Is Keeper Viable?

[forests failed you]

There are, basically, seven fundamental resources in Magic.
1. Life
2. Cards in Hand
3. Cards in your Deck
4. Your Graveyard
5. Your Turn
6. Your Mana
7. Anything from 1-6 that belongs to your opponent that you can take away from him, and use for yourself.

I would also include the cards in the removed from game Zone on this list, this includes one's sideboard.

[Harkius]

I would also include the cards in the removed from game Zone on this list, this includes one's sideboard.

I think that sounds pretty reasonable. Since you canaccess those with Wishes, they are an resource. I stand corrected! I will edit it in a minute (it won't let me post faster than 1 time every sixty seconds...grr...damn technology anyway!)

Thanks,
Harkius

[dicemanx]

It is when the only path to victory that the deck runs is that route. When someone is only running 2 win conditions, and you have cheap, fast, efficient answers for those win conditions, you're in a position of advantage.

You're in a postion of parity, not advantage (unless your opponent is dense enough to lose his win conditions by walking into your removal when not pressured). Your StP might hold that Tinker in their hand at bay, and the battle rages on.

If you are not fortunate to have the answer in your hand when they play their bomb, you might very well lose. If you are holding the answer, and they don't have their bomb, then you're certainly not winning, all other things being equal.

I would argue that most, if not all, vintage decks are one-trick ponies. They all aim to resolve a game ending will (except dragon, and non-b decks). Barring that, they try and struggle to get their few win conditions to squeak them by, into a win. It's the nature of the beast. Keeper isn't alone here.

I cannot see how you are viewing decks like Gifts or CS as one trick ponies, particularly CS (I'm looking at modern day control here, because that's what we're comparing Keeper to).  CS is loaded with game ending bombs, including things like Will, Welder-TfK, or Tinker. It can also win small. Gifts is bimodal (ie it is operating as either a Will deck or DSC/Belcher/Vault deck, and these aren't even mutually exclusive)- it has terrifyingly fast and strong card draw and tutoring, but if you cut it off from the Will plan, they can fall back on DSC or Belcher/Vault to win. It is very hard to stop *either* plan as it is, but Gifts does itself a favor by not relying on either kill. For instance, even if you hold 4 StP in your hand Gifts can still muscle through a DSC and beat you handily.

Because these decks are focused on resolving and winning via their many game-ending bombs, I think it is far too meek to suggest that they "struggle to get their few win conditions to squeak them by". A more apt description is that they can massively explode in your face and you must scramble desperately to prevent that from happening, and even then you're not guaranteed victory if you manage to contain them early.

The fact is that you don't always get to wait until the game is sewn up to cast your threat. If you don't wait against Keeper, you are going to get your win condition blow'd up. This is a simple fact. As long as Keeper is running the front edge of counter in the field (and with less dependence on tutors, it certainly ought to be), it should have more in hand at any given point. Or access to more with Brainstorm.

I get the impression that you believe that Keeper has an edge on the more "specialized" control decks in the format in terms of ability to disrupt or generate CA, which isn't the case. Both Gifts and Gifts (or Tog even) either match or exceed Keeper in terms of card drawing and/or Disruption, and on top of that they can end games quickly while all Keeper can boast about is the ability to maintain parity by dealing with threats. Even Oath would be included in this category, except that it has undergone a transformation into something that more closely resembles aggro-control (like Fish).

No, Keeper cannot counter everything. No, Keeper shouldn't even try. Instead, Keeper needs to play its own game on its own terms. The cards that it uses can be more efficient than the cards used by everyone else. Yes, killing your opponent is a pretty damned effective method of keeping him from doing anything undesirable. However, it is not always the answer. Focusing too much on killing him means that you have less of a plan should he struggle out from underneath your massive foot. Then, he runs around and you are stuck with a helpless smile on your face. This is the game that Keeper needs to play.

Few will argue that this is indeed Keeper's game plan, and that it aims to be the more "efficient" deck (cheaper answers vs opponent's expensive threats for example). Also, few will argue that there will be situations where having answers will trump winning the game by resolving bombs. However, the contention is that this *isn't good enough* to be competitive in the current meta. This is the "no wrong threats, just wrong answers" syndrome - while this wasn't much of an issue in 1998 (Keeper could afford to have "wrong answers", because it was the premiere CA generating machine back then), it certainly is a serious concern now when you are drawing duds while your opponent is tearing you a new hole with his own disruption/card drawing/bombs. 

[Harkius]

Do you ever get the feeling that people are reading what you are saying, but just not listening?

It is when the only path to victory that the deck runs is that route. When someone is only running 2 win conditions, and you have cheap, fast, efficient answers for those win conditions, you're in a position of advantage.

You're in a postion of parity, not advantage (unless your opponent is dense enough to lose his win conditions by walking into your removal when not pressured). Your StP might hold
that Tinker in their hand at bay, and the battle rages on.

You are right. At the moment, you have parity. But, if you nullify his threat, then you do have advantage.

I would argue that most, if not all, vintage decks are one-trick ponies. They all aim to resolve a game ending will (except dragon, and non-b decks). Barring that, they try and struggle to get their few win conditions to squeak them by, into a win. It's the nature of the beast. Keeper isn't alone here.

I cannot see how you are viewing decks like Gifts or CS as one trick ponies, particularly CS (I'm looking at modern day control here, because that's what we're comparing Keeper to).  CS is loaded with game ending bombs, including things like Will, Welder-TfK, or Tinker. It can also win small. Gifts is bimodal (ie it is operating as either a Will deck or DSC/Belcher/Vault deck, and these aren't even mutually exclusive)- it has terrifyingly fast and strong card draw and tutoring, but if you cut it off from the Will plan, they can fall back on DSC or Belcher/Vault to win. It is very hard to stop *either* plan as it is, but Gifts does itself a favor by not relying on either kill. For instance, even if you hold 4 StP in your hand Gifts can still muscle through a DSC and beat you handily.

Yes, these are all "game-ending bombs", as you define them. However, if you prioritize, and counter the Thirst for Knowledge, the Tinker, or whatever the actual threat is he is using Yawgmoth's will for, then you have enough counter to keep him in control. I think that you either missed my point, disregarded it, or didn't care. I already pointed out that you cannot counter every threat, and that trying is losing. Instead, you counter the threats that will win the game. Will will not win the game. A Tendrils will, a Brain Freeze will, a Fireball for twelve might, etc. The Will itself? Nope. Not going to kill me. I will let you have it. It may sound like curious logic, but you cannot fight everything. Fight only the battles that you have to win. (Note: If there are two threats in your opponent's graveyard, and I mean game-ending threats, then counter the Y. Will.)

The fact is that you don't always get to wait until the game is sewn up to cast your threat. If you don't wait against Keeper, you are going to get your win condition blow'd up. This is a simple fact. As long as Keeper is running the front edge of counter in the field (and with less dependence on tutors, it certainly ought to be), it should have more in hand at any given point. Or access to more with Brainstorm.

I get the impression that you believe that Keeper has an edge on the more "specialized" control decks in the format in terms of ability to disrupt or generate CA, which isn't the case. Both Gifts and Gifts (or Tog even) either match or exceed Keeper in terms of card drawing and/or Disruption, and on top of that they can end games quickly while all Keeper can boast about is the ability to maintain parity by dealing with threats. Even Oath would be included in this category, except that it has undergone a transformation into something that more closely resembles aggro-control (like Fish).

And I get the impression, again, that you are not listening. Their card drawing and/or Disruption is not what you should care about! Care about the threat. Yes, these are bad, and if you can stop them, then you should do so, but, it is vital to not stop anything that will prevent you from stopping the card that will end the game. It is pretty simple.

No, Keeper cannot counter everything. No, Keeper shouldn't even try. Instead, Keeper needs to play its own game on its own terms. The cards that it uses can be more efficient than the cards used by everyone else. Yes, killing your opponent is a pretty damned effective method of keeping him from doing anything undesirable. However, it is not always the answer. Focusing too much on killing him means that you have less of a plan should he struggle out from underneath your massive foot. Then, he runs around and you are stuck with a helpless smile on your face. This is the game that Keeper needs to play.

Few will argue that this is indeed Keeper's game plan, and that it aims to be the more "efficient" deck (cheaper answers vs opponent's expensive threats for example). Also, few will argue that there will be situations where having answers will trump winning the game by resolving bombs. However, the contention is that this *isn't good enough* to be competitive in the current meta. This is the "no wrong threats, just wrong answers" syndrome - while this wasn't much of an issue in 1998 (Keeper could afford to have "wrong answers", because it was the premiere CA generating machine back then), it certainly is a serious concern now when you are drawing duds while your opponent is tearing you a new hole with his own disruption/card drawing/bombs. 

So you did read that part, you must have just ignored it. I am familiar with the argument that there are no wrong threats, but there are wrong answers. The fact of the matter is that there aren't wrong threats, no, but if you only have a few, then there are plenty of right answers. That is the point that you seem to be missing. If you have a half dozen threats, 3 Duress, and 8 Counters, assuming that your opponent, playing Keeper, has somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 Counters, and 6-8 answers, you can count on him putting up a damn good fight. Sure, you may have had access to 1.5 times as many cards, but the statistics will only take you so far. We can wax theoretical about it, and I can crack the statistics, but the fact is that you simply will not be convinced.

Anyone else find any problems in my post?

Thanks,
Harkius

[dicemanx]

Do you ever get the feeling that people are reading what you are saying, but just not listening?

Unless you are talking in code, I think your points are coming across just fine. What I'm starting to question is whether *you* are getting it. For instance:

You are right. At the moment, you have parity. But, if you nullify his threat, then you do have advantage.

You do not develop an advantage if you "nullify" a threat, unless that threat was the only way the opponent could win the game or your opponent was heavily reliant on that threat and walked into your removal (perhaps even needlessly). Stopping a bomb keeps you at parity, everything else being equal. Actually, its even likely that you would be at a *disadvantage* if you had to expend resources to track down your answer.

Yes, these are all "game-ending bombs", as you define them. However, if you prioritize, and counter the Thirst for Knowledge, the Tinker, or whatever the actual threat is he is using Yawgmoth's will for, then you have enough counter to keep him in control. I think that you either missed my point, disregarded it, or didn't care.

I think you missed the part where modern control decks can fight you equally with regards to card drawing and disruption. Its not a question of Keeper merely staving off the threats, and then some sort of "inevitability" will kick in where the Keeper deck will outdraw and out-disrupt the other control deck. Thats not how it works. At all. As I explained, Keeper is trying to fight on two fronts - it attempts to win the card-drawing war, but at the same time it has to be ready to have the proper answers if a bomb resolves on the other side or lose. Conversely, if Keeper manages to find answers to bombs, then its still just a game.

Thats not to say that Keeper will always lose to modern control. However, it will always be fighting at a disadvantage, because it doesn't have the luxury of drawing wrong answers at the wrong time. For instance, you try winning games where you draw StPs or Angels/DoJs against decks like Gifts where your cards have little to no impact on the CA war that Gifts will engage you in, and then let me know if you think Keeper is on equal footing. 

And I get the impression, again, that you are not listening. Their card drawing and/or Disruption is not what you should care about! Care about the threat. Yes, these are bad, and if you can stop them, then you should do so, but, it is vital to not stop anything that will prevent you from stopping the card that will end the game. It is pretty simple.

I would urge you to learn to play control before making statements like your second one. I cannot comment on the 4th statement, because it couldn't be any more confusing. If you think Keeper can succeed by focusing on stopping your opponent's threats and not care about his card drawing then Keeper will be winning very very few games.

So you did read that part, you must have just ignored it. I am familiar with the argument that there are no wrong threats, but there are wrong answers. The fact of the matter is that there aren't wrong threats, no, but if you only have a few, then there are plenty of right answers. That is the point that you seem to be missing. If you have a half dozen threats, 3 Duress, and 8 Counters, assuming that your opponent, playing Keeper, has somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 Counters, and 6-8 answers, you can count on him putting up a damn good fight. Sure, you may have had access to 1.5 times as many cards, but the statistics will only take you so far. We can wax theoretical about it, and I can crack the statistics, but the fact is that you simply will not be convinced.

If you permit your control opponent to outdraw you in a ratio of 1.5 cards to 1, you will not win many, if ANY, games. In fact, I'd like to see what "statistics" you are threatening to crack on me here that I apparently won't listen to. 

[Milton]

I have two serious problems.

Yes, these are all "game-ending bombs", as you define them. However, if you prioritize, and counter the Thirst for Knowledge, the Tinker, or whatever the actual threat is he is using Yawgmoth's will for, then you have enough counter to keep him in control. I think that you either missed my point, disregarded it, or didn't care. I already pointed out that you cannot counter every threat, and that trying is losing. Instead, you counter the threats that will win the game. Will will not win the game. A Tendrils will, a Brain Freeze will, a Fireball for twelve might, etc. The Will itself? Nope. Not going to kill me. I will let you have it. It may sound like curious logic, but you cannot fight everything. Fight only the battles that you have to win. (Note: If there are two threats in your opponent's graveyard, and I mean game-ending threats, then counter the Y. Will.)

The logic here is beyond comprehension.  The Will must be countered, not because he only has one threat in the graveyard, but because, assuming a full graveyard, he has access to more card drawing, tutoring, searching, acceleration.  Everything you spent the entire game CONTROLING is now at your opponents fingertips if Will goes through.  So he plays a shitton of spells and casts Tendrils.  Counter?  Nope.  It doesn't work that way.  Your still dead.  There are very, very few instances in which a control play can allow a Will to resolve.

By the way, most Control v. Control match-ups are not won over the big Will.  They are won prior to that point by the big EOT play, and the counter war that ensues.  EOT for Gifts, or EOT for Ancestral or EOT for Fact or EOT for a big Skeletal or EOT for...  Whatever (or a big EOT activation of Welder).  That's where the game is lost, and that's where the game needs to be won.  Prevent that, and you win (assuming your opponent doesn't just Will next turn while you are tapped out).

also...

No, Keeper cannot counter everything. No, Keeper shouldn't even try. Instead, Keeper needs to play its own game on its own terms. The cards that it uses can be more efficient than the cards used by everyone else. Yes, killing your opponent is a pretty damned effective method of keeping him from doing anything undesirable. However, it is not always the answer. Focusing too much on killing him means that you have less of a plan should he struggle out from underneath your massive foot. Then, he runs around and you are stuck with a helpless smile on your face. This is the game that Keeper needs to play.

What does this mean?  Keeper needs to play it's own game?  Don't focus on the opponent?  Sounds much more like combo-control or just plain combo.  It's a good way to play, but not for Keeper.  Keeper focuses on disrupting the opponent's strategy.  If Keeper "plays it's own game" it it's present state, it will get killed by the opponent who is also "playing his own game" at a much greater rate of speed, with much better card drawing and with much better general brokenness.  I think you should try to clarify what you mean here.

[dicemanx]

They are won prior to that point by the big EOT play, and the counter war that ensues.  EOT for Gifts, or EOT for Ancestral or EOT for Fact or EOT for a bit Skeletal or EOT for...  Whatever (or a big EOT activation of Welder).  That's where the game is lost, and that's where the game needs to be won.  Prevent that, and you win (assuming your opponent doesn't just Will next turn while you are tapped out).

I was actually going to make a point about this earlier, but never got the chance.

I feel that this doesn't happen very much anymore. Modern control decks have an almost endless stream of card drawing and disruption that what actually decides control match-ups is the flow of card drawing/disruption rather than relying on the one big EOT card drawer. That is, the person who can successfully chain his card drawing into more card drawing is usually the one who will be successful.

There are also exceptions when there's an occasional bomb dropped in between the chains. For instance, an early Welder or Oath changes the complexion of the game because all of a sudden it either places you on a short clock or strengthens the threat that a specific card poses (TfK or maybe Gifts in the case of Welder). This means that control vs control battles can and are also decided with appreciable frequency in a main phase.

 Its actually pretty spectacular how a lot of control clashes end up going back and forth as both decks try to either refuel and keep their draw chains going or make a big main phase play once they have the initiative and hope to ride it to victory.

[Thug]

This is not directed at anyone, just my opinion (I dont want to get into arguments or such)

It think the whole idea behind keeper/3cc is outdated. (As is the name)
Cards that defined the deck are pretty weak right now:

- Mind Twist isn't fast enough anymore, and later in the game you rather just win.
- Balance is used in Stax as a Mind-Twist and is weak in any other deck (Leviat aside)
- Cycling Decree means you tap out for something that won't affect the game the next two turns which is wrong.

Some cards are still stable and should be the cornerstones of any attempt of crating a deck with any resemblence to Keeper.
These are BS, Drain, FoW, Skrying and probably Cunning Wish.
Tinker -> Collosus should be played because it wins games fast, and even better, it wins random games
Mana Crypt should be added cause you need the speed and should win before the damage makes any difference.
I think you should cut back to these cards and start there, your goal should be to make a Control deck based around Skryings, not to reanimate keeper, 'cause we still lack the technology to reanimate things that have passed away long time ago.

P.S.

It's too bad Burning Wish got the axe, 'cause the Shining might have been the best option for such a deck right now, however you would be looking at just another Will deck

Koen

[Harkius]

You are right. At the moment, you have parity. But, if you nullify his threat, then you do have advantage.

You do not develop an advantage if you "nullify" a threat, unless that threat was the only way the opponent could win the game or your opponent was heavily reliant on that threat and walked into your removal (perhaps even needlessly). Stopping a bomb keeps you at parity, everything else being equal.

Not necessarily true. First, let me apologize. I mistakenly posted out of frustration, and my words were more curt than they should have been. Let me try again. "I think that I have failed to make my point clearly." To continue, nullifying a threat can generate card advantage, even if it was not the only way to win. If your opponent has cards specifically to search out those cards, then any card that he draws toward that end are now wasted. This is similar to Moat in classic control decks; every creature after that is a dead draw. A card drawn for nothing is no better than a card not drawn.

Yes, these are bad, and if you can stop them, then you should do so, but, it is vital to not stop anything that will prevent you from stopping the card that will end the game.

I cannot comment on the 3rd statement, because it couldn't be any more confusing.

Sorry about that, let me clarify that statement. What I meant to say was that the most important thing to stop is the card that will directly cost you the game. Follow along.
1. You have a limited number of counterspells in your deck.
2. Your opponent has a large number of cards that you would like to stop.
3. Your opponent has more cards that you would like to stop than you have counterspells.
Therefore, you must prioritize.
4. Some cards your opponent casts will cost you the game, others will not.
5. Losing is bad.
Therefore, you must counter the cards that will cost you the game.

If you have countermagic enough, then you can worry about the cards that will not directly cost you the game. The hard task, admittedly, is making that decision. Countering their draw makes winning easier, and sometimes is necessary to have a chance. But, sometimes you simply cannot afford it. Playing a lot, understanding the most commonly played decks, and knowing what they are capable of, along with some statistics and a little luck, will guide you through most times.

As far as the rest of it goes, you may or may not be right. The fact of the matter is that I don't care to debate it solely with you. The fact is, and always will be, that drawing one hundred cards will do you no good unless you can turn them into some kind of advantage. I freely acknowledge that you are less likely to be able to control the game if you are getting outdrawn, but I am also saying that it is not necessarily a lost cause. If anyone else has missed Jacob Orlove's article (linked to at the end of the third page of posts), I suggest that you go read it. He pretty clearly makes a point I was hazy on and didn't address. (Actually, his article is much better than my post overall, but I hadn't read it, so I hope you will all forgive my posting.) That is that all of the cards in the world won't win you the game; you need to actually kill your opponent at some point. This was why Keeper used such otherwise weak threats. By the time it finally got to using one of them, there was very little your opponent could do to stop it. More efficient threats, for all that they are worth, simply fall into the same vein, except that they may be slightly more versatile (if they are more durable, that is).

That was what I was trying to say. There are times neutralizing threats gains you card advantage. This is simply a fact.

Addressing the other arguments:

Yes, these are all "game-ending bombs", as you define them. However, if you prioritize, and counter the Thirst for Knowledge, the Tinker, or whatever the actual threat is he is using Yawgmoth's will for, then you have enough counter to keep him in control. I think that you either missed my point, disregarded it, or didn't care. I already pointed out that you cannot counter every threat, and that trying is losing. Instead, you counter the threats that will win the game. Will will not win the game. A Tendrils will, a Brain Freeze will, a Fireball for twelve might, etc. The Will itself? Nope. Not going to kill me. I will let you have it. It may sound like curious logic, but you cannot fight everything. Fight only the battles that you have to win. (Note: If there are two threats in your opponent's graveyard, and I mean game-ending threats, then counter the Y. Will.)

The logic here is beyond comprehension.  The Will must be countered, not because he only has one threat in the graveyard, but because, assuming a full graveyard, he has access to more card drawing, tutoring, searching, acceleration.  Everything you spent the entire game CONTROLING is now at your opponents fingertips if Will goes through.  So he plays a shitton of spells and casts Tendrils.  Counter?  Nope.  It doesn't work that way.  Your still dead.  There are very, very few instances in which a control play can allow a Will to resolve.

By the way, most Control v. Control match-ups are not won over the big Will.  They are won prior to that point by the big EOT play, and the counter war that ensues.  EOT for Gifts, or EOT for Ancestral or EOT for Fact or EOT for a big Skeletal or EOT for...  Whatever (or a big EOT activation of Welder).  That's where the game is lost, and that's where the game needs to be won.  Prevent that, and you win (assuming your opponent doesn't just Will next turn while you are tapped out).

I will address both of these at the same time, because you aren't arguing against my logic, you are actually just saying the same things that others have, including Dicemanx. My argument is that there are things that you must counter, and there are things that you would like to counter. Knowing the difference will make a large difference between winning and losing. I understand that the most common belief is that you must counter card drawing. But, I am saying that this logic may no longer be the correct answer. Some experimentation when I get a chance to playtest will answer these questions. I think of it as drunken control playing (named for the guy who fought with a drunken samurai style, I can't remember his name...) Conventional control may not work in today's environment. Maybe, maybe not. Definately worth a try, though.

No, Keeper cannot counter everything. No, Keeper shouldn't even try. Instead, Keeper needs to play its own game on its own terms. The cards that it uses can be more efficient than the cards used by everyone else. Yes, killing your opponent is a pretty damned effective method of keeping him from doing anything undesirable. However, it is not always the answer. Focusing too much on killing him means that you have less of a plan should he struggle out from underneath your massive foot. Then, he runs around and you are stuck with a helpless smile on your face. This is the game that Keeper needs to play.

What does this mean?  Keeper needs to play it's own game?  Don't focus on the opponent?  Sounds much more like combo-control or just plain combo.  It's a good way to play, but not for Keeper.  Keeper focuses on disrupting the opponent's strategy.  If Keeper "plays it's own game" it it's present state, it will get killed by the opponent who is also "playing his own game" at a much greater rate of speed, with much better card drawing and with much better general brokenness.  I think you should try to clarify what you mean here.

Let me clarify. I am not saying that Keeper should ignore the opponent. Sorry about that. Rather, I am saying that Keeper needs to play as if it is Keeper, not play as if you are combo-control or whatever. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

There are also exceptions when there's an occasional bomb dropped in between the chains. For instance, an early Welder or Oath changes the complexion of the game because all of a sudden it either places you on a short clock or strengthens the threat that a specific card poses (TfK or maybe Gifts in the case of Welder). This means that control vs control battles can and are also decided with appreciable frequency in a main phase.

 Its actually pretty spectacular how a lot of control clashes end up going back and forth as both decks try to either refuel and keep their draw chains going or make a big main phase play once they have the initiative and hope to ride it to victory.

See???? Exactly! This is what I am talking about! These are the threats. The Welder, the Oath, the TfK, etc. These are the must counters.

Cheers,
Harkius

[Milton]

I was actually going to make a point about this earlier, but never got the chance.

I feel that this doesn't happen very much anymore. Modern control decks have an almost endless stream of card drawing and disruption that what actually decides control match-ups is the flow of card drawing/disruption rather than relying on the one big EOT card drawer. That is, the person who can successfully chain his card drawing into more card drawing is usually the one who will be successful.

There are also exceptions when there's an occasional bomb dropped in between the chains. For instance, an early Welder or Oath changes the complexion of the game because all of a sudden it either places you on a short clock or strengthens the threat that a specific card poses (TfK or maybe Gifts in the case of Welder). This means that control vs control battles can and are also decided with appreciable frequency in a main phase.

 Its actually pretty spectacular how a lot of control clashes end up going back and forth as both decks try to either refuel and keep their draw chains going or make a big main phase play once they have the initiative and hope to ride it to victory.

I think this is an extremely good point, but let me pose a question.  Assuming your are doing nothing to your oppoent (no wastes, no counters) and he is "in the chain" how big does the "chain" get?  How many turns of EOT Brainstorm. Fetch?  EOT Vamp?  How long is the set-up before your opponent beats you by, basically, combo-ing out?  Five turns?  Three? 

We are agruing two very different points here.  Harkius is arguing that you ignore the "draw chain" and just counter the must-counter stuff.  I'm arguing that your opponent's "draw chain" is so damn effective that, unless you can disrupt it, you won't win.

[dicemanx]

We are agruing two very different points here.  Harkius is arguing that you ignore the "draw chain" and just counter the must-counter stuff.  I'm arguing that your opponent's "draw chain" is so damn effective that, unless you can disrupt it, you won't win.

I think this is applicable to Keeper, but isn't necessarily applicable to combo-control decks. Keeper essentially must win the card drawing war, because it has very little in the way of pressure (7 mana DoJ to create 5 turn clocks do not qualify as enough significant pressure, at least not when it counts; this also ties back to the fact that I keep calling Keeper a 1 trick pony). Decks like Oath, Gifts, and CS on the other hand can fall behind in the card drawing department but can still win through their threats, primarily because the threats can end the game quickly and also because there is little in the way of removal for that threat. And sure, while Keeper *does* have increased ways of dealing with such threats, it doesn't mean that this strategy is more effective. As has been said before by others (FFY for example), you are making a trade-off in taking on solutions to problems rather than the "combo finishes". However, the argument is that this trade-off isn't good enough and there's little sense in handicapping yourself when better deck choices/strategies exist.

Thug does highlight the fact that the focus should be on Scrying, because that is the premiere card drawing card in Keeper. But this really doesn't resolve the issue in this thread, because Scrying can be used by any modern control deck, not just Keeper. Perhaps this begs the question - why aren't we seeing more Scryings in Gifts or CS for example?

Assuming your are doing nothing to your oppoent (no wastes, no counters) and he is "in the chain" how big does the "chain" get?  How many turns of EOT Brainstorm. Fetch?  EOT Vamp?  How long is the set-up before your opponent beats you by, basically, combo-ing out?  Five turns?  Three?

Are you asking about goldfish rates here? I'm assuming no, because that doesn't take into consideration your opponent's possible disruption (ie you wouldn't blindly Will as you might when Goldfishing). If that's the case, then my answer would span a broad range of turns, but i doubt that that's helpful. Furthermore, win conditions can impact each other/trump each other. For instance, Welder deals with Tinker-DSC effectively, but something like Oath can stop or discourage a Welder from hitting play, even if the Oath itself is not in play yet.

[Harkius]

Thug does highlight the fact that the focus should be on Scrying, because that is the premiere card drawing card in Keeper. But this really doesn't resolve the issue in this thread, because Scrying can be used by any modern control deck, not just Keeper. Perhaps this begs the question - why aren't we seeing more Scryings in Gifts or CS for example?

I think that this is a mighty fine question, and it is curious that others have not ever pointed it out.

Assuming your are doing nothing to your oppoent (no wastes, no counters) and he is "in the chain" how big does the "chain" get? How many turns of EOT Brainstorm. Fetch? EOT Vamp? How long is the set-up before your opponent beats you by, basically, combo-ing out? Five turns? Three?

Are you asking about goldfish rates here? I'm assuming no, because that doesn't take into consideration your opponent's possible disruption (ie you wouldn't blindly Will as you might when Goldfishing). If that's the case, then my answer would span a broad range of turns, but i doubt that that's helpful. Furthermore, win conditions can impact each other/trump each other. For instance, Welder deals with Tinker-DSC effectively, but something like Oath can stop or discourage a Welder from hitting play, even if the Oath itself is not in play yet.

No, I think that he or she is more directly addressing the question that I am getting at, and the thing that people are continually not addressing. If you ignore the fact that you opponent is drawing huge numbers of cards, focus on drawing the cards that you can (by your normal draw and whatever engines you are running, all the while avoiding a counterwar for your card drawing unless absolutely necessary), and then worry at the end of all of this about his threat, rather than his draw, you may have more success.

I am not guaranteeing that this would be successful. What I am suggesting is that if Keeper cannot win the battle that you are talking about, then it may be able to win a different battle, and that would most wisely be done by striking at the weak point. Note that I am not suggesting a single-pronged attack, either. Rather, that is an effective and intelligent use of your countermagic and Duress, if appropriate. Meanwhile, your other disruption should be focused on stopping what it can, unless it is useful for their game winning threat. Obviously, countermagic is going to stand alone in that role against Tendrils or GrimLong. On the other hand, StP needs to be conserved against a deck that you suspect will be running Darksteel Colossus or Welder. Instead of assuming that you can simply take care of everything, take care of what you must. That is the point!

Cheers,
Harkius

[kirdape3]

The best actual true control deck ever in Extended was none other than High Tide.  You had the ability to fight a heavy-duty long game with a more traditional control deck (you had 4 Thawing Glaciers, how ridiculous) and superior library manipulation to go get what you needed.  Against aggro decks of the time, you simply up and killed them turn 3 with a Stroke of Genius for some disgustingly huge amount.

Note how it killed aggro decks.  It mostly ignored what they did (the Goblins deck that top 8ed GP: Kansas City barely raced good Tide players) and then blew them out.  It took four years before Vintage decks learned what Extended already had - the best control decks are the ones that only fight control wars when they HAVE to, not as part of their normal gameplan.

The question I pose is this: why would you want to play a merely 'viable' deck when you could be playing one of the evolved Drain decks that can mimic Tide's lack of strategic interactivity?

[Thug]

Thug does highlight the fact that the focus should be on Scrying, because that is the premiere card drawing card in Keeper. But this really doesn't resolve the issue in this thread, because Scrying can be used by any modern control deck, not just Keeper. Perhaps this begs the question - why aren't we seeing more Scryings in Gifts or CS for example?

My point was that if you want the deck to look like Keeper, you can only go wrong from there.
So you could go back to just scrying and standard choices, you could make a Keeper 2006 and lose all day or you could drop the idea and move on.
I think option#1 is the most interesting, #2 is a waste of time and #3 is what most people will eventually do.

Scrying has seen play in both Gifts and Slaver, and still does from time to time, but most often only 1 copy to add variaty for Gifts, or 1 to back up Thirst in Slaver. It's simply doesn't fit these decks better than Gifts and Thirst do.

The question I pose is this: why would you want to play a merely 'viable' deck when you could be playing one of the evolved Drain decks that can mimic Tide's lack of strategic interactivity?

The only reason I can think of is the fact that you can create a control deck that is able to out-control these "evolved" drain decks.
You need to build your deck different than their, they run more draw than they run counters. Your's should be the other way around with a draw engine thats online fast. You need to force a small advantage in the early game, and be able to ride that to victory.
I think you should be looking at cards like Mana Leak, Duress, Scrying, Confidant. (And for clarification: cards like Swords, Balance, Decree, Shaman don't fit this description)
I have something in Mind, but this doesnt seem like the right place to discuss this further.

Koen

[Harkius]

The question I pose is this: why would you want to play a merely 'viable' deck when you could be playing one of the evolved Drain decks that can mimic Tide's lack of strategic interactivity?

I guess that this is directed at me, since I am the most prolific supporter of Keeper on this thread. In response, I direct you back to other posts that I have made. I don't play Vintage to win money, prizes, or recognition. Those things are nice, but only as a bonus. I play Keeper at local tourneys (where it does very well against an unpowered, minimalistic meta comprised mostly of creature-heavy decks). I can generally roll over the competition, but some of the games are very interesting. Frequently it comes down to making sure that I can stabilize before I die. It lets me run sub-optimal builds with some janky cards that I enjoy (like Arcane Denial), and I do it because it is fun. Especially when I am able to play against people who bring Extended and Type II decks that they think are competition-worthy in Type I.

I think you should be looking at cards like Mana Leak, Duress, Scrying, Confidant. (And for clarification: cards like Swords, Balance, Decree, Shaman don't fit this description)
I have something in Mind, but this doesnt seem like the right place to discuss this further.

See, I avoid things like this because they turn into something that I built for Extended a long time ago (when Tundra was still legal). It is a Solution kind of deck. Run the Confidant, run Pikulas, run Duress, Mana Leak, Daze, Scrying, etc. Nothing should be too expensive, because you don't want Bob killing you, but it should all be viable and useful. I would probably even cut the number of Force of Will in this case, because five life can just be too many, and with so many cheap counters, your dependence on Force becomes noticeably less. Hell, even a Compulsive Research may fit in, depending. When you get it built, Koen, post it around here somewhere. I would be curious to see it.

Cheers,
Harkius

[cssamerican]

I have always felt that in its simplest terms Keeper was a multi-colored Mana Drain deck whose goals were to neutralize the opponent's threats, after which it attacks the opponent's life total. It seems to me this is also a good description of the Leviat deck. It plays enchantments that prevent its opponent's from winning, before it tries to win the battle of life totals. Its weapons are more compact versions of what was used in old style Keeper decks. Things like The Abyss and Morphling were used back then, but now those same effects are built into one card, Form of the Dragon. Instead of running various specialized removal it runs one card, Solitary Confinement, which pretty much neutralizes every threat in the format. So, I am asking the question, could the Leviat deck be the modern evolution of Keeper? If so, is it playable in a competitive environment?

[PucktheCat]

I guess that this is directed at me, since I am the most prolific supporter of Keeper on this thread. In response, I direct you back to other posts that I have made. I don't play Vintage to win money, prizes, or recognition. Those things are nice, but only as a bonus. I play Keeper at local tourneys (where it does very well against an unpowered, minimalistic meta comprised mostly of creature-heavy decks). I can generally roll over the competition, but some of the games are very interesting. Frequently it comes down to making sure that I can stabilize before I die. It lets me run sub-optimal builds with some janky cards that I enjoy (like Arcane Denial), and I do it because it is fun.

This explains why this thread isn't going to resolve anything.  You have your own reasons for playing Keeper - you like it.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't suggest that Keeper is viable either.

The reason Keeper is not going to see a resurgence without major developments in the cardpool is simple.  Combo/control is so much better at winning the game quickly for such a negligible cost to their ability to control the game, that any player who is not motivated, as you are, by external factors, will chose it over pure control options.

Leo

[Dozer]

There is one route to "Keeper" (interesting that the old name has experienced somewhat of a resurgence in this thread over 4cc) that hasn't been discussed here yet. It was a huge part of the lists of old, when players ran Dwarven Miners and Milton swore by his Blood Moons in Keeper. The mana denial aspect of Keeper has always been there. Carsten Kötter, Kim Kluck and Wompi of Team CAB have recently sat together and churned out a Keeper list that takes up many aspects of what has been said here. I am not yet at liberty to disclose (yet), but the list and my personal opinion clearly deny this:

(And for clarification: cards like Swords, Balance, Decree, Shaman don't fit this description)

Especially Shaman is important. The mana is where the modern combo-control decks are vulnerable. Even if they run 5 basic islands and fetches to use their duals as Lotus Petals against a Wasteland, Wastelands remain strong. Why do we not see more decks withh 5 Strips? Because the modern combo-control decks have not enough space to put them into their mana bases and they also don't need them, as those decks would much rather put their mana into a spell than use it for destroying a land.

The mana denial route also allows for Disenchant to be actually good. Borrowing some tech from Ravnica Sealed, people are advised to play Seed Spark and kill opposing Signets. Using Disenchant to kill an opposing Mox EOT has often been a strong play. In the past (with Disenchants in 4cc), I have Disenchanted Black Loti eot. You force your opponent to do something he doesn't want to do now with such a strategy. More often than not, my opponent Brainstormed and burned for two. When you back up the mana denial of 5 Strips, a couple of Shamans and a couple of Disenchants, you get to mess with every mana base on the planet except for Mono-U.

The goal is to figure out how that strategy can be followed up properly, with stuff that can actually kill your opponent before he stabilizes. In a way, the idea works a lot like the Pikula deck in Legacy, only with counters instead of discard. I have long been of the opinion that there is a Back-White control in Vintage as well, we just haven't built it yet. The power, the speed, the draw and Pithing Needle is all there, we just have to put it together. We have been talking about resources earlier: The B/W Pikula deck attacks every resource there is, probably better than any other deck in any format. For viewing Keeper as a resource denial deck at heart, this idea has merit. (I'm not saying that Keeper should be B/W, but I *am* saying that B/W might be able to realize those ideas pretty well.)

As for theory, that would be a highly interactive, pro-active deck. Kinda like aggro-control, though, but maybe the time of the true reactive control deck just is over.

Dozer

[Ufactor]

Keeper isn't supposed to try and end the game quickly. It doesn't have the backup to support that kind of play. Keeper is aiming to answer the opponent, and force interaction.

Forcing interaction is a valid strategy, but there are already decks that do just that.  Fish does it better than anybody else.  I could even see an argument an interactive deck that runs Mana Drain, so that's exactly where Mono-u comes in (13th place, Waterbury VII - WHOooo-hoo!). 

Keeper can't be either of those decks, so it needs to find another role.  I fully intend to play fourskeletalscrying.dec, as a modern control deck, at the next Waterbury, based on the principles implied by Koen:

-Skeletal Scrying is the most compact, yet flexible (unrestricted) card drawer in Type One.

-Balance is still broken

-Burning Wish sucks hard as a secondary (yes, I said secondary.  That is supplementing, not replacing, DSC) win condition.  Decree of Justice is better, even if it is only because it's uncounterable.

-White support cards are >/= those offered by red, not the least of which are StP and Sacred Ground.

[Thug]

-Balance is still broken

I know the title states "Is Keeper Viable", but I want to discuss Balance, so for now "Is Balance Viable (In Keeper/Control")

First of all, balance will still win you games against FCG and such from time to time. If you see those decks are have acces to white mana Balance should always be at least in your sideboard.

But I dont think Balance in all that hot maindeck anymore.
Lets see what it does against some of the top decks, exluding hands with triple mox, land, Balance

Gifts:
- In the best case Balance is an answer to an early resolved Tinker
- One Gifts resovles it's namesake, they should go for Will most of the time, once they resolve Will, Balance wont do anything. Your opponent will either triple walk and beat with Colossus, or he will just finish you off with a Tendrils. Even if you get another turn your opponent will have seen so many cards that the Balance won't make any difference.
- If you're in front, Balance doesn't help you stay in front, which should be your main goal if you lack a combo finish.
- Balance basicly is slightly inferior to Swords and Truth in this matchup

Slaver:
- In the best case Balance is an answer to an resolved Welder/Artifact Creature
- Making your opponent discard 1-2 cards with Balance might actually help your opponent in the matchups

Stax:
- In the best case Blance is an answer to a resolved Welder (if you want to spend 1W in your mainphase for this)
- Aside from that Balance is horrible in this matchup

Combo:
- Balance is horrible, once again it gets a Swarm/Welder/Confidant at best.


Conclusion:
Some time ago Balance was an almost auto-include because it was able to get you back from far behind. But times have changed, by now you probably wont be able to resolve another spell, if you even get to play one. So why still play Balance?

Koen

[Milton]

Conclusion:
Some time ago Balance was an almost auto-include because it was able to get you back from far behind. But times have changed, by now you probably wont be able to resolve another spell, if you even get to play one. So why still play Balance?

Koen

I came to this realization about six months ago.  Then I had another though.  If Balance isn't good and Decree is too slow, then why run White in 4cc?  Swords?  That's not reason enough.  Not with Fire/Ice and bounce spells and the uber-powerful Engineered Explosives.  I cut white and was really impressed with the results.  I still couldn't get over the hump, though.  I did well at a couple of tournaments, then I scrubbed out of one.  I dropped my 3cc Keeper for Oath the next day.

[Harkius]

Conclusion:
Some time ago Balance was an almost auto-include because it was able to get you back from far behind. But times have changed, by now you probably wont be able to resolve another spell, if you even get to play one. So why still play Balance?

Koen

I came to this realization about six months ago. Then I had another though. If Balance isn't good and Decree is too slow, then why run White in 4cc? Swords? That's not reason enough. Not with Fire/Ice and bounce spells and the uber-powerful Engineered Explosives. I cut white and was really impressed with the results. I still couldn't get over the hump, though. I did well at a couple of tournaments, then I scrubbed out of one. I dropped my 3cc Keeper for Oath the next day.

Well, I am not sure I would play Balance. While it would be nice to 'splode a Welder now and then (and very satisfying), the fact is that you may lose cards in hand, costing yourself a battle you may not be able to win. As many people pointed out, Keeper doesn't necessarily have the draw engine that many people do.

As far as cutting white, I don't know that I would go that far. White still allows for Sacred Ground against Stax, Kataki against...well...almost everything, Disenchant or Seal against Oath (where Echoing Truth probably isn't going to go in your favor), and maybe a few things that I am not thinking of. I also like running Abolish against Oath, provided that I run enough Plains in my deck. I wouldn't cut white for red, though. The answers in red are just not as good as they are in white.

In red, you basically have three-four cards you are going to want. Mox Monkeys, Pyroclasm (maybe), Pyroblast, and Rack and Ruin (maybe). You aren't going to want Welder's, and Fire/Ice is just sub par to StP in every way shape and form. I just don't see cutting white and going to red. Maybe that's just me, though.

Harkius

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

Conclusion:
Some time ago Balance was an almost auto-include because it was able to get you back from far behind. But times have changed, by now you probably wont be able to resolve another spell, if you even get to play one. So why still play Balance?

Koen

I came to this realization about six months ago. Then I had another though. If Balance isn't good and Decree is too slow, then why run White in 4cc? Swords? That's not reason enough. Not with Fire/Ice and bounce spells and the uber-powerful Engineered Explosives. I cut white and was really impressed with the results. I still couldn't get over the hump, though. I did well at a couple of tournaments, then I scrubbed out of one. I dropped my 3cc Keeper for Oath the next day.

Well, I am not sure I would play Balance. While it would be nice to 'splode a Welder now and then (and very satisfying), the fact is that you may lose cards in hand, costing yourself a battle you may not be able to win. As many people pointed out, Keeper doesn't necessarily have the draw engine that many people do.

As far as cutting white, I don't know that I would go that far. White still allows for Sacred Ground against Stax, Kataki against...well...almost everything, Disenchant or Seal against Oath (where Echoing Truth probably isn't going to go in your favor), and maybe a few things that I am not thinking of. I also like running Abolish against Oath, provided that I run enough Plains in my deck. I wouldn't cut white for red, though. The answers in red are just not as good as they are in white.

In red, you basically have three-four cards you are going to want. Mox Monkeys, Pyroclasm (maybe), Pyroblast, and Rack and Ruin (maybe). You aren't going to want Welder's, and Fire/Ice is just sub par to StP in every way shape and form. I just don't see cutting white and going to red. Maybe that's just me, though.

Harkius

I think that there is a great case for red over white in 3cc.  Gorilla Shaman is amazing.  Against other mana drain decks you wreck their mana giving you much needed tempo to try to stop their brokeness and win.  R gives you a bomb against girfts and slaver.  Against aggro/control like fish or oath he eats chalice/vial or even rod/jitte w/e if you have enough mana.  Against stax he can't eat their big artifacts but taking out chalice of their moxen to reduce their permenent count is good.  Against combo he can a great deal of their mana making it difficult for them to recover if you stop them from going off; of course he is not amazing in this mathcup, but then again neither are any white cards...

Pyroclasm basically does what balance does in the matchups you would want balance in; it can basically replace it.  (and of course illustrates that balance really isn't a good maindeck card anymore... you wouldn't run pyroclasm so why run balance; of course it can be randomly good, but it's still way too conditional and often useless)

REB is of course just amazing; it gives you the extra cheap countering power you need against other drain decks.  I helps give you a chance to try to actually win counter wars and stop their draw spells from resolving, which is what you really need to do.  (countering the tinker, or will or whatever, as you suggester earlier, simply doesn't work, because if you allow them to resolve their draw spells they will be able to out-counter you when they try to resolve their bomb)

Rack and Ruin is simply one of the best artifact destruction spells every printed.  I think that the ability to take out two lock components and instant speed and 2R makes up for the loss of sacred ground.  Of course, it can also be relevent that it can hit creatures such as karn if they try to beat down with that, and is also useful against jugg, trike, etc if you play against workshop aggro.

Since it has already been shown that balance and decree aren't very good, I will focus on swords.  It's just not good enough to warrent running white for.  You say it is better than fire/ice but so many times I would probably say fire/ice is better JUST because it can cycle or pitch to force of will.  Swords to plowshares sucks because it is so frequently dead and useless.  Fire/ice still kills welders and fishies, and most of the time swords for colossus is just useless because decks that tinker for colossus will try to out draw you and win that war first; after the colossus hits it's not a big deal for them to simply out counter you making the stp useless; the focus should be to stop the colossus from hitting in the first place.

Disinchant is great but it suffers the same problem as swords; often it's just a dead card or you end up paying 1W to destroy a mox.  It's just another conditional card that simply isn't strong enough to maindeck.  I suppose using a cunning wish based build and wishing for answers is a possible solution but that is quite a big mana and tempo investment and it just doesn't seem to be worth it; 2U plus the casting cost of whatever you get.  The reason why swords and disichant are even remotely effective anwers is because they are cheap; paying 2UW for a swords or 3UW for a disichant is just horrible.  For 4 or 5 mana you should be able to just win, or at least get a better effect than neutralizing a threat.

Of course, as I said earlier, I don't think that a 'keeper' style deck is really the right way to go at the moment or even a viable alternative, but if I was going to try red is probably where I would start.  The strongest aspect of 'keeper' that it has over other control decks is IMO the mana denial.  Shaman and Cow+waste/strip really just steal games by mana screwing your opponent.  Oh, and also COW can serve pretty much the same purpose as sacred ground against stax.