Minelia5 Thanks. The editing is really annoying because you have to do it all in a small box.

Well it does, But Pod isnt legal anymore.

Have you seen this in play early against Tron or Affinity, it does work.

Also Wear / Tear doesn't affect pod. (You can go ahead and delete these comments since I'm kind of taking up comment space)

I wasn't saying he should remove it, all I was saying was that he needed to edit the description. ( :

But the question is, which other cute girls should I add into the fanservice section?

Wear Tear hits Splinter Twin, Enchantments from the Bogles deck, Defense Grid, Wild Defiance, Blood Moon,Spellskite, Anthems in token decks, and much much more.

All I have to say is I love the deck concept and I agree with the outline. I also think from a competitive stand point this seems like it would fare well. However, I do believe your sideboard is spread quite thin as was mentioned in a previous comment. I understand it is kind of a toolbox of sorts. However I think that if you are looking in your toolbox and you can't find what you need you take a lot longer to fix what you are working on. That being said I would personally consider uping some of your one ofs to two ofs like Wrath of God and Sphinx's Revelation or at least mirror some of them in your board.

Also +1 just on account of the "Cute Girls".

benni4848 I don't like multiples of Rev; it's not fun in the least to Rev into a Rev. I want to Rev into gas.

My sideboard may seem pretty spread out, but that's because I can bring in a number of things in against certain decks. Usually, I just need an incremental advantage, or a way to get rid of useless cards. I have been considering another Wrath, though, because boards wipes are really important. Then again, the board state is often a single Rhino, or 'Goyf, and a Valorous Stance is all I need to spend mana on to keep Cryptic Command mana up for later.

Revving into Rev is gas man!! :P

Ew, no. I want to Rev into 4x Lightning Bolt and 2x Cryptic Command.

Mate, Your essentially talking the deck that I played during Rav-Theros standard down, I was very, very fond of that deck.

Discarding 8 cards which are already too much for your opponent to win through was one of my favourite things to do :P

Standard? STANDARD? Revelation was a plague upon standard. The control decks were disgusting during RTR-THS standard. There was no creation. No innovation. No zazz. Deckbuilders did not need to put in effort during that dark time. You either played the stock 60 Black Devotion, stock 60 Blue Devotion, or stock 60 Control.

This right here, this is innovation. Shadow of Doubt is the best land destruction in modern, and Valorous Stance is a Wrath for when there is a single fatty on board.

Which makes it not a Wrath :/

My deck was pretty different, Maindecked a lot of crazy things from Codex Shredder to 4 maindeck Last Breath.

Pack Rat was a plague on standard :/

I agree though, For the most part it didn't promote diversity of the format and those three decks were just infinitely better than anything else in the format.

I enjoyed the deck mostly because it was my first control deck and I X-0d every standard FNM I entered with it :)

But why play a Wrath when you only need to kill a single creature?

I surprised a Gifts player once by Stancing their Iona, naming blue.

Just so you know - you wrote that Swan Song is "an excellent way to counter the pact kill from Amulet Bloom." However, if you try to counter your copy of a pact that Hive Mind generated, Hive Mind will also make a copy of the counterspell you cast for the Bloom player, that can use it to counter your counter, so it doesn't quite work.

You can use it to counter their Hive Mind altogether though.

TheRedMage Yeah, you counter the Hive Mind because that's what makes the pact kill. Once they drop a Hive Mind, you basically lose, so you need to stop that.

Ok. "Stopping the pact kill" maked it seem like your intention was to counter the pact itself, so I thought i'd let you know it wouldn't work.

I personally am not a huge fan of Swan Song in control shells - when your deck is trying to one-for-one your opponent and then win the attrition battle thanks to card draw, giving them a free creature seems exceedingly bad - but I would love to hear your experience.

Is the mainboard Shadow of Doubt a meta call? It's not something you see every day.

Yeah, I suppose that wording is pretty suspect. It shall be changed.

Shadow of Doubt is a meta call in the sense that it's a 2 mana Stone Rain for about 75%-80% of the meta anywhere. Whenever it's not useful, you can just use it as a cantrip.

I do like Swan Song because it costs 1 mana, allowing you to beat T2 wins. A 2/2 bird is nothing when it stops you from losing. There are also some super sweet situations where you can counter your own spell which is being targetted by a Cryptic to get a 2/2 bird and stop their draw.

LOL! I never thought of that last application for Swan Song I literally laughed out loud at that one. HAHAHA

I'm really not a fan of Swan Song when you could just play Negate or Dispel in the slot. Pretty much every turn two kill uses instants (Infect, Storm nut draws, reanimator, etc.), so Dispel is just better if that's your purpose. It's also better when the game moves beyond that point.

GlistenerAgent Negate is a turn later, and Dispel can't hit enchantments or sorceries. A 2/2 bird is a small downside when we have an array of burn and control spells.

Yeah, but then you have to use an extra card. On the play Negate does the same thing, and there are no enchantments or sorceries you need to worry about on turn 2 (save Blood Moon, but if Storm is doing that you'll have brought in answers anyway).

More often than not, a degenerate combo player will just concede once their plan has been foiled.

Maybe, but all the degenerate decks have ways to refuel (Faithless Looting, Ancient Stirrings, what have you), and your configuration has as bit of a harder time finishing games given the absence of Restoration Angel, giving them some more time to rebuild.

I just feel like there are cards that fit the same role without being disadvantageous.