T8 in Somers with 4cc / Confessions of a Shameless Netdecker

[circus]

I decided the morning of the tournament to run 4cc.
Why?  The deck has a high concentration of broken
cards.  Also, I wanted to play something without
Workshops for a change.

I reread Klep's primer and took away the following key
points:

1.  4-Color Control has two potential game plans, and
which you choose to employ is largely based on the
matchup and your opening hand.
2. Do not ever be afraid to use a City of Brass or
cast a large Scrying.
3. Be very careful when fetching a land, because that
decision will affect you for the rest of the game.
4. …it is a terrible idea to just copy someone's
sideboard with no consideration for your own metagame.

Unfortunately I had no opportunity to playtest.
Earlier attempts in the week fell through.  I had no
idea what the Somers metagame would look like.  I
postulated it would be similar to Salem last month.  While I agree it is terrible to copy someone’s sideboard, I would argue it is even more terrible to make up your own when you have no idea.  Apologies to Zherbus, I used his entire sideboard
except -1 REB, +1 Fire/Ice.  

Round 1:  Brian (Dragon w/ no sideboard)
I won with relative ease.  Both games were similar:  strip the Bazaar, removed the Xantid Swarm, countered animate effects, draw more cards, etc.  Dragon is a great match-up for 4cc.
SB: -1 Balance, +1 BEB  

Round 2:  Seth (Mono Red Burn)
He played beta mountains and a bevy of burn (Bolt,Incinerate,Price of Progress,Chain Lighnting,Chain of Plasma,Thunderbolt)  I got overconfident game 1 and stupidly neglected to counter a Price of Progress for 8.  Even with an Angel absorbing 2 burn spells, he still had enough to burn me out.  It took me a while to kill him game 2.  I sideboarded –2 StP -1 Fire/Ice, +2 Crucible +1 BEB.  I beat him handily game 2 but it took forever as I decimated his mana base before I was able to find a threat.  Game 3 went to time.  I had inevitability, but Mox Monkey could not kill him in the 5 extra turns.  Draw.  Heh.

1-0-1
 

Round 3:  David (2-land belcher)

He fails to get anything going as I waste his Bayou, Plow his Swarm, blow up or counter his artifacts and Twist his hand.  Of course it takes forever to find my win condition, but I have firm control of the board.  I think he had 1 Chromatic Sphere in play.
SB:  -1 Balance –1 Mind Twist +1 Disenchant + 1 Rack & Ruin
I firmly establish control, but once again lack a win condition.  I draw Angel during extra turns but don’t even need to kill him since I won game 1.

2-0-1


Round 4:  Garrett (Suicide W/r)  

Before we begin he announces that he will beat me unless I am playing counters.  His prophecy came true.

3-0-1

Round 5:  Cowboy (Tog Draw Engine w/ Titan, Colossus &
Artifact Mutation)

This was a very interesting match.  Cowboy insisted he in not playing Meandeck Titan.  We both draw and trade cards for a while.  I have StP for his Titan and only lose 1 dual land while he loses 2.  I put out an Angel he can’t get rid of and ride her to victory.  
SB –1 Fire/Ice –2 Cunning Wish +2 Pyroblast +1 StP
Another long game (notice a trend?)  He drops Colossus, and me being a good Magic player promptly top deck an StP on turn 4 beyond time limit.  He Intuitions in response and assures me he has answers.  He finds 2 Drains and a potentially lethal Artifact Mutation.  However all his green sources are tapped.  He only had 2 Volcanics up.  Tough break, man.  

4-0-1

Round 6:  Robert (Control Slaver?)

We ID in to the top 8.  Robert showed me the nice Lotus he won in last year's tournament.

4-0-2


Quarter Finals:  Jesse (G/R/u Madness)

Game 1
I drew the most broken opening hand all day.  In a
flurry of turns I Walk, Ancestral, Waste, Strip, Yawg,
Strip, Walk, Ancestral, or something like that.  This
absurdity proved to be overwhelming for my opponent.

Game 2
SB:  -1 Mind Twist,-2 Cunning Wish,-1 Scrying +1 STP
+3 FTK
What I should have sideboarded: -1 Mind Twist,-1
Balance,-1 Scrying -1 Cunning Wish + 1 STP +3 FTK

Jesse mulliganed to 5, playing first.  As he put it,
"discard one to draw five."  He clearly had the
appropriate mindset to abuse the Bazaar engine.  He
brought in at least two Crucibles from the sideboard
to combat my strip effects.  I really missed the 3rd
Angel in this game.  I countered early threats and a
Crucible, but he got another crucible online.  I get
out an Angel finally.  He double Fiery-Tempered it, and
I held no answer.  Bazaar pumped out the goods too quickly.  I lost.

Game 3
Going first, I keep a one-land hand containing the following:
Volcanic, Sol Ring, 2 Brainstorms, FTK, Angel and FoF.  
My hand was good considering my opponent did not have the capability to disrupt my mana base.  Jesse, of course, mulliganed to 5 again.  
Turn 1 I laid the Volcanic and cast Sol Ring.  My plan was to optimize turn 2 should I draw a land.  In retrospect, I had a 45% chance of a completely busted turn two play.  Failing that, there was a 92% chance one of the top 4 cards would be land/mox/lotus.  I would not have minded turn 2 morphed angel and turn 3 FTK/FoF turn 3.
Turn 2 I do not draw a land.  Ok, fine, brainstorm.  I still do not get a land.  Turn 3, I Brainstorm again and find out the 5th card in my library is also of the non-land variety.  D'oh!
   
As I stumble out of the gate, he revved up double Bazaars with Crucible backup.  It went goes back and forth for a while.  He had both Anger
and Wonder in the bin.  He was tapped out except for
one land with 2 Basking Rootwallas and Arrogant on the
board.  I attacked with FTK and Gorilla Shaman.  He
traded Arrogant for FTK.  I Fired both his 'wallas and
drop Angel.  I swung once with it before he takes it
down with, yup, you guessed it, double Firey Temper.  I maxed out a scrying for 6 taking 7 dmg thanks to
City of Brass.  I draw 3 land, 2 more Scryings and
then finally a Force to go with the FoF still sitting in my hand.  

He plays Mongrel, leaving 1 card in hand.  I elect not
to Force it, so I can use the FoF next turn.  I FoF in
to Force, 2 FTKs, Brainstorm, Land.  He divides
FTK/BS/Land and FTK/Force.  I take FTK/Force and send
his hound packing.  He has 7 Life at this point.  Next
turn he activates Bazaar # 1 and Firey Tempers my FTK.  
 
I take a risk and Force the Temper.  My rationale is
that I could waste both his Bazaars the following turn
swing w/ FTK & Monkey.  Then I would only need another
turn or Fire/Ice.  He would only get 1 Bazaar
activation, and I could hard cast the other Force.
Bazaar #2 yielded some sort of Wurm, and he finished
me with hasty beats.        

Final Thoughts:
 
4cc is a very solid deck.  It pays great dividends to 1) know the top archetypes inside and out (which I did) as well as  2) practicing (which I did not do.)  There are many complex and subtle decisions trees in 4cc.  The raw power of this deck helped me reach the top 8.  Although I played decently, I most certainly did not play mistake-free Magic.  With more experience, I could have progressed even further.

Be mindful of the time.  3 of the 5 Swiss Rounds I actually played went to extra turns.  Definitely ask your opponent if they want to concede when you have a superior position.  Don’t be afraid to bag a game if your chances to win are slim.  Undoubtedly more practice with the deck will increase play speed.
 
Balance -- Don't leave home without it. It saved my ass big-time in 2 games.  Sure, there were times when I didn't want it, but it is the only reset button in the deck.  In other words, I believe the number of games you win because you run Balance exceeds the number of games you win because you run something other than Balance.

Coffin Purge should find it's way in to the sideboard if this metagame trend of Crucibles continues.  Purge provides a tempo-efficient answer to your opponent's Crucible.  As an added bonus, it can conditionally remove Pentavus, Mindslaver Titan or AK.

I am questioning Decree's slot.  I never made of good use of it all day.  Perhaps the 3rd Angel could replace it.

What a great tournament.  It was very well-run.  Everyone there was pretty cool.  Thanks to the all my opponents for the games.

[Nantuko Rice]

Well written report. Did you see my report at the same tournament? I was also playing 4cc and being a shameless netdecker too. However, I morphed it into a sucky pile and just lost horribly.

I was also running 2 angels and one decree as a win condition. Was there ever a time where I wished that third decree was an angel? Nope. Flying man  versus 6 soldier tokens under a standstill.

Graveyard hate, still being underplayed, is actually important in this day's metagame IMO. Cunning Wish for Coffin Purge seams a bit slow, but I don't think there's room to fit them in the maindeck. As you said, crucibles + strips and welders are becoming more and more common.

I myself ran 2 stifles in the maindeck of 4cc. They were ok, never had them when I really needed them though. I was talking to another player about them, and he said 4cc should really be playing more business spells. Coffin Purge and Stifle aren't really business spells and probably shouldn't go in the main.

[Whatever Works]

Well most 4cc Decks are similar so being a "shameless netdecker" doesnt mean all that much, and who exactly has a 100% original deck anyway (unless they like PTW who create decks that dominate the format).

The way to make 4cc original is through the sideboard, and sadly this is the portion of the deck that most frequently gets ignored. Especially when 4cc has so many options, and difficult decisions to make involving what to put in the sideboard. I am tired of seeing ben kowell's "fake tech" cards find there way into this decks board, but then again some people find it amusing.

I find running 4 kill conditions to be a must, because the deck sometimes stalls without one. Did you tend to notice this and would you put a 3rd angel back into the maindeck?

Why did you sideboard so weirdly against dragon only bringing in 1 card? i was expecting you to put in everything accept perhaps 1 dissenchant (that you could wish for as an answer to dragon), running maindeck threats seems to be more effect? did you find this to be true?

Overall, good job at the tournement. Jesse's deck was a beast, and he seemed to have a love affair with his Bazaar's because he got them out consistently, and muliganned into as much as he could.

[Klep]

Congratulations on your performance.  I'm glad to see my primer was helpful.

[Zherbus]

I find running 4 kill conditions to be a must, because the deck sometimes stalls without one. Did you tend to notice this and would you put a 3rd angel back into the maindeck?

A control deck stall? NO!

[Since97]

Did you find FTK's useful?

My 4CC doesn't run them but i've considered it. Do you think you could  put up a decklist/sideboard list just for comparison purposes  :lol:


But seriously, good job at the tournament. Top 8 is definately an accomplishment.

What would u take out/put in if you had to do it all over?

[Toad]

Balance -- Don't leave home without it. In other words, I believe the number of games you win because you run Balance exceeds the number of games you win because you run something other than Balance.

[Whatever Works]

I find running 4 kill conditions to be a must, because the deck sometimes stalls without one. Did you tend to notice this and would you put a 3rd angel back into the maindeck?

A control deck stall? NO!

Let me reword that to make sense... a 4th kill condition helps prevent the situation where you (the control deck) are in total control of the game, but currently have no way to win. An example of this might be when your first angel got hit by STP, and  your opponent lost a counter war over a mind twist, or a FoF, etc. He ends up with about 2 cards in hand to your full hand of 7, but for some reason of bad luck your stuck in a draw go mode using brainstorms during your main phase to try and find a kill before they recover.

The extra angel to the deck lets the deck play with a much more aggressive style from my experience, because often i will do turn 1 demonic for lotus (against the right deck) to cast a second turn angel. This play occuring in the other version would be much less unlikely, because of just how less agressive it plays. Then again this is truly based on play style, and this deck can be played several ways while maintaining an effective result, and that is a major complement to any deck.

[Klep]

Then again this is truly based on play style, and this deck can be played several ways while maintaining an effective result, and that is a major complement to any deck.

The way in which you play this deck is not based on anything like "playstyle."  Your decision of whether to go control or aggro-control should only be based on your hand and the matchup.  Nothing else.

[Dozer]

The extra angel to the deck lets the deck play with a much more aggressive style from my experience, because often i will do turn 1 demonic for lotus (against the right deck) to cast a second turn angel. This play occuring in the other version would be much less unlikely, because of just how less agressive it plays. Then again this is truly based on play style, and this deck can be played several ways while maintaining an effective result, and that is a major complement to any deck.

I am all for going the aggressive route, but I have never had a problem with 3 win conditions. I think the basic difference is the slowness of Decree. I am playing 3 Angels, no Decree, and I am perfectly ok with that. Once the situation of stalling you describe occurs, you WILL find an Angel - eventually. With 2 Angels, the situation is more likely to occur, but still not a problem per se.

It is exactly the situation where you have to be aware that your role changes: You are no longer aggressive, you are in control. I would never call that "stalling". It is rather exactly the way that you are supposed to play the control game. Being in control but having currently no way to win is good because the key phrase is "you are in control". At that point, nothing else matters.

Circus: In the quarterfinal, you mention that you should have sideboarded more aggressively. In most other games, you have only boarded 1-3 cards. I'd like to use this as the starting point for a more in-depth discussion, because I agree to WhateverWorks that the sideboard is too neglected as yet. So, my initial question is: Why did you not side more cards, i.e. more aggressive? I am often sideboarding 3-5 cards, depending on the matchup, because what else do I have these cards for?
(Should we start a seperate thread on this? If you think so, let me know, and I'll write a short piece to start it.)

Dozer

[Zherbus]

Let me reword that to make sense... a 4th kill condition helps prevent the situation where you (the control deck) are in total control of the game, but currently have no way to win. An example of this might be when your first angel got hit by STP, and your opponent lost a counter war over a mind twist, or a FoF, etc. He ends up with about 2 cards in hand to your full hand of 7, but for some reason of bad luck your stuck in a draw go mode using brainstorms during your main phase to try and find a kill before they recover.

Ah, but having an Angel in hand doesn't help you win that counterwar over that Mind Twist. With a hand of 7, you should have no problem finding a Cunning Wish (Vamp), Crucible (to KEEP the game locked up buying you infinite time), Demonic, Mystical (for Demonic), or an Angel in short order.

The extra angel to the deck lets the deck play with a much more aggressive style from my experience, because often i will do turn 1 demonic for lotus (against the right deck) to cast a second turn angel. This play occuring in the other version would be much less unlikely, because of just how less agressive it plays. Then again this is truly based on play style, and this deck can be played several ways while maintaining an effective result, and that is a major complement to any deck.

Please, not another 'playstyle' discussion. We all know how I feel about substituting good arguements with catchphrases. Let's examine your arguement then; what do you see the 'right deck' for this play being?

I am assuming this is the play:

Turn 1: Starting Hand of (7) - Land, Mox, Demonic for Lotus (5)
Turn 2: Draw (6), play Lotus (5), play a land (4), tap out for an Angel (3).

[Dozer]

The extra angel to the deck lets the deck play with a much more aggressive style from my experience, because often i will do turn 1 demonic for lotus (against the right deck) to cast a second turn angel.

Please, not another 'playstyle' discussion. We all know how I feel about substituting good arguements with catchphrases. Let's examine your argument then; what do you see the 'right deck' for this play being?

I am assuming this is the play:

Turn 1: Starting Hand of (7) - Land, Mox, Demonic for Lotus (5)
Turn 2: Draw (6), play Lotus (5), play a land (4), tap out for an Angel (3).

I'd rather assume the following play, because that is what I have seen and done:
Turn 1: (7) - Land, Mox, Demonic for Lotus (5) - play Lotus (4) to have Drain mana available.
Turn 2: Draw (5) - Land (4) - play MORPH (3), still have Lotus open for Drain mana.
Turn 3: Draw (4) - ideally Land #3 (3), unmorph, save Lotus for Drain mana again OR [if you have no land drop] tap Mox + sac Lotus to unmorph, leaving two lands open for Drain (4).

This uses the same set of cards and leaves you with more and better options while having the same effect Angel-wise. Trying to achieve a fast Angel another way with the same initial cards is stupid, which is probably what Zherbus was getting at. Doing it the way he described above for demonstration purposes is pretty much always wrong. And there is no "right deck" for it; every build is able to pull that off if the situation arises.

However, if you like such plays, a three-Angel-setup enables you slightly more often to do that. With a Decree, would you have wasted the Lotus for a card and three Soldiers EOT? Probably not. That is where deckbuilding and playstyle join up. It's just important to notice that it is not the deck which determines an aggressive stance but the player who does.

Dozer

[circus]

Hi everybody.  The list I used is at the bottom for reference.  

I find running 4 kill conditions to be a must, because the deck sometimes stalls without one. Did you tend to notice this and would you put a 3rd angel back into the maindeck?

I didn't mind the stalls that much.  Having inevitability and digging a bit for the win condition was not a problem.  I played slowly since it was my first experience with 4cc.

In aggro matchups, particularly madness, I missed the 3rd Angel.  Whenever I was on my heels, dropping an Angel meant I could fuel another Scrying.  I missed the Angel's contribution to my draw engine, not as a win condition.

The deck is very tight.  I would cut Decree for a 3rd Angel.

Why did you sideboard so weirdly against dragon only bringing in 1 card? i was expecting you to put in everything accept perhaps 1 dissenchant (that you could wish for as an answer to dragon), running maindeck threats seems to be more effect? did you find this to be true?

You are correct.  I should have SB'ed more aggressively to optimize what is already an excellent matchup.  In hindsight -1 Balance,-1 Decree,-1 Mind Twist,-1 Cunning Wish,+1 BEB,+1 STP,+1 Disenchant,+1 Fire/Ice  This configuration maximizes the chance of holding an answer.

Congratulations on your performance. I'm glad to see my primer was helpful.

Thanks.  Keep up the good writing.

Did you find FTK's useful?

FTKs are EXTREMELY useful against the difficult Madness mathcup.  It often takes out two of their creatures, and it's a sweet tempo swing.

Circus: In the quarterfinal, you mention that you should have sideboarded more aggressively. In most other games, you have only boarded 1-3 cards. I'd like to use this as the starting point for a more in-depth discussion, because I agree to WhateverWorks that the sideboard is too neglected as yet. So, my initial question is: Why did you not side more cards, i.e. more aggressive? I am often sideboarding 3-5 cards, depending on the matchup, because what else do I have these cards for?

I realize my sideboard choices may be flawed.  The sideboard is one aspect of my game I need to elevate.  I have already posted a revised sideboard against Dragon above.  As for the other relevant matchups, note this is theory based on the particular decks I faced and has not been tested:

U/G/r Madness
-1 Mind Twist,-1 Balance,-3 Cunning Wish,+1 Coffin Purge(pretend I'm running this instead of Fire/Ice),+3 FTK,+1 Vamp

Tog Engine w/ Colossus,Titan,Art. Mutation
-1 Mind Twist,-1 Fire/Ice,-1 Cunning Wish +1 StP,+2 Pyroblast

The deck is very tight.  I viewed Cunning Wish as part of the engine.  It improves the decks consistency, but at the cost of speed.  Perhaps I thought too highly of it.  Aggressive sideboarding, to me, boils down to the question: Is delta P of card X > delta P of 3-4 casting cost Tutor?  In the control matchup Cunning Wish can recur counter and card draw that is removed from the game.  Combo/Aggro calls for more aggressive sideboarding, IMHO.  

The List:

3 Flooded Strand
1 Polluted Delta
3 Tundra
3 Underground Sea
2 City of Brass
2 Volcanic Island
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Sol Ring
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Pearl
4 Force of Will
4 Mana Drain
4 Brainstorm
3 Cunning Wish
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Fact or Fiction
4 Skeletal Scrying
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Mind Twist
1 Time Walk
2 Swords to Plowshares
1 Fire/Ice
1 Balance
1 Gorilla Shaman
2 Exalted Angel
1 Decree of Justice (cut for Exalted Angel)

Sideboard:
2 Pyroblast (Jaya Ballard 4L, yo)
3 Flametogue Kavu
2 Rack and Ruin
2 Crucible of Worlds
1 Fire/Ice (cut for Coffin Purge)
1 Disenchant
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Blue Elemental Blast
1 Gush