Control

Lots of people like to have control. Obviously, this is true in most aspects of life, not just Magic. But control can be a dangerous tool. Taking control of your own life is greatly empowering, but control of others often leads to corruption. And this relates to Magic.

Control decks can be any color or combination of colors, and can have any number of ways of exerting control. However, what they all have in common is just that: ways of exerting control. It's of course possible to have control over just yourself. This could take various forms: a deck whose mana curve is well-balanced, modal spells, tutors, card draw, etc. They give you flexibility to react, find what you need, and make the best of bad luck. But when people talk about control in Magic, they are usually talking about exerting control over the game, and over the opponent.

Many players love control - if you call the shots, victory is only a matter of time. But there's an inherent problem with control - it's annoying. Now, this is a fairly personal issue, and I am sure there are plenty of players who don't share my sentiments, but I definitely know some who do. As I've mentioned in a previous article, the friend who taught me Magic in the first place refuses to play against heavy control decks at all. And I often find myself agreeing with him. Here are his - and my - reasons.

First off, let's consider a situation. Smith is playing any ol' deck. Jones is playing a permission deck - a deck that has enough counters that it can decide what Smith can or can't play. Jones has buckets of fun - he giggles when Smith tries to play a powerful creature and counters it. But what is Smith feeling? He entered the game assuming he would get to play his spells. Now maybe he shouldn't have made that assumption, but I don't think it's an unfair one. Besides, there's already a restriction on playing spells - it's called mana cost. When Smith finally manages to build up the 11 mana required for his Darksteel Colossus, and Jones is able to tap a mere two mana and play Remove Soul or Mana Leak, I think Smith is right to become angry. If he can't rely on the possibility of playing his own spells, what CAN he rely on?

So counterspells are one way that control is irritating. And it's irritating to any player - Johnnies, Timmies, or Spikes. If Johnny has laboriously set up his nineteen card combo, only to have it ruined by a single Cancel, his heart is broken. If Timmy prepares to summon a massive Baloth, only to have it sputter and die before it's even born, his heart is broken. And if a Rewind stifles Spike's chance at victory, his heart is broken.

Counterspells are by far the most common control method, but there are certainly others that can be quite aggravating. One is lockdown, which is perhaps even worse. What I mean by "lockdown" is a deck that attempts to stifle the opponent's ability to do anything at all, but not by countering each spell individually - rather, by setting up some situation that will not give the opponent a chance to play anything in the first place. This often takes the form of preventing the opponent from generating mana, either by killing his lands, keeping them tapped, stealing them, or some even more wicked and devious scheme. Another way is to take extra turns. Another way is to play spells that have gamebreaking conditions like "creatures can't attack you" or "target player can't play spells this turn." In any case, the same problems apply here as in the case of counterspells: if you're not allowed to play your spells, where's the fun in playing?

Of course, it can be a fun challenge for some to weasel their way out of such situations. But this requires a flexible deck, or a deck specifically designed for such purposes. Not every deck is packed with defensive maneuvers, and I don't think it would be fair to demand it. For many decks, especially casual ones, a lockdown situation will immediately render the deck helpless.

There are other kinds of "control" that are less pernicious, and are usually more specific in their prevention. One example is anti-creature control, such as tapping creatures, destroying creatures, Pacifism effects, etc. But even though these can be devastating to creature-based decks, they only affect creatures, they don't prevent you from playing anything altogether. Even a few cards dedicated to protecting your creatures from such effects can save the day. But lockdown and counterspells are much harder to defend against without employing them yourself, or specifically planning against them with cards like Vexing Shusher.

This may all seem familiar. I made similar complaints when talking about combo decks, about how they reduce fun by reducing options. Does this mean I only like aggro decks? Not at all; just look at some of the decks I've posted in other articles. I have plenty of control and combo decks, and even the occasional lockdown deck. However, as I mentioned in the other article as well, it's often a matter of the environment. If you're playing to win, such as in a high-level tournament, letting your opponents have fun is not even a factor (one reason why I have no desire to get involved in tournament play). But if you're playing with friends, and you insist on using a lockdown deck every time you play, no one is going to play with you. Sure, try it out once to show them how fancy your pants are, but then unless they actively desire tackling it again with a mind to crack it, put it aside as a beautiful but delicate antique. Or just enter a tournament. If you share your winnings with me, I promise not to rant about control anymore...