The New Face of Control in the Current Meta

[Komatteru]

Brian Weissman's “The Deck� was the first deck to incorporate elements of card advantage, mana denial, board control/removal. This form became the de facto standard for control decks in all formats of Magic. Around 6 months ago and for a good portion of the summer, Hulk Smash and 4CC were the best control decks by far, and decks such as Control Slaver were nonexistent (Rich Shay was really the only one playing it in America). However, now, Control Slaver is considered one of the best decks in the format, despite its very different approach. All current control decks are marked by strong draw engines, but decks such as Control Slaver run light on the board control, completely forgoing targeted removal such as Swords to Plowshares and board sweeping removal such as Balance or Pernicious Deed. In fact, Control Slaver has few maindeck ways of dealing with things once they hit the table. Goblin Welder is really its only way to deal with resolved artifacts, outside of Cunning Wish for Rack and Ruin or Mogg Salvage (and Welder wasn't included for its defense in this deck), and sideboard Lava Dart or Fire/Ice as the only way to deal with [small] creatures. Clearly, Control Slaver does not fit the Weissman definition of control. As for the other control decks currently seeing play, Mono-blue runs Powder Keg as its only form of permanent removal in the maindeck, and Oath runs no removal in the slightest. This is very interesting because the environment is heavier on creatures than it ever has been before, and there’s little doubt that the Vintage metagame is overpopulated with powerful artifacts. Cards like Swords to Plowshares and Oxidize seem really good right now.

Has our concept of control changed? Are current control decks simply decks that feature elements of control rather than true control decks? If you look at Standard or Extended control decks, you find quite a lot of maindeck creature removal and artifact destruction, but this is seemingly absent from Vintage control. Is removal something that is fundamental to the concept of control, or is it something that was present in just one pioneering control deck, and then spilled over into everything else in their attempt to emulate that one deck? If our concept has changed, what defines a control deck, and what factors have contributed to creating that change?

[Rico Suave]

Imagine that we're in vintage of a few years ago.  You're playing sligh, and your opponent is playing Keeper.  You play first turn Pup - a strong play - then a second turn Goblin Cadet.  When he finally hits 4 mana, he taps out to play Moat since he needs to stop your creatures, and then you burn him out.  

Now imagine if that Pup was removed first turn by an StP.  Even if you manage to follow up with a 2nd threat, Moat still comes down turn 4.

What was the difference?  Tempo.  Notice how the Pup got 3 swings in the first example, but 0 in the 2nd.  6 life is worth 2 burn spells in the mid-game, or three more turns for you to find an answer to Cursed Scroll.  Or it means you play Morphling earlier without needing UU up and survive to untap.

The reason that control decks run creature removal is primarily to buy tempo.  You see back in the olden days of heavily Weissman-based control, and in other formats, your mass removal like Moat or Wrath of God costs a good bit of mana.  Good aggro decks in T1 should have you dead by turn 4 (stompy goldfish), or at least have the ability to slow the control deck down a lot (Wastes, Null Rod, Shaman).

Creature removal softens their attack, buying time for you to develop your mana base and get to the necessary amount of mana to play your more powerful spells without dying.  

Fast forward to modern vintage.

Who cares about aggro?  Oath will outrace it, Control Slaver Tinkers up Platty, and Tog...just plays Tog.  Instead of running creature removal, these control-combo hybrid decks play their threat with the intention that their threat is all that's necessary to stop an aggro deck in it's tracks.  Why should Tog run removal when the win condition itself is spot and mass removal all in one card?  

Moxen only accentuate the impact cards in this format.  Tell me what an aggro deck is going to do against turn 1 Oath, turn 2 UU, turn 3 win.  Nothing.  

Since aggro is not a concern, why play spot removal?  You aren't buying any tempo with them.  You could theoretically remove things like Welder...but then you have to question whether you'd rather answer Welder with removal or simply by presenting a stronger threat as your win.  

Anyway, if you have a problem classifying decks, always remember that aggro decks have cards that target the opponent, control decks have cards that target the opponent's cards, and combo decks have cards that target the other cards in your deck.  The problem I think you're facing right now is that there aren't any control decks in T1 right now.  What control deck is viable that would lose to aggro?  By incorporating a combo win, you beat aggro and therefore don't need to run spot removal.  So instead you open up slots in your deck to devote to card draw/search or whatever.  Your deck now beats other control decks that do run spot removal (since you run card draw where they run dead spells), and now you beat aggro too.  

The successful control decks in T1 are actually control-combo decks.

[Machinus]

Playing control is associated with trying to play the "long game" and establish significant card advantage. A "control deck" wins by neutralizing the other deck, establishing "control," and then winning.

This is an obsolete strategy. Decks are too powerful too fast to rest the hope of winning on making it to the late game. Really powerful cards like moxes, welder, shops, and drains make it so that you have to do something major by turn 2 or you will lose.

"Control" cards are still very powerful at disrupting your opponent; however, unless they are used in combination with another tempo-oriented strategy (Slaver, Oath), your opponent will often have more than enough time to overwhelm your defenses. Classic "control" theories are valid in smaller card pools, partially because of the combat phase, but also because of the much lower power level of cards. In a low power environment, it becomes a much better idea to play a control game, because there is significantly less early pressure.

There is so much pressure in the early game of Type I that unless you are playing in a field with an appropriate metagame (Gencon, perhaps) and you are a very skilled player, playing control is a mistake.

[Mykeatog]

There is so much pressure in the early game of Type I that unless you are playing in a field with an appropriate metagame (Gencon, perhaps) and you are a very skilled player, playing control is a mistake.

Unless your definition of 'pressure' and your definition of 'control' differ from the understood, then there is only one word that I have to say here...

Lies.

[Samite Healer]

There is so much pressure in the early game of Type I that unless you are playing in a field with an appropriate metagame (Gencon, perhaps) and you are a very skilled player, playing control is a mistake.

Unless your definition of 'pressure' and your definition of 'control' differ from the understood, then there is only one word that I have to say here...

Lies.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying Mike, so would you be able to clarify a little bit here for me?  I believe that in the current metagame Machinus is right, in the sense that there is tremendous pressure in the early game and a classic "weissman" style control stragey has lost its viability because of its inherent reactive nature.  It seems illogical in today's metagame to sit around and wait to remove your opponent's threats before mounting any threat of your own when cards like Trinisphere and Crucible exist.

[Mykeatog]

What I am trying to say more exactly is...

Type one doesn't have aggro, combo, and control. It just has awesome fucking broken things. Does traditional-'aggro' exist? No. These so called 'aggro' decks all play wasteland which, by the definitions being used in this thread, is a control card. Taking Kowal's Madness as an example; Bazaar + Madness isn't Aggro either, it is a combo element in a deck with creatures. Here we have the worlds classicaly described 'aggro' functioning in all three different spectrums of magic.

Take Meandeck Oath. Clearly this deck has a combo kill, but aside from the Oath + Orchard, it is really no different, in functionality, than tog. It draws cards, it counters cards, it finds cards, and wins. Oh yeah, and it swings for the win with creatures that simply are killable.

As a matter of fact, Combo is the only non-jurassic term here. Combo decks don't steal from the other types, they jsut fuck shit up. Duress isn't used in them to stop threats, Force of Will isn't either. Those cards aren't being played as control cards so much as being played to make it so they can fucking murder their opponent immediately. The goal when the term 'combo' came up was 'fucking murder', and the goal is still 'fucking murder' Getting there has always been reasonably the same.

The thing about control not being good unless it is combined with other tempo strategy is absurd. Because everything in our format, EVERYTHING, is all about tempo. I mean, saying (in 2004) that control isn't control because it uses Mindslaver, Goblin Welder, Oath of Druids, or Psychatog is along the same lines as saying (in 2001) control isn't control without Moat, Abyss, and Morphling.

What we have here is the return of these outdated terms that just don't apply to our game. They apply to standard, and extended, but not to Vintage. (Another example of things that those games have that we don't have is 'bushido'.)

So Control now is as it always was; the most-consistent way to win in our format. The cards are the most played, the most valueable, and the most feared. Why? Because any deck is just better when it plays Force of Will.

Jeff- I am not nessasarily disagreeing with the entirety of this thread, as much as I detest the line written about control. I do however believe that comparing 1997 magic to 2004 magic is about as pointless as saying 'My Ice Age Limited deck is worse than my Extended deck.'

So all of that being said I revert back to my original statement....

Lies.

[Machinus]

There is so much pressure in the early game of Type I that unless you are playing in a field with an appropriate metagame (Gencon, perhaps) and you are a very skilled player, playing control is a mistake.

Unless your definition of 'pressure' and your definition of 'control' differ from the understood, then there is only one word that I have to say here...

Lies.

I should appeal to your condition, and say that my definition of "control" is important here.

My point was that while a "control" strategy is powerful and very popular, that in fact that classic interpretation of this term is obsolete and building a deck according to its principles is flawed. Not even the purest control decks can afford to ignore the significant advantages of playing the tempo game.

You say everything is about tempo, and I agree with that statement - but we can't have a productive discussion if all our terms are semantically equivalent. There are decks that pursue "tempo" more forcefully than others. I am trying to say that even "control" decks are forced to integrate more tempo-oriented strategies than are traditionally understood, simply because of the intense pressure in the early game.

A deck must have a consistent and significant way to incorporate a tempo-oriented strategy in the early game if it is going to succeed in this format.