Finding the Confidant deck

[AmbivalentDuck]

Since my initial exposure to Dark Confidant, I've been working on breaking it.� While its pros/cons have seen plenty of discussion since, at the time I started working on this people still thought I was an idiot for doing so.� In the intervening months, the deck has really come along and it now has what appears to be a match win/loss ratio greater than 55/45 against the field.� Since that would be remarkable, I'm sharing the deck and my testing in hope of confirming that rate.

The current build: (excuse the set listings, this is copied/pasted direct from MWS)

Land:            
3   ON   Polluted Delta
2   ON   Flooded Strand
4   TE   Wasteland   
4   B   Scrubland
1   AQ   Strip Mine
2   IA   Snow-Covered Plains   
2   B   Underground Sea
1   U   Tundra

Creatures:      
4   RAV   Dark Confidant
4   LE   Withered Wretch
4   PS   Meddling Mage   
1   ON   True Believer 
3   SOK   Kataki, War's Wage

Spells:            
4   B   Swords to Plowshares
1   B   Black Lotus
1   B   Mox Sapphire
1   B   Mox Pearl
1   B   Mox Jet
1   B   Time Walk   
1   B   Ancestral Recall   
1   IA   Demonic Consultation   
1   B   Demonic Tutor   
1   US   Yawgmoth's Will   
2   NE   Seal of Cleansing   
4   US   Duress
2      FD    Engineered Explosives ***** Updated, proved significantly better than Vindicate.
4      WL   Null Rod
      
Sideboard:         
1   SOK   Kataki, War's Wage   
3   MM   Energy Flux   
4   DS   AEther Vial   
4   US   Gilded Drake
3   US   Absolute Law   
(Up to 4 Umezawa's Jitte/Sword UR in place of Drakes/Laws depending on meta)

The deck, in its current form, is designed to take advantage of interaction.� It's composed almost entirely of strong threats and answers.� While a non-Confidant game usually involves a severe disparity in card advantage (favoring my opponent), a quick look through my game logs will show that it's seldom problematic.� Card advantage doesn't imply that they're holding threats or answers: only that they're holding more cards.� Most decks really don't want to stop to deal with a 2/2 (Mage, Believer, Wretch), but this deck seldom fails to force them to.

Card explainations

Mana Base in General:
It looks horrible, admitted.� Surprsingly, it's not.� The lack of basic swamps primarily reflects my one-time reliance on Devout Witness to "fix" Blood Moon, and Chalice(2) problems.� Aether Vial and Vindicate have proven more versatile and robust.� �Seal of Cleansing, dropped early, also seems to be an effective countermeasure.� Since the basic Plains also let me cast Seal under a Wasteland/Crucible lock, the mana-base will likely remain "distorted."

Blue is entirely necessary for reasons that aren't fully clear to me.� My testing logs show that the blue splash is much more effective.� In fact, the BWu build far predates the BW build, though my records are generally for more recent.� �The best reason I can suggest is that Time Walk simply wins games.� This deck loves extra upkeeps/attack phases.� Time Walk provides both.� The sideboard Drakes are also *very* strong in testing.� This build handles random aggro better than its BW cousin despite lacking Jitte.

Maindeck True Believer:
Sometimes an auto-win game 1 against combo, has the very nice and often relevant side effect of stopping Duress, Gifts Ungiven, and Slaver.� This is *only* boarded out against Workshop-based control strategies.

Meddling Mage:
Likely the least controversial creature in the deck, it almost always names Tinker, Tendrils, or Yawg Will game 1.� Game 2, it tends to name Yawg Will or Mana Drain.� Against Stax, what gets named tends to depend on board position.� �Stax, Tinker, and Goblin Welder are strong options.� This is highly situational because a Kataki turns the Stack to your advantage, and an StP in hand is usually a good reason to not name Welder.

Withered Wretch:
Included in my logs are some sample cases where Wretch is an unexpected MVP: 'Tog, U-based control, and even some combo decks.� Many decks rely on Yawg Will, and Wretch simply prevents Will from being effective.� It also stops Welders, Lavamancers, and Dragon.� It's certainly not a "meta" card, in fact it's one of my most common Consulatation targets (after StP).

Kataki, War's Wage:
Kataki is a walking Null Rod that randomly owns Stax.� I'd be tempted to go so far as saying he deserves 3 slots in *any* deck that runs white and doesn't rely on artifact mana.� He's definitely one of this deck's MVPs.

Vindicate/Seal of Cleansing:
Vindicate is a strictly worse Seal of Cleansing.� It's only included because it can remove a Chalice(2).� In an environment where that's unlikely, cut both for 2 more Seal of Cleansing.� �

Sideboard:
With the exception of the 4 Aether Vial, the sideboard focusses on dealing with aggro.� While I may bring in Gilded Drake against Gifts and Energy Flux against Stax, the cards are there to defeat Workshop aggro.� Absolute Law is there to deal with UR Fish and G/R aggro.� Yes, it is a large enough problem to merit its inclusion.� Absolute Law + True Believer also shuts down random mono-R...which I have seen.


Strong Points:
Solid mid and long games.� Has an answer for almost everything and can usually find it.� Strongly forces the opponent to interact and interacts on better than equal terms.

Weak Points:
Loses to turn 1-2 brokenness.� It can deal with a first turn Tinker, but it can't deal with Ancestral + Lotus draws.


While I didn't want to bore anyone with a history on the deck, it had a few notably good/bad offshoots that are worth a very brief discussion.� Sarcomancy has no place in the BWu version of this deck.� While my first experience with Confidant involved a deck very close in form and function to the TT Confidant builds (which I have briefly tested), I truly believe that this deck does a far better job of abusing the card.

[Gekoratel]

I like the idea of splashing blue into the B/W fish deck because a lot of the elements of the BW fish deck seem underwhelming and you make up for this by getting to run Recall/Time Walk/Meddling Mage.  Vindicate seems to be a little to expensive for a fish deck because it does not efficiently disrupt your opponent.  I would think about dropping these unless your testing says they have been performing well.  Creature base seems alright but the deck must get wrecked by Chalice @ 2, you mention Vindicate for this but it seems like a slow/weak answer.  I'm also not sold on the MD seal of cleansing because it seems more like a sideboard card but if your metagame is full of Oath/MWS Decks then it's probably a fine call seems very weak against Drain decks though.  Also if you could give a rundown on how the deck performs against the major archetypes that would be a nice place to work from to see it's advantages over U/W and B/W fish.

Game 2, it tends to name Yawg Will or Mana Drain.

I don't think that naming Mana Drain game 2 is a very good play because most drain players that I know will board out drains against Fish/Aggro because it is slow and doesn't deal with threats on the board.  When sideboarding against Fish with drain decks the first cards to come out are metagame slots that don't affect the Fish (see Tormod's Crypt) but after that drains usually come out.  I could be totally off base but this is what I notice with drain players in my area.

[AmbivalentDuck]

If you actually look through the logs, I'm winning >90% of my matches.  I have to assume that this is the result of player quality, because I strongly feel that no deck can ever have a win/loss ratio greater than 55% in type 1 (without begging for something to be restricted).

That said, I can't really give good breakdowns.  Winning isn't very informative.  I lose to fast combo, *early* Tinker->Colossus with solid backup, and I go about 50/50 with UR Fish.  Columbia.University, whoever he/she is, is actually a very good player in my experience, hence I trust that 50/50 rate.

Chalice(2) has only been a problem twice.  And Vindicate has been surprisingly good for other things.  But like I said above, Seal of Cleansing is strictly better if not for the annoyance that is Chalice(2).  Don't forget that an opposing Jitte could very well end the game if its unanswered.  If there was a white Oxidize, Vindicate would be cut for it in a heartbeat.

In terms of naming Drain game 2, I'm again limited by the quality of my opponents.  I would be surprised to learn that Gifts boards out its Drains against Fish.  At the same time, I could see Slaver or Oath doing it.  *shrug*  While naming win conditions with the Mage is a strong play, naming Drain is nice in the situations where it outright buys you tempo.  In thinking about when I've named Drain with Mage, it's usually before I try to push through an important threat/answer.  That is, Meddling Mage is basically acting as an Orim's Chant that stays in play.

[Vegeta2711]

Couple of issues I think need to be improved with the deck.

1. Your disruption base is pretty terrible for an aggro-control deck. You run no Force of Will, no Null Rod, no Chalice of the Void, no Sphere of Resistance and no REB/Pyro's. This means you basically have jack and shit for really good disruption effects. The 5 Strips are like top tier disruption still, but that's literally the only really strong disruption you have. Wretch, Kataki and Mage are solid in certain matches, but can't really compete without the other cards listed. Duress is just not that good, you do -not- want to 1 for 1 trade with aggro-control unless your stopping bombs (i.e. why FoW is still ++). Duress stops one, but at no tempo or mana losss to the opponent and forces you to fetch a dual out.

You really have to question why you're not running 4 Null Rod when it'd be the best card in your deck by far.

2. Dark Confidant doesn't equal a draw engine. You need some sort of secondary effect here, Brainstorm, Ninja, Standstill, whatever. Just something else to help the deck maintain card quality, Demonic Consultation is cute and all and possibly the only tutor worth running in such a deck, because it allows turn 2 Null Rod more often. DT is usually too expensive for this type of deck (2 mainphase mana and tempo loss, woo) and Vampiric (and Mystical) Tutor is just terrible.

3. Chalice at 2 literally kills you. It will happen.

4. Get real testing done. MWS is terrible and you can't possibly take any results from there seriously.

[Prometheon]

Very nice deck, I've been working on a similar build myself for awhile, and I must say that yes, Vindicate is terrible, especially when running 5 wastes. You simply will not get to 3 mana that often. Maybe run a MD Chain of Vapor if you're that worrid about chalice at 2.

[Jank Golem]

You need another draw engine besides confident, brainstorm or top would be good solutions. For dealing with chalice @2, I suggest [card]Dust to Dust[/card]. Getting WW might be diffacult, but no harder then getting BW for vindicate. It is essentialy the white Rack and Ruin(Only not as good).

[kirdape3]

Most importantly, you have no mana curve at all.  Most of the time your turn 1 play will literally be 'Land, go'.  In any format, that opening from an aggressive deck is awful - now you don't do any damage to control until turn 3.  At that point, Vintage decks literally have you dead or functionally so.  You have no Chalice or Rod to impede their progress, so it's going to be pretty rough.

Black and White have superlative one-drops available that assist your cause.  Also, I'd MUCH rather have Cabal Therapy than Duress in a deck with more than 10 creatures in it if you had to pick.  Therapy might miss on the first shot, but the second is liable to be a whole hell of a lot better.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Couple of issues I think need to be improved with the deck.

1. Your disruption base is pretty terrible for an aggro-control deck. You run no Force of Will, no Null Rod, no Chalice of the Void, no Sphere of Resistance and no REB/Pyro's. This means you basically have jack and shit for really good disruption effects. The 5 Strips are like top tier disruption still, but that's literally the only really strong disruption you have. Wretch, Kataki and Mage are solid in certain matches, but can't really compete without the other cards listed. Duress is just not that good, you do -not- want to 1 for 1 trade with aggro-control unless your stopping bombs (i.e. why FoW is still ++). Duress stops one, but at no tempo or mana losss to the opponent and forces you to fetch a dual out.

The only reply I can give is that it seems to work.  While I have no intention of disputing that MWS sucks for testing, if the deck had gaping holes I would be losing far more often.  Force of Will actually got cut.  Once upon a time, the deck ran Brainstorms, Chain of Vapor, and Force of Will.  I found that I couldn't deal with losing card advantage *just* to stop something I could have Duressed anyways.  Also, Duress gives you information about your opponent's hand turn 1, game 1.  Force of Will does not.  In a "normal" deck, you'd force using something you don't need.  Here, you'd have to Force away a bomb (Mage, Ancestral, Time Walk) or your reinstated "draw engine" (Brainstorm).

Sphere of Resistance is something worth testing against combo: I haven't really played against any tier 1 combo players using tier 1 combo decks.  Chalice of the Void and Null Rod are, in my opinion, strictly antiquated by Kataki.  I mean, all of the combo decks are running maindeck Rebuild anyways.

You really have to question why you're not running 4 Null Rod when it'd be the best card in your deck by far.

I disagree.  I think that you're strongly underestimating what Kataki does in the Stax matchup, Wretch does in the CS matchup, and Believer does in the Gifts Matchup.  Null Rod only outshines Kataki in the combo matchup and JD and Smennen seem to win despite Null Rod regularly.

2. Dark Confidant doesn't equal a draw engine. You need some sort of secondary effect here, Brainstorm, Ninja, Standstill, whatever. Just something else to help the deck maintain card quality, Demonic Consultation is cute and all and possibly the only tutor worth running in such a deck, because it allows turn 2 Null Rod more often. DT is usually too expensive for this type of deck (2 mainphase mana and tempo loss, woo) and Vampiric (and Mystical) Tutor is just terrible.

  Three issues here:

People keep underestimating the Confidant.  I simply don't lose when it hits the table.  If you're arguing that it won't always hit the table and I need backup (which is a pretty solid argument), my response is that Standstill runs counter to the deck's whole strategy, Brainstorm requires a heavier blue commitment, and Ninja requires bouncing a bear that I'd almost certainly rather keep on the table.  I don't think I could meet the BBB commitment for Necropotence (though the BW version I have on my testing page has no excuse for not running it, oops).  Night's Whisper and Skeletal Scrying seem likely to kill me.  *Maybe* I could get away with Sword UR, but I doubt it.

For the time being, my best option for maintaining card quality seems to involve not thinning my deck: if almost every non-mana source card is a threat/answer, I'm unlikely to run out of threats/answers.

I'm not sure why you think Null Rod would be so good.  I had it in my SB about a month ago.  It came out because combo was just Rebuilding it and everywhere else, it was just outright redundant with Kataki.  On the assumption that you're giving useful advice, I'll cut the two Vindicate and the Crucible (unless you have a different suggestion) from the maindeck and toss in 3 Null Rod for some testing later today.  We'll see what happens.  I'll post the logs once they exist.

Pretend Demonic Tutor reads: 1B, Sorcery, Add three mana of any color to your mana pool.   And acts as a Vindicate that can stop DSC the rest of the time. 

And btw, here it's almost all mainphase mana.  The deck relies on its bears to interact with the opponents' turn.  The times it's not okay to tap out during your own turn mostly involve StP in hand or Withered Wretch in play.

3. Chalice at 2 literally kills you. It will happen.

It's happened twice, I was sitting on Vindicate once and holding a Vampiric the other time.  Any deck can be hosed by a random card, this won't happen very often game 1.  Game 2, I bring in Aether Vial.  I'm sure it will cost me games.  I think that this particular loss rate is acceptable.

4. Get real testing done. MWS is terrible and you can't possibly take any results from there seriously.

You're right, the player quality is not sufficient to test the "tournament response" of the deck usefully.  That said, I don't really have other options.  Hence sharing the deck and my testing thus far.   

I don't claim to be an amazingly player, I sincerely doubt I could pulll a win/loss ratio greater than 90/10 with Gifts or Stax, even on MWS.  That's why I thought this was worth sharing.  I clearly *do* have a win/loss ratio greater than 90/10 with this deck.  I feel very safe saying that it's the deck, not me. 

Very nice deck, I've been working on a similar build myself for awhile, and I must say that yes, Vindicate is terrible, especially when running 5 wastes. You simply will not get to 3 mana that often. Maybe run a MD Chain of Vapor if you're that worrid about chalice at 2.

I haven't had problems getting to three mana, but yeah, it's a pain.  The other options I've tried are Devout Witness and Chain of Vapor.  Chain just doesn't do it for me.  My deck has a really hard time finding U in a pinch.  Any matchup that requires the SB Drakes to win also see the Aether Vials going in.

You need another draw engine besides confident, brainstorm or top would be good solutions. For dealing with chalice @2, I suggest [card]Dust to Dust[/card]. Getting WW might be diffacult, but no harder then getting BW for vindicate. It is essentialy the white Rack and Ruin(Only not as good).

Rack and Ruin can't hit:
Enchantments (Oath)
Creatures (Welder, Lavamancer, Confidant)
Lands

Meaning that I'd have to dilute my entire deck *just in case* I don't have an Aether Vial, Seal (in play), Consult, or Vampiric.  At least Vindicate does double duty.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Most importantly, you have no mana curve at all.  Most of the time your turn 1 play will literally be 'Land, go'.  In any format, that opening from an aggressive deck is awful - now you don't do any damage to control until turn 3.  At that point, Vintage decks literally have you dead or functionally so.  You have no Chalice or Rod to impede their progress, so it's going to be pretty rough.

Black and White have superlative one-drops available that assist your cause.  Also, I'd MUCH rather have Cabal Therapy than Duress in a deck with more than 10 creatures in it if you had to pick.  Therapy might miss on the first shot, but the second is liable to be a whole hell of a lot better.

Sorry to double post, the last post was already getting way too long.  Kirdape3 posted while I was typing it up.

4 Duress, 4 LoMoxen.  That means that I usually have a turn 1 play.  Either a creature or the Duress.  Game 2 against control, I bring in Vials. 

In terms of being "functionally dead," I'll cede that point if you can find or create an instance in the logs where it happens.  My experience is that it's simply untrue.

Cabal Therapy is out of place because I'm not losing an Isamaru or a Sarcomancy, I'm losing a soft-lock.

[thatguynextdoor]

The deck seems pretty solid. I am a bit worried about Chalice for 2, as Vegeta discussed, however I mean its not totally un-dealable. First off, siding Vial in ofcourse will help solve the problem. There are also other factors to take into consideration when discussing Chalice though. First off, although this deck may not be INSANELY disruptive, it packs enough to be a nuissance, and force the opponent to play without mistakes. Pressure is being added not only on the hand, and mana base, but also the board via Kataki + True Believer.

I mean, the simple solution to Chalice for 2, which Vegeta seems to feel would be a GREAT problem would be Engineered Explosives/Abolish yes? Im not sure how I feel about the exclusion of Null Rod, but I mean again there is disruption of all sorts in this deck, and I think overall, Kataki may be better suited, atleast in this deck.

[AmbivalentDuck]

I completely overlooked the Explosives.  Thank you for that suggestion, it was immediately incorporated.

[Gekoratel]

After reading through all of the posts I agree with a lot of your comments but also disagree with a bunch.

Agree:

People keep underestimating the Confidant

I totally agree with your assessment of Dark Confidant that he is underrated and much better then say Night's Whisper.  In my opinion he's the main reason to run black in fish decks because other then Wretch and Duress there's not to much else.  But Confidant is good enough that it makes running black worthwhile.

Force of Will actually got cut

In a 3 color deck you would need to be running to many support cards in order to effectively run Force of Will so running other disruption in it's place seems fine.

Cabal Therapy is out of place because I'm not losing an Isamaru or a Sarcomancy, I'm losing a soft-lock.

My friend's have been testing Cabal Therapy in the more aggressive B/W Fish decks where they are sacking 1cc creatures even in that deck it doesn't seem to be as good as Duress because you rarely want to increase the size of your clock for extra disruption.

Disagree:

4 Duress, 4 LoMoxen.  That means that I usually have a turn 1 play.  Either a creature or the Duress.  Game 2 against control, I bring in Vials.

In KirdApe's post he was discussing your deck as an aggro deck so he would not consider Duress a 1 drop unlike Isamaru or Savannah Lion.  Your deck is trying to run creatures that all disrupt your opponent but it probably wouldn't hurt the deck to drop some of the extraneous cards and put in 1 drops such as Isamaru/Savannah Lion/Sacromancy/Carnophage.

The only reply I can give is that it seems to work.  While I have no intention of disputing that MWS sucks for testing, if the deck had gaping holes I would be losing far more often.
. . . 
Sphere of Resistance is something worth testing against combo: I haven't really played against any tier 1 combo players using tier 1 combo decks.  Chalice of the Void and Null Rod are, in my opinion, strictly antiquated by Kataki.  I mean, all of the combo decks are running maindeck Rebuild anyways.

The main glaring problem that I still have with this deck is that you are not running any way aside from 5x Waste's and Kataki's to disrupt your opponents mana development.  I really think that this deck needs either Null Rod or Chalice to be competitive against Tier 1 decks.

Despite some of my criticism’s I think the deck is coming along and after some more tuning could turn into a viable archetype.

[Guli]

I run the version without splashing blue. Meddling mage and the power are very strong addons but splashing blue gives you a weak mana base in my opinion. I think you will suffer a lot with the mana base and you are playing with kataki and you are thinking about adding null rod (or our other friends suggest it) I think if you want to play a mana disruption game you should not be playing with 3 colors yourself. There is a great U/W version that does the job better. You are basicly adding black and countering your own gameplan because you like confidant. When you are playing with confidant AND you want to play mana denial with kataki and rod please cut the blue. I chose for hand disruption and board control instead of mana denial with my B/W version. I do run 5 strip effects but that is obvious, doesn't mean i have to play kataki. Maybe i should be using kataki. Combining your idea with my idea might be the final touch.

Creature base B/W aggro/control

4 Dark confidant
4 Writhered Wretch
3 Kataki, War's Wage
3 Phyrexian Negator

After playing a good amount of games with my 'castigate' deck (there is a thread posted go read) i think this is the most efficient choice. The problem and difference is that with the U/W version is that Force of will against duress problem. The duress requires a black mana that you could use to cast a creature. The force doesn't make you lose a tempo because it is free (even if you pitch a blue card, it simply doesn't matter most of the time it is more important to keep the pressure going). However there is brainstorm. We could discuss this as well. What is better in a aggro control deck? Playing duress or playing brainstorm? I don't know for sure yet cause i am learning while i play and play. That is how you can get the deck better. Test it, post some, test some more come back and post some more... To come back at the U/W version with Savannah lions/mage/stormscape/kataki/... that deck runs chalice/rod/kataki/5 strip effects. These are all NON blue cards and those are the cards that are used to disrupt the mana base of opponent and it does a PRETTY good job believe me.

Real differences (blue) would be:

Meddling mage
Force of Will
Brainstorm
Stormscape apprentice
Ancestral Recall/Time Walk

If you want to play mana denial you really should play with either black or either blue or else you will suffer from mana problems yourself. At least that is what i think after playing both B/W and U/W versions.

What can black give us to support the white (don't forget these are kinda modern white weenie decks!)

Withered Wretch (POWER!!!)

Dark Confidant (MauhauhuHAa!!)

Phyrexian Negator (With enough permanents this guy is good even against aggro, if they attack you block and sac 2 things. then you hit back and cast some more permanents if you can. Sometimes things don't work out i agree but that is a risk you take with this big guy)

And btw if you are adding BLACK do not even think not adding Necropotence because it says I win the game in 90% of the games when it hits the table...

Now when we are adding black we are adding evil and well it kinda becomes a black weeni then. Black is way to cool to be a splash colour anyway haha :p

There is the possibility to use Savannah lions/isamaru instead of negators and some other cards in the deck. But i believe the negator is essential and should be used when adding black because of its power (5/5 trample for 3 mana is kinda fat)

Does hand disruption make up for the time we lose when we are not playing a turn 1  2/1 or 2/2 creature? What is better? Playing a lion with a force in your hand (and dropping a chalice for 0 for example), or playing a ritual/duress/Confidant. Both hands are kinda decent openings that you run into most of the time and both require 3 cards. I don't know if i am thinking the right way. Am i making any sense here? Anyway i like to draw more than 1 card a turn, it gives me pleasure

What we need to do is decide if we are going to play a mana denial (or keep them from resolving big threats) game and combine it with bears with great disruption that enhance your gameplan (mana denial 'aka' Kataki and Meddling Mage stops resolution) or play a more board control game and card advantage stylish way. (Wretch and Confidant do this) Trying to do everything i said here would lead to a weak deck that is trying to do to many things and is losing efficiency and it would require 3 colors which will be to hard to pull of because you will hurt yourself aswell with your 'mana denial'..

The Kataki is only really powerfull when your deck runs Null rod as well in my opinion. You should pick your creatures wisely they should help you with your gameplan and/or close weak spots of your deck. Your list simply runs them all which is cool but man i really wonder, don't you have mana problems most of the time? Isn't your 3 color version to vulnerable to wasteland?

As I mentioned earlier i didn't pick the gameplan 'mana denial' but i did pick 'spell resolution denial' by playing hand disruption. By investing time to play Duress and Castigate i do lose tempo but thanks to dark ritual this is sometimes compensated. Still i can not really play mana denial game when i play duress in a deck in my opinion. When you want to play mana denial i think you have to be fast, very fast... and cast threats every turn starting from the beginning. That is why the B/W aggro/control must adapt the gameplan and forget about kataki and null rod. A person who plays 'hand kill' knows that graveyard hate is needed to stop cards like welder/crucible/Wil/dredge because they bring them back into the game as of you never did a hymn to tourach. That is why i want to give the card castigate a chance. Combined with Withered Wretch/Swords to plowshares it makes the deck more resistant against graveyard play.

Because you do not have acces to 'counterspells' you have to deal with threats you can not stop (topdeck,to many creatures). I think pithing needle/seal of cleansing/cursed scroll/STP does the job nicely. Side in 4 null rod game 2 when needed against decks that make scroll useless ( combo for example)


Final note:

Maybe in time i will lose the castigate/scroll and replace them with chalice/Kataki/null rod and paly the mana denial game anyway. But never i will add blue if i do so..
I was thinking about something. If i don't play with mana denial cards why don't I add blue myself. My deck would be able to support the blue splash better than your list.

[thatguynextdoor]

"And BTW if you are adding BLACK do not even think not adding Necropotence because it says I win the game in 90% of the games when it hits the table..."

Hes not playing Dark Rituals....playing Necro in his decklist would be insanely terrible. Hes got a great balance going on, and his testing has showed splashing blue has not screwed with his ability to cast other spells...the blue splash for Mage is so sweet. While most of us players would see a blue splash and immediately say WHY NO FOW, its totally understandable the sense there isn't enough to pitch to FoW, but also, in this type of deck, FoW would just be a junk card in your hand most of the time anyways, FoW is used in a completely different deck style.

As I stated in your thread, Castigate is just bad, Duress is 1000x better, and playing 2 4-of discard spells would be atrocious in this deck, it has a perfect harmony. Also consider Castigate is a 2 drop...you have sooooooooo many better 2 drops in this deck.

"Phyrexian Negator (With enough permanents this guy is good even against aggro, if they attack you block and sac 2 things. then you hit back and cast some more permanents if you can. Sometimes things don't work out i agree but that is a risk you take with this big guy)"

ARE YOU SERIOUS...did you just say that Negator can be good against aggro? I don't care what the circumstance is...Negator is terrible against any aggro deck thats why its sided out in the aggro match up whenever its played. I mean...if you block with Negator..sure you can swing next turn, but you need to realize they are going to keep playing creatures..soon you will be writing yourself an IOU for permenants LoL Even the split second thought that Negator is even decent or playable against aggro is ludacris.

[Gekoratel]

Castigate does sound pretty bad, if I had to run another discard effect in the B/W fish deck it would either be Cabal Therapy or Hymn to Tourach, Castigate needs both black and white mana to do essentially the same effect as Duress when you would much rather be casting Dark Confidant.

Also I don't think that Phyrexian Negator is actually that bad against Aggro decks unless they are running Red.  Negator is obviously terrible if your opponent is going to Gempalm Incerator him for 50 damage or cast Lightning Bolt on him but against smaller aggro decks like U/W Fish or B/W fish he doesn't sound that bad.  Back in extended when Macey Rock was very popular people were maindecking him in a format where RDW was one of the most popular decks because he wasn't really that bad against creature decks.  Obv they boarded him out in that matchup but that matchcup alone wasn't reason enough to not run Negator.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Why would you ever run Negator over more tutors, some extra Moxen, and Tinker/DSC?  It's CLEARLY superior to Negator at the same effective CC.

[EnialisLiadon]

Depending on the meta, I think Chains of Meth could be a great addition to the sideboard as your only "draw extra cards" is Recall.  Confidant with Chains would be really sick.

I'm not sure how effective Castigate would be...you'd hardly ever cast turn 1 and even turn 2 might be a little tricky without leaving yourself open to waste effects.  Overall, the deck looks very solid so far.

[Gabethebabe]

I think this deck should be less black and more blue. The following creatures should not be cut:
4 Meddling Mage
4 Dark Confidant
3 Kataki, War´s Wage

but True Believer and Withered Wretch are IMO less powerful. In some matchups they are good. In other matchups they are Grizzly Bears with a very inhibitive mana cost.

You could add a couple of tapwizards for U, they´re pretty good. As additional drawing engine you could try Curiosity; not many decks have blockers and with 4 Swords and a couple of tappers you might even then be able to clear their path. Add a couple of Brainstorms and FoW is back in the picture. This deck can not live without FoW. If you´re not able to create broken plays, you sure need to be able to prevent opponent from going broken. 4 FoWs in a weenie deck like this is a must.

[thatguynextdoor]

Gabe, I'm going to have to disagree with you actually. You seem to be advocating making the deck more "fish-like" and I strongly think that is the wrong way to go with this deck. FoW is not required because hes taking a different route, and it seems to be working so far.

I think making this deck more and more blue based is a bad idea, although Curiosity MAY work, I'm not sure, only playtesting will tell because having a backup for Confidant not resolving would be a good idea. Brainstorm is not needed unless you play FoW-since he isn't, its not needed. I cant stress enough how much I think that going more and more fish-like is horrible.

Tapwizards totally aren't needed...again Mage is sort of an indirect way of keeping the big man and other things off the table, and Swords is the direct way. Tapwizards are also going to be subpar in this deck IMO.

While I believe True Believer may not be needed maindeck, I feel Wretch is...I mean what deck does not use Will? Whenever Yawg's Will is played...broken stuff happens, and this bad boy prevents that. It also puts Welder offline, as well as Bazaar Aggro-ness.

To recap:
1. Going the Fish rout = bad FoW and Brainstorm would actually make the deck bad and lose its focus
2. True Believer is questionable, although I guess if you expect lots of combo, all the more power to you
3. Wretch IMO is a must for what you will encounter at any tournaments these days
4. Tap Wizards...see note 1.

[AmbivalentDuck]

And Crucible.  Wretch also stops Crucible which is godsend given the vulnerability of the mana base.

I've had a few more opportunities to play TT Confidant Control recently and if I was going to add more blue, I'd probably just go with that deck instead.  To be honest, UB and UW are tier 2 decks.  And neither has a great game against combo or aggro.  In fact, they only have game against control.  Why change the deck to be more like concepts that have already failed?  I've been consistently beating random G/R and Workshop aggro online.  And neither deck requires as much playskill as, say, Gifts or Stax.  So those results are probably fairly accurate.

If combo is the largest concern, we can  look at all sorts of options from running Sphere of Resistance, Rule of Law, or even just running random Coretappers and more Believers to do random and stupid things involving Vialing out Believer *in response* to a lethal Tendrils.  Or even Orim's Chant.  I'm under-tested against combo...but I strongly believe in the power of non-specific hate to act as a strong, many-to-one threat.  I'd be surprised to learn that a combination of Orim's Chant and running all 4 Null Rods wouldn't fix the combo "problem"

I mean, this deck generically hates on:
-Spells
-Graveyards
-Artifacts
-Creatures
-Lands
Summarized: everything broken in T1 that's not Oath of Druids (which relies on creatures to kill anyways).

[Harlequin]

1. Going the Fish rout = bad FoW and Brainstorm would actually make the deck bad and lose its focus

Umm, I think most ppl would agree that this deck fits (nearly perfectly) within the "Fish" Architype.  Fish is mana-Efficency, early denial, with combined beater/ulitility creatures for the win.  Fish is much less of a deck, but more of an Idea.  Speedy tempo control combined with creatures that are standing threats in more ways than just "i swing for 2."  Fish has no real color anymore, infact, blue is not even required in fish! we've seen the emergance of both mono-black fish, and BW fish.  And with TMWA running 8 availble red counterspells + more mana/artifact denial than anyother deck - you might even call TMWA a "RW fish" deck (at least thats how i would explain it to someonw who quit T1 and came back).

Correct me if I'm wrong but your deck is already going the "fish rout."

[bebe]

his is the Iserholm deck that took third spot in a 56 man tournament.

black (15):
4 Dark Confidant
4 Phyrexian Negator
4 Duress
1 Withered Wretch
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor

blue (13):
4 Brainstorm
4 Force of Will
3 Stifle
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Echoing Truth

multi (4):
4 Meddling Mage

white (6):
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Seal of Cleansing

Mana  (23):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
2 Scrubland
1 Strip Mine
3 Tundra
4 Underground Sea
3 Wasteland

I might change a few things in the deck myself but notice that it is not fish-like at all. I think its a very good choice in metas that DO NOT see a lot of fish or burn - negators can be a liability. On the other habd it has a very nice clock and a nice balanced cc.
No Null Rods and no Chalices were used main deck.

[Guli]

That is what i am talking about. 3 colors no ROD no Kataki. I would add time walk to that list though. The list can be changed in many ways but it all depends on the meta we are playing in. The big picture is clear though.

[zeus-online]

On the negator vs. aggro discussion:
I've been playing this guy for like...years! (against everything from goblins to drain control)
And he really isnt all THAT bad against aggro....sure it sucks if he gets bolt'ed, but other then that, he's huge and can end the game fast.
He can actually keep other creatures at bay, since if they attack, he just hits back...and if they dont, you're getting more time i.e. permanents, making it safer for you to attack with him.
He's usually bigger then most threats other aggro decks can produce (short of workshop aggro, which i've raced with him before)

/Zeus

[AmbivalentDuck]

I can see why it did so well.  At the same time, that Time Walk is a gaping hole that I'm assuming has to do with proxying restrictions.  Simply put, it's almost better than Ancestral in this deck.  I'd think hard about cutting the Pearl for Time Walk...

I really don't like those Negators...let's pretend you always get a Mox draw and Mana Drain doesn't exist...Turn 1 Confidant, Turn 2 Negator damage count:

1: 0
2: 2
3: 7 (11 remaining)  You can finally start applying disruption...
4: 7 (4 remaining)
5: 7 (-3 remaining)

That's a pretty cushy clock for Gifts and Stax...  

[Guli]

On the negator vs. aggro discussion:
I've been playing this guy for like...years! (against everything from goblins to drain control)
And he really isnt all THAT bad against aggro....sure it sucks if he gets bolt'ed, but other then that, he's huge and can end the game fast.
He can actually keep other creatures at bay, since if they attack, he just hits back...and if they dont, you're getting more time i.e. permanents, making it safer for you to attack with him.
He's usually bigger then most threats other aggro decks can produce (short of workshop aggro, which i've raced with him before)

/Zeus

yep, i said this aswell but some guy laughed at me. I know what you mean and i agree. People forget it is a 5/5 trample sometimes. They immediatly change the entire atmosphere of the game.

[thatguynextdoor]

Those of you saying that Negator is good against Aggro are not being rational...in any sort of competitive environment-ANY aggro deck will eat him alive...I mean if the point is to cast early Negator..chances are you wont have many permenants out correct? Any early played creature is an even trade for Negator..YOU ARE LOSING PERMENANTS..I mean this is a serious loss in this meta, let alone any other meta in history.

If he attacks and is blocked, you sac permenants, and of course may get some damage though and most Aggro deck's creature will die...but since they are AGGRO they will keep playing them..this is what you are not realizing..so here you are losing more and more permanants -_-. I mean...I'm really banging my head on the desk trying to explain this to you...I mean you are aware that any player in the history of magic, when playing against an Aggro deck has sided him out? I mean sure your mentality may work at your local store with a 10 person tourney where you are playing scrubs..but ANY serious tournament you take this to, and play Negator against any sort of aggro, will result in you getting laughed out of the place xD I DARE you to take this to Waterbury and play it against any aggro deck there *sponge bob laugh* I mean the whole point is to resolve him early...leaving you few permanents-thus making him EVEN MORE of a terrible card to play against aggro.

[Guli]

Please stop making such posts 

You simply don't understand what others post and you make it something you want it to be. Nobody said anything about casting 'early' negators against aggro. You simply have the idea that some cards are good and some cards are bad and this can never change ever. Magic evolves and you seem to think it has stopped evolving. Casting a negator forces the aggro player (who has mostly 2/1 or 2/2 or 1/1 critters) to play different more carefull, no more all out attack. This is a good thing for the Negator player. And yes WE ALL SIDE THEM GAME 2 djeez... The point is that negator is all right against aggro and it is terrible against burn.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Whether or not Negator has a place in here or not isn't worth fighting about: the conclusion is simple.  IF you think you want a fat beater for 3 mana, you really want to run Tinker->DSC.  This deck runs blue; therefore if it needs a more aggressive tempo to win, it should run Tinker->DSC.  For that matter, TT Confidant looks really good at doing that.  Thug has a solid build: go, play, have fun.

The goal with this deck isn't a clock: the clock is coincidental.  I'm working almost purely off the theory that no matter how many cards my opponent draws, he/she has a set  number of threats and answers.  And I'm banking that my threats/answers are better, even if I play less of them (in a non-Confidant game).  I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you can stop your opponent from winning, it really doesn't matter how slow your clock is.  Thug does it with Platinum Angel, I'm doing it much less directly with disruption bears.

You can take that theory to the extreme like I did with my much-aligned AR-less Extract deck.  It had exactly one goal: stop the opponent from winning by removing any and all cards that he/she can actually win with from the game.  Then, you can win at your leisure with 1/2 beaters.

Here, I'm using a soft-lock, so a 20 turn clock isn't acceptable...but the point is that it's a lock, even if it's soft.  If I can hold it for 5 turns, I'll likely win.  The argument that negator speeds it up to a four-turn clock is all but irrelevant...why spend that much tempo without even disrupting my opponent further?  If they recover, they'll win.  If I want to do that, I need something fast and hard to eliminate, like DSC.   Otherwise, I need to KEEP DISRUPTING the opponent so that they can't recover.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Those of you saying that Negator is good against Aggro are not being rational

Have you ever played Negator against an aggro deck?  Because you don't sound like you actually have.   Let's create an example here:

I swing with Negator, and WW player blocks with Weathered Wayfarer and True Believer.  I sac three lands that I don't really need, or a land and two Moxen, or some combination.  WW player loses two creatures that he/she probably needed.  Alternately, I sac the Negator and two lands, then Unearth the Negator.

Next time actually try playing with the cards before you make incorrect guesses.