Grixis Control lately

[Hrishi]

Honestly, the information it gives you is just as valuable as having a business spell in hand. The only problem I've ever had with Probe in my decks is that it makes mulligan decisions more awkward because sometimes you gamble on your topdeck being good.

[brianpk80]

The main problem with including a card like githaxian probe is that it means there is another card i did not include. I do not think that the information from probe is better than having another mana source, business spell or disruptive card.

Mental Misstep.  Not Force of Will.  

It's clear from the rest of your post that you have an astoundingly high ability to assess the game state that so closely approximates omniscience that the exact information yielded by Gitaxian Probe is redundant and therefore unnecessary to enable your continued success.  Didn't you just win the...?

Can you describe some typical scenarios here? E.g. I would like to hear about situations you encountered where you got Probed, had the counter for it but did not use it, and that decision significantly contributed to you falling behind or even losing the game (even though you kept the counter)

I will (almost) always Misstep a Probe by a Combo deck.  Plus, if I didn't I wouldn't be the position to know exactly which card was drawn from it.  It's easier to describe it from the position of the player using Probe.  Post-Probe I know if I can fire off an Ancestral or if I need to for instance wait until Turn 2 to play Ancestral + Flusterstorm.  Ditto for Turn 1 Oath of Druids/Tinker.  I don't willingly rush big spells into two untapped blue sources but if I know Mana Drain is simply a bluff, I can deploy bombs like Jace or Tezzeret instead of using the prudence to wait for back-up.  I have seen hands in the past with fast mana, Snapcaster Mage, and Yawgmoth's Will but little actual business where Probe is a Godsend.  Now it works as a free enabler for Dig Through Time.  Not only does it cost ; but it actually shows the opponent's hand for {-1} off the Delve spell.  The point I was making earlier contrasting it with Delver is that knowledge is more critical for resolving a high magnitude play like a Grixis win-con compared to a redundant threat such as a Young Pyromancer.  Part of the reason for Grixis Control's decline is the fragility of its win-conditions and formerly more reliable engine, Dark Confidant.  Information enables more effective threat deployment.  And if one is not going to take advantage of the raw power of Vault/Colossus and only deploy them when the game is already locked down, one might as well be playing Restoration Angels.  

[brianpk80]

Honestly, the information it gives you is just as valuable as having a business spell in hand. The only problem I've ever had with Probe in my decks is that it makes mulligan decisions more awkward because sometimes you gamble on your topdeck being good.

Agreed.  I would consider running 4 if it weren't for that phenomenon.  As it stands, I run 2.

One other example of a Probe success story involved Delver.  An opponent had a superb draw and fired off a lot of draw spells and early Treasure Cruise, which was tilting.  But the Probe revealed that the goods were nothing but Snapcasters, Lands, Delver, Pyromancer, and Tarmogoyf, so I was free to blithely Tinker out a Robot instead of durdling around with Sensei's Top and cantrips hoping to "responsibly" find double/triple back-up before throwing out the bomb, whose delay likely would have cost me the game.   

[diopter]

Honestly, the information it gives you is just as valuable as having a business spell in hand. The only problem I've ever had with Probe in my decks is that it makes mulligan decisions more awkward because sometimes you gamble on your topdeck being good.

I would love to hear more elaboration on the first claim, ideally via a game scenario that is representative of a larger playtesting sample.

On the second point, the mulligan is a huge decision so any negative impact there is a serious consideration. In fact that is probably one of two roadblocks to playing Probe (the other being Shops).

If one could guarantee never drawing Probe in the opening hand (and never facing Shops), it would likely be an instant 4-of because the information and increased odds to draw broken cards are almost certainly worth the cost of two life.

However taking away the knowledge of the 7th card in your opening hand (when it is common in the very powerful and non-homogenous decks for the identity of that 7th card to make or break the hand) is a very stark drawback.

In fact, if one values more perfect information one might actually make the case that Probe is not worth running!

[diopter]

Honestly, the information it gives you is just as valuable as having a business spell in hand. The only problem I've ever had with Probe in my decks is that it makes mulligan decisions more awkward because sometimes you gamble on your topdeck being good.

Agreed.  I would consider running 4 if it weren't for that phenomenon.  As it stands, I run 2.

One other example of a Probe success story involved Delver.  An opponent had a superb draw and fired off a lot of draw spells and early Treasure Cruise, which was tilting.  But the Probe revealed that the goods were nothing but Snapcasters, Lands, Delver, Pyromancer, and Tarmogoyf, so I was free to blithely Tinker out a Robot instead of durdling around with Sensei's Top and cantrips hoping to "responsibly" find double/triple back-up before throwing out the bomb, whose delay likely would have cost me the game.   

An excellent scenario, thank you.

I must then pose the question, is this a common outcome? Most likely if your opponent resolves Treasure Cruise on top of other business, Probe will reveal that you are outgunned in both offence and defense.

Your story illustrates that it is not certain, so you will definitely gain some win%, the question becomes how much win% you give back in the mulligan.

[diopter]

I will (almost) always Misstep a Probe by a Combo deck.  Plus, if I didn't I wouldn't be the position to know exactly which card was drawn from it.  It's easier to describe it from the position of the player using Probe.  Post-Probe I know if I can fire off an Ancestral or if I need to for instance wait until Turn 2 to play Ancestral + Flusterstorm.  Ditto for Turn 1 Oath of Druids/Tinker.  I don't willingly rush big spells into two untapped blue sources but if I know Mana Drain is simply a bluff, I can deploy bombs like Jace or Tezzeret instead of using the prudence to wait for back-up.  I have seen hands in the past with fast mana, Snapcaster Mage, and Yawgmoth's Will but little actual business where Probe is a Godsend.  Now it works as a free enabler for Dig Through Time.  Not only does it cost ; but it actually shows the opponent's hand for {-1} off the Delve spell.  The point I was making earlier contrasting it with Delver is that knowledge is more critical for resolving a high magnitude play like a Grixis win-con compared to a redundant threat such as a Young Pyromancer.  Part of the reason for Grixis Control's decline is the fragility of its win-conditions and formerly more reliable engine, Dark Confidant.  Information enables more effective threat deployment.  And if one is not going to take advantage of the raw power of Vault/Colossus and only deploy them when the game is already locked down, one might as well be playing Restoration Angels. 

Thank you. I agree in general that these advantages exist and the cost while in-game basically can't be beat. Especially your point about Mental Misstep is well taken because Ancestral Recall is still one of the biggest weapons in many Force of Will mirrors so knowing when to deploy it is beneficial.

I ask mostly because I wanted to weigh the benefit after turn 0 (for it is almost 100% beneficial if you are not facing Shops) with the drawbacks on turn 0 (for it is almost 100% harmful during the mulligan decision).

[brianpk80]

I must then pose the question, is this a common outcome? Most likely if your opponent resolves Treasure Cruise on top of other business, Probe will reveal that you are outgunned in both offence and defense.

Sometimes, but not as often as a grip of 7 + untapped Volcanic would imply.  Delver only has 4 true unconditional hard counters, the Force of Wills, so you can sneak things like Time Vault, Auriok Salvagers, and Oath of Druids onto the battlefield most of the time with only 1 or even zero back-ups.  Yawgmoth's is also only hit by Force and their tax counters (Pierce/Fluster) so a Probe lets you know what kind of mana support will have you in the clear.  Maybe you need to sandbag that Academy for a turn because they're holding Strip Mine.  Taking these steps correctly highly correlate to winning when it is still possible.  Granted, Magic is Magic and there have been times where I've Probed and seen horrifically impossible to deal with hands, but in that case, the Probe itself is not to blame and a pilot facing such hands would have lost with or without it. 

Your story illustrates that it is not certain, so you will definitely gain some win%, the question becomes how much win% you give back in the mulligan.

2 has worked for me.  There's nothing wrong with running a singleton either; I recall reading about a Doomsday list that ran one Probe and the pilot actually Mystical Tutored for Git. Probe because he needed to know whether he could combo out at a critical juncture in the game. 

[zeus-online]

.

[sirgog]

I definitely regard knowledge of the opponent's hand highly in Vintage. There are so many rarely seen but viable cards in the format that can utterly ruin your day when you cast a critical spell.

Dack Fayden, Lotion Thief, Balance, Steel Sabotage, Abrupt Decay, Hurkyl's Recall and Abolish are all cards I have seen people lose to when they were playing a haymaker. Every one of them would have been played around if the opponent had any idea what was coming.

I have become a huge fan of playing a couple of unexpected cards for just this reason. (Not terrible cards of course, but cards considered just a little suboptimal). My Grixis control deck, for instance, has a maindeck Balance (supported by a Tundra) that has won me several games because noone ever considers playing around that card.

[thisfool]

Yes, I do hate those Lotion Thieves.

[Samoht]

Maybe from years of playing combo I just know what my opponent's resistance level is -- I can't remember the last time I was genuinely surprised by something someone did. 

Was it on Sunday?

[vaughnbros]

Maybe from years of playing combo I just know what my opponent's resistance level is -- I can't remember the last time I was genuinely surprised by something someone did. 

Was it on Sunday?

Yes, I do hate those Lotion Thieves.

Those darn Lotion Thieves.  No one ever sees them coming.

[Smmenen]

Maybe from years of playing combo I just know what my opponent's resistance level is -- I can't remember the last time I was genuinely surprised by something someone did. 

Was it on Sunday?

No, I didn't pilot combo on Sunday.

[Samoht]

Maybe from years of playing combo I just know what my opponent's resistance level is -- I can't remember the last time I was genuinely surprised by something someone did. 

Was it on Sunday?

No, I didn't pilot combo on Sunday.

You didn't specify you had to be playing combo to know the resistance level of your opponent, merely that your experience in doing so gave you that skill. You seemed genuinely surprised when Matt caught you with the Notion Thief into your Treasure Cruise.

[Smmenen]

Maybe from years of playing combo I just know what my opponent's resistance level is -- I can't remember the last time I was genuinely surprised by something someone did.  

Was it on Sunday?

No, I didn't pilot combo on Sunday.

You didn't specify you had to be playing combo to know the resistance level of your opponent, merely that your experience in doing so gave you that skill.

Actually, I did specify:

Maybe from years of playing combo I just know what my opponent's resistance level is -- I can't remember the last time I was genuinely surprised by something someone did.  

See bolded text.  It's hard to imagine how I could be much clearer.

Also, the discussion was about the merits, value and overall utility of Probe in combo decks (re: I argued that experience with Combo decks will indicate the level of resistance you are likely to face such that the 'peek' value is overrated unless you are inexperienced in the format) - so even if i hadn't specified, the context would have illuminated the meaning of my comment.  

You seemed genuinely surprised when Matt caught you with the Notion Thief into your Treasure Cruise.

I never claimed not to be surprised by plays people made when I was playing Delver.  If you want an example, I was genuinely surprised when he played Timetwister in the first game.

In the particular instance you are referring to, I was actually not at all surprised by Matt's Notion Thief.  I took a calculated risk that he either 1) didn't have Notion Thief, or 2) didn't have Notion Thief AND a counterspell to protect it), and was disappointed in the outcome.  If I was surprised, I wouldn't have made that calculation.  Surprise is something you don't plan for and don't calculate for.  Making a calculated risk and coming out the wrong end is the opposite of being surprised. That's simply odds.

To elaborate, my hand was:

T Cruise, Pyroblast, Flusterstorm, Force, Land, Land (just Gushed), Bolt, and Bolt.

I had just played Gush, so I had 2 mana floating, and I had two Moxen and a land drop still.  He had 3 cards in hand, and had just let Gush resolve.  So I had to decide whether he had Notion Thief and a blue spell.  I wasn't surprised that he had Notion Thief, but calculated that even if he did, I could probably stop it with my Force.  

In retrospect, it was a mistake because I pretty much had control at that point, and I made a risky play when I didn't really have to take a risk at all.  I was greedy and wanted to use my mana up, since it would be at least two turns before I'd have an opportunity to cast Cruise again.

That was one of my worst mistakes of the tournament, and I should have won that game.  I just got a tad too greedy.

Even after he Notion Thiefed my Cruise, I still Forced his Sphinx, threw three bolts/Pyroblast at his Notion Thief, and resolved a Gush - but the Cruise gave him just enough resources to edge me out in the end.  



 

[Samoht]

Maybe from years of playing combo I just know what my opponent's resistance level is -- I can't remember the last time I was genuinely surprised by something someone did.  

Was it on Sunday?

No, I didn't pilot combo on Sunday.

You didn't specify you had to be playing combo to know the resistance level of your opponent, merely that your experience in doing so gave you that skill.

Actually, I did specify:

Maybe from years of playing combo I just know what my opponent's resistance level is -- I can't remember the last time I was genuinely surprised by something someone did.  

See bolded text.  It's hard to imagine how I could be much clearer.

Also, the discussion was about the merits, value and overall utility of Probe in combo decks (re: I argued that experience with Combo decks will indicate the level of resistance you are likely to face such that the 'peek' value is overrated unless you are inexperienced in the format) - so even if i hadn't specified, the context would have illuminated the meaning of my comment.  

You clearly say that your time spent playing combo has allowed you to determine the resistance your opponent has. Nowhere did you say that it was a skill you only possessed whilst only playing combo. The discussion centered around using pertinent information gained from Probe to augment decision trees through the course of a game, something that I don't believe is inherent to only playing combo decks.

You seemed genuinely surprised when Matt caught you with the Notion Thief into your Treasure Cruise.

I never claimed not to be surprised by plays people made when I was playing Delver.  If you want an example, I was genuinely surprised when he played Timetwister in the first game.

In the particular instance you are referring to, I was actually not at all surprised by Matt's Notion Thief.  I took a calculated risk that he either 1) didn't have Notion Thief, or 2) didn't have Notion Thief AND a counterspell to protect it), and was disappointed in the outcome.  If I was surprised, I wouldn't have made that calculation.  Surprise is something you don't plan for and don't calculate for.  Making a calculated risk and coming out the wrong end is the opposite of being surprised. That's simply odds.

To elaborate, my hand was:

T Cruise, Pyroblast, Flusterstorm, Force, Land, Land (just Gushed), Bolt, and Bolt.

I had just played Gush, so I had 2 mana floating, and I had two Moxen and a land drop still.  He had 3 cards in hand, and had just let Gush resolve.  So I had to decide whether he had Notion Thief and a blue spell.  I wasn't surprised that he had Notion Thief, but calculated that even if he did, I could probably stop it with my Force.  

In retrospect, it was a mistake because I pretty much had control at that point, and I made a risky play when I didn't really have to take a risk at all.  I was greedy and wanted to use my mana up, since it would be at least two turns before I'd have an opportunity to cast Cruise again.

That was one of my worst mistakes of the tournament, and I should have won that game.  I just got a tad too greedy.

Even after he Notion Thiefed my Cruise, I still Forced his Sphinx, threw three bolts/Pyroblast at his Notion Thief, and resolved a Gush - but the Cruise gave him just enough resources to edge me out in the end.  

It was certainly the pivotal point in that game, that much is certain. You never said you were surprised after the game concluded, I agree. Your face told a different story to the crowd however. I also further believe that casting Notion Thief to thwart your Gush with you floating UR and having additional resources in play to augment the position would have made it a terrible line for him to take. Matt correctly assessed that the weakness of NT to your spells made it an error to run it into them. You mistook his understanding of the situation to mean that he did not have the trump, and then proceeded to play into it by tapping out to cast Treasure Cruise, neutering all the cards that trumped Notion Thief.

On a side note, I'm glad my Timetwister served him well.

[The Atog Lord]

Gentlemen, this thread is about Grixis Control. This thread is not about whether Steve made a good play or a poor play. This thread is not about whether or not Steve is able to read people's minds. This thread is not about Steve. This thread is about Grixis Control. Please keep it that way.

[Chubby Rain]

On the opposite side of the table, I had Notion Thief and a counterspell with more counters on the top of my deck that I think I knew about from Top (maybe, I was battling a sinus infection so the details are a bit fuzzy). When you played Gush, I felt that I couldn't protect my Notion Thief from both a counter and a removal spell or from multiple removal spells which it seemed pretty clear that you had. Waiting allows me to untap, draw another counter, and be more likely to resolve and protect my Thief. The risks were too high with UR floating in your pool and Gush on the stack, which is why I quickly said that it resolved. When you tapped out for Treasure Cruise, you removed the possibility of a removal spell and that changed the equation substantially.

The sequencing was also a little off from what you listed. The next turn, I used the 3 cards I had drawn (2 FoW and a Drain) to lose the battle for the Notion Thief. You then cast Gush and were tapped out with a Ruby and Sapphire in play, 4 cards in hand, two of which were land. I made my big mistake of the match by cashing in my Top to try to resolve the Sphinx, cracking Flooded Strand for white mana. I was banking on you not Gushing into FoW + blue card but that didn't work out.

As for who would have won the game, I don't think you drew a threat and I was able to draw Auriok Salvagers for the eventual combo kill. I cannot say with any degree of certainty who would have won. That said, I enjoyed our match.

Bringing this discussion back on topic, Magic is a game of calculated risks and Gitaxian Probe provides more information that ideally leads to better calculations. It does so at a significant cost in terms of life, uncertainty with opening hands, and in the Workshops mirror. I personally really like the card but every player has their own way of assessing pros and cons and different play styles develop from this. It is by no means universally right to include or exclude the card.

Edit: Sorry Rich...

[H]

Bringing this discussion back on topic, Magic is a game of calculated risks and Gitaxian Probe provides more information that ideally leads to better calculations. It does so at a significant cost in terms of life, uncertainty with opening hands, and in the Workshops mirror. I personally really like the card but every player has their own way of assessing pros and cons and different play styles develop from this. It is by no means universally right to include or exclude the card.

Edit: Sorry Rich...

Information is very important, but one thing I think we are glossing over in this would be that if we are running Black, why not targeted discard?  Granted, both suck versus Workshops, so that is neutral.  The option to pay life or mana versus always mana and then of making them discard versus you drawing.

There are several answers to this question, but I have been really enjoying having 2 Duress in my maindeck for a while now.  I went to Duress over Thoughtseize, because life loss (I still run Confidant), creatures not being my main concern, and no weakness to Misdirection.

On a related note, I had over 10,000 words written for a Confidant-Jace primer and then Cruise and Dig came out.  I don't know if everything I wrote is now invalid or not.  I might need to write another 10,000 words on top of what I've got.  I don't think combo-control is dead, I think we have some work to do though, but I need to play some more to really see.

[Chubby Rain]

Information is very important, but one thing I think we are glossing over in this would be that if we are running Black, why not targeted discard?  Granted, both suck versus Workshops, so that is neutral.  The option to pay life or mana versus always mana and then of making them discard versus you drawing.

There are several answers to this question, but I have been really enjoying having 2 Duress in my maindeck for a while now.  I went to Duress over Thoughtseize, because life loss (I still run Confidant), creatures not being my main concern, and no weakness to Misdirection.

Depends on the deck but discard spells have some well known drawbacks:
1) They are situationally dead in the late game
2) There are more creature based decks which limits the effectiveness of Duress and makes the life lost to Thoughtseize more relevant.
3) In addition, discard is more powerful against and in combo decks as you are able to remove their primary means of interacting (Storm hand all in on Wheel and Control deck sitting on Flusterstorm). It becomes less powerful when the opponent has cards that are similar in power-level.
4) They are worse in an environment where the delve cards are popular as it is easier to mitigate the effects.
5) They are really bad in tempo-based environments as the opponent does not have to use mana and does not typically lose tempo.
6) Also mostly dead in Dredge matchup.

Gitaxian Probe pitches to FoW, always cycles, and is better a fueling the Delve cards - this isn't to say that Probe doesn't have disadvantages (they have been pretty well discussed).

[thisfool]

I was just toying around with a mini-welder version of this deck. I've been loving Sphinx of the Steel Wind against the Delver/Pyromancer opponent, but when he's in my hand and I don't have a brainstorm or Jace, all he can do is pitch to Force of Will. So I tossed in a single welder and a single memory jar, which made me happier to try Thirst for Knowledge and 1-2 Dig Through Time as draw engines.

[thisfool]

Hello.

I seek advice in making grixis work in the present metagame.

The success of _qfortier's grixis deck at last week's champs is documented. Access to red for pyroblast, pyroclasm and ingot chewer is valuable.

A week ago I tried my hand at a modified Grixis deck. I splashed green for abrupt decay, which is widely useful and something I'd like to make work. Though I didn't run into any mana problems in the four rounds, I suspect the base could use work:

http://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/256406#online

I think red is too valuable because of pyroclasm, slice and dice, pyroblast, etc. Green has other ways to deal with artifacts, but the aforementioned spells are helpful against creature-based and other blue decks.

I've made lots of tweaks to this list through testing, so mainly I'd like to throw ideas out for consideration. Is it too big a reach to go four colors without DRS or a more stable mana base? What are your feelings on the strongest grixis variants?