Team Grixis & Pro-active vs Reactive Control

I've been playing a Standard UBR deck on MtGO lately I've tentatively titled 'Team Grixis'. Here's the list, based on the good work at Affinity for Islands:

4 x Lighting Bolt
3 x Negate
2 x Essence Scatter
3 x Double Negative
2 x Grixis Charm
4 x Terminate

4 x Couriers Capsule

3 x Cruel Ultimatum
2 x Earthquake

1 x Sphinx of Jwar Isle
1 x Sphinx of Lost Truths

1 x Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker
1 x Chandra Nalaar
1 x Sorin Markov
1 x Liliana Vess
1 x Jace Beleren

4 x Scalding Tarn
4 x Verdant Catacombs
4 x Dragonskull Summit
2 x Crumbling Necropolis
3 x Mountain
4 x Island
5 x Swamp

It's a fun, fun deck to play, especially if you love games that go on for at minimum of ten turns. A recent concession on MtGO where someone quit because 'it was turn 13' got my head really spinning. Really? Turn 13 got you down? Have I got a Pickles lock to show you!

For a while I was convinced I needed to play Red Deck Wins as my old age and energy levels couldn't keep up over the course of an event. Then I realised, hey, you know what I do have? Infinite patience. Which is exactly what you need when playing control.

I remember I took the Fae and 5CC to a couple of FNMs in the last Standard season, and I would always win the mirror. Why? Because the young buck opposite me was determine to make something - anything - happen. Even if that meant losing. I have learnt that I don't feel that need. I can hold on forever, refusing to yield. So what if we're both playing draw-go? I dare you to tap out. I dare you.

Meanwhile, playing the deck has got me thinking, though, about the difference between pro-active and reactive control.

Pro-active vs reactive control

Blue is the colour synonymous with control for one simple reason - it engages in pro-active control. The ability to prevent a threat from ever reaching the battlefield through counter-magic has, historically, allowed blue to control the flow of the game, shaping it and moulding it in the right direction for victory. However, blue is at it's weakest at the moment. It's strongest counter (cancel) has a casting cost of 1UU, and beyond that it's left with a bunch of situational spells, most of which cannot cope against the inherent power of the Cascade mechanic.

As a result, control has moved into a far more reactive position. We have red options (Lightning Bolt, Terminate, Earthquake) or white options (Day of Judgment, Path to Exile, Oblivion Ring) and black options (Doom Blade, Infest, Gatekeeper of Malikir). These colours are stepping up their control game in response to the speed of play and card advantage that decks like Boros Bushwacker and Jund Cascade provide, and the gap in speed that blue has left behind.

Is prevention better than cure?

Any doctor will tell you prevention is better than cure. However, in Magic, the gamestate isn't that simple. The game allows one person to go first, and that person will have an inherent tempo advantage. A three-mana prevention spell such as Cancel is not much use when your opponent has dumped their biggest threats onto the battlefield before you have a chance to cast it.

At the same time, the diversification of threats at the moment means a situational counter such as Negate may sit in a hand unused as Goblin Guide after Goblin Guide hits play, or visa versa with a Luminarc Ascension with an Essence Scatter in hand. Again, blue's problem is that there is no 'soft' counter that can hit anything for a 2 mana casting cost in Standard at the moment.

As counters have progressively been neutered, answers have been getting better. Three good examples are Maelstrom Pulse, that can kill anything and it's brothers for a mere 1GB, Oblivion Ring, which can do the same for 2W, and Bituminous Blast, that is a two-for-one whenever it goes off.

This means that, as a whole, cards that are reactive answers to generic problems are currently stronger than cards that are narrow, active preventions for specific threats. Why risk running Essence Scatter when you know you'll hit a two-for-one at least with Day of Judgment?

Counter on the play, removal on the draw?

So, knowing the limitations of our active counters and our reactive answers, perhaps there is a new philosophy to enact - Active counters on the play, reactive answers on the draw.

For instance, ignoring the conditional Flash Freeze, the deck might have choose to play the following on the play:

4 x Lighting Bolt
4 x Essence Scatter
4 x Negate
4 x Double Negative
4 x Cancel
2 x Terminate

And this on the draw:

4 x Lighting Bolt
4 x Terminate
4 x Grixis Charm
4 x Earthquake
4 x Spell Pierce
2 x Negate

The first set acknowledges starting mana boost and the philosophy of prevention over cure. The second set acknowledges the need to play catchup, reducing casting costs, looking for the sweep, and planning to remove whatever his the ground.

The conundrum, then, is what to have in the maindeck, where you can never be sure whether you'll play or draw. At this point, I'd be inclined to use the 'Draw' list and always elect to draw in Game 1. Your opponent will rarely elect to draw, so you can be sure you'll have your optimum decklist. Then, if you lose Game 2 (which you should be relatively set up for), you can sideboard into Game 3 the 'on the play' card list, using the tempo boost to maximum advantage.

I'm going to tinker around with this strategy a bit. I'm sure I'll find a steady balance of proactivity and reaction. After all, I have infinite patience.

Labels: deckbuilding, magic, theory