but if thats what it was, I want to hear it. I dont make excuses for myself, I make results. Which is also why I theorized that the deck probably wouldnt win. Its fine for a good time at FNM, but I have not put the time into it to tool it against huge meta decks. This is why I said that I dont like it and wouldnt play it. I play decks that fuel me results. If anyone wants me to further work on this list, I will. I just need to know (As this deck is not for me so I have no intention of retooling it if no one else will play it). It also could have been the way you were playing the deck. I did mention this deck would be a monster to play. It has enough removal to deal with those decks (although I would probably retool it to have more if I decided to revise it).
Quote from: Nobbert on April 20, 2012, 02:06:12 AM
I would just like to second your 22 land RDW theory. Anymore is a flood for your low cost burn spells, any less and you're dead on board
Thanks. I dont claim to be a Magic expert or "pro", but I feel I do have alot of experience with the game. I have played it for 10 years, so all of my ideas, practices, theorems, and speculations are based off of my first hand experience with the game, and following those who have dedicated alot of their time and energy. People like John Finkel, Kai Buddai, Gabriel Nassif, Patrick Chapin, LSV, etc. As such, I have formed and learned countless basic fundamental theories of many aspects of the game that allows one to get a better grasp on "what feels right". Like I said, I am no pro and far from the best. But I do know some fundamentals from personal experience that allow such theories to be accurate. It was John Finkel who said that "everyone has something to teach you". So keeping this in mind, I know I have a lot to learn about the game from other people as well as future experiences.
I have 5 years of counter/control, it's not on a Pro Tour level, but successful locally. I haven't found a counter/control in the current meta worth anything more then 50% win chance. My frustration is spending 100's of dollars to beat WW's 50% of the time. Beating Wolf Run less then half the time too.
I am "new" to posting on this message board, but I've lurked for awhile. I am in a casual MtG group that runs top decks always, we get together on Thursday before FNM. I am constantly the blue Mage, that is my playstyle.
The 25% draw chance of the 13 cards isn't solid enough to win IMO, and that is what played out when I tried the deck that you posted. I either drew equipment and no creatures, or drew creatures and couldn't stave off long enough to equip them. I won 2 of 7 games.
Edit: I'll add, I did better when I added Delver, and I placed them turn 1 and 2, but I chalk that up to lucky draws and flips. Nothing I could manage helped me from getting rolled by WW besides pure luck, whereas WW used little effort to out aggro me and desimate my control measures. At a point I got enough mana to drop {Grave Titan} that was quickly {Fiend Hunter}ed and was rolled by {honor of the pure} creatures
I watch my buddies play WW vs. Wolf Run, or WW vs. RDW and any combination, they have amazing games. Esper vs. has good games, U/W and U/B just barely wins from luck, or a blowout for them... I wonder if anyone else is experiencing this
Quote from: Dudecore2012 on April 20, 2012, 03:29:58 AM
I have 5 years of counter/control, it's not on a Pro Tour level, but successful locally. I haven't found a counter/control in the current meta worth anything more then 50% win chance. My frustration is spending 100's of dollars to beat WW's 50% of the time. Beating Wolf Run less then half the time too.
I am "new" to posting on this message board, but I've lurked for awhile. I am in a casual MtG group that runs top decks always, we get together on Thursday before FNM. I am constantly the blue Mage, that is my playstyle.
The 25% draw chance of the 13 cards isn't solid enough to win IMO, and that is what played out when I tried the deck that you posted. I either drew equipment and no creatures, or drew creatures and couldn't stave off long enough to equip them. I won 2 of 7 games.
Precisely. I feel that the format is too fast for a solid control build. Which is why I keep reiterating that I won't play the deck. As for my style, I started as a Red Mage over the years have adapted to play anything. I prefer control and mid range builds now (not much of a Red Mage anymore), but can play aggro as well. I have always been adept with combo so I generally don't count it. Back on to the topic at hand, I didn't feel this deck was suitable which is why I never built it. I do enjoy taking requests regardless of the meta. Even the person I built this for stated they didn't follow the meta. So if anything it should prove to be a solid casual deck. But for what I want out of the game, that's not good enough (unless of course I am just casually playing). Instead, my current deck choice is a my personal take on Wolf Run Ramp as I hate net decking and like to implement my own style and themes to a preexsiting deck (not to say that I never homebrew). I feel wolf run is the most consistent deck in the format right now that is the hardest deck to disrupt. That is why I play it. It did not surprise me this deck flopped in your play testing. Control is a deck that must know the meta and have answers against it. Despite my feelings that wolf run is the most consistent deck, Delver and Tokens are also considered tier 1. That being said, control does not have the ability to guess the current nonexistent meta because the "top deck" if you will just keeps changing. Some days it's Delver, other days it could be tokens or Wolf Run. With this inconsistent meta, and the fact that this is an incredibly fast format, control does not have the ability to thrive. One can deduce this without having to playtest at all. This is not a deck I recommend (although I do recommend it over the UW list I posted), but should provide a good time on the kitchen table. If you are looking to stomp competitive decks, we can discuss different takes on tier 1 decks. If anyone wants to see my wolf run list, I can always post it or write an article (it has many obscure MB choices).
I'm open for a duel colored deck that can compete in the current format. The closest I ever got was a U/W delver blade that uses {geist of saint traft} and {timely reinforcements}, and even then is 70% based on what Delver can do. {ratchet bomb} draws vs. White Weenies. Spot removal/board sweep vs. wolf run ramp
If this isn't the place for this discussion, PM me a strategy and I'm more then willing to try anything at this point
Quote from: Dudecore2012 on April 20, 2012, 04:29:40 AM
I'm open for a duel colored deck that can compete in the current format. The closest I ever got was a U/W delver blade that uses {geist of saint traft} and {timely reinforcements}, and even then is 70% based on what Delver can do. {ratchet bomb} draws vs. White Weenies. Spot removal/board sweep vs. wolf run ramp
If this isn't the place for this discussion, PM me a strategy and I'm more then willing to try anything at this point
We can discuss it here if you want. I just wasn't sure if you wanted to open a thread specifically for this situation. I am going to be honest and up front with you, the format is too fast for homebrewing. Your best chance is to just play your version of what is competitive or net deck (if your into that sort of thing). The only decks I see in the future from homebrewing is either going to be the Esper Walker Control deck or a Turbo fog esque build playing a few {Temporal Mastery} with the likes of planeswalkers (namely Gideon, Tamiyo, Elspeth, Chandra, and Jace).