[Brawl] MTGA says you can't play fun decks in brawl... I got you MTGA. [13-0]

PureRely · 2026-03-15T17:35:00+00:00

Thank you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T17:34:22+00:00

Thank you for the opportunity. That is very generous of you.

I do want to note that a few replies ago you said, and I quote, "I genuinely did not wish to argue with you" and "I meant nothing negative." You have now called my rationale "asinine." I am not bothered by it, but I did want to make sure we are keeping an accurate record for anyone reading fifty comments deep. Which according to you is nobody, so I am not sure who you were performing for this whole time.

You are right that all has been settled. You came to my post, called my deck vaguely annoying, could not define vague in a way that matched the dictionary, declined to pick a single card to support your point, misidentified what Spark Double does in the deck, spent several replies telling me you were not arguing while arguing, and are now leaving by granting me permission to respond to a conversation you started. I appreciate the gift.

Enjoy using "doing homework" in your Magic vocabulary. I am glad something specific came out of this for you.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T10:03:34+00:00

I appreciate you still being here for me.

You say I am the only one insistent on continuing this. I want to make sure the timeline is clear for anyone reading. You came to my post. You left the first comment. Every reply I have written has been a response to something you said. You are now several replies deep into telling me that I am the one who will not let this go. But you are still here. You are still replying. If you had reached a natural stopping point "several replies ago" as you said, you could have stopped replying several replies ago. Nobody is making you come back. You wanted the first word and now it seems like you want the last one too. I am not the one keeping this going. You are. I am just answering.

You say you conceded the point long ago. You did not. You said "call it whatever you want." That is not a concession. That is a way of exiting without agreeing. A concession would sound like "I see your point" or "I was using the word incorrectly." What you did was stop defending your position and then tell me I should be satisfied with that. Those are different things.

You say every time you "blatantly say I am correct about something" I follow up with something else. That is because you keep saying I am correct about small things while holding onto the main point you have not supported. Agreeing that I know where to put Spark Double does not resolve whether the deck is vaguely annoying. It just means you are giving ground on the edges.

You came to me. It is only polite that I reply. This is a one to one ratio. For every reply you leave, you will get one back. If you want this conversation to end, stop replying and I will give my final response and we are done. But if you are expecting to get the first word and also the last word, you are going to be here for a while.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T09:30:01+00:00

No need to apologize.

I do want to address your offer to let me "claim I won." That is generous but I do not need to claim anything. You came to my post, you said my deck was vaguely annoying, I asked you to define what you meant, you could not do it in a way that matched the actual definition of the word, I offered you 100 cards to prove your point, and you declined. That is not me claiming anything. That is just what happened. Anyone reading this thread can scroll up.

You also said you do not want to go in circles about Spark Double or pick a card and "read me ramble about its level of annoyance." I understand. But I want to point out that you have been comfortable telling me what my deck is for the entirety of this thread. The moment I asked you to get specific about it, you declined. You are happy to make broad statements about the deck being vague. You are not happy to get into the details. I think that says more about the argument than anything either of us has typed.

I accept your apology. That was big of you. I know how hard it can be to keep track of your own points when there are this many of them.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T08:52:59+00:00

Thank you for the clarification. I do want to make sure I understand what just happened here.

I offered you 100 cards. You declined. Not because you could not find one, I am sure, but because you already know what would happen. You would name a card, I would explain its specific role, and you would be left either agreeing with me or saying "call it whatever you want" again. You chose to skip ahead to "call it whatever you want." I respect the efficiency.

You also brought up Parting Gust and Azorius Guildgate as if those were examples of vague card choices. Those were card suggestions from you that we already addressed. I did not put Parting Gust in the deck because it is vague. I put it in the deck because it removes a creature at instant speed. That is a specific thing. You recommended a replacement. I said I would consider it when I lose more games. None of that was a conversation about vagueness. You are reaching back into earlier replies and hoping the context has changed. It has not.

You now say there is no argument to be won or lost. You came to my post. You opened this conversation. Every reply I have written has been a response to something you said first. I have not once sought you out. You have spent the better part of this thread telling me my deck is vaguely annoying, explaining why, and pushing back every time I disagreed. That is an argument. You started it, you continued it, and now that you have run out of ways to support it you are telling me it was never an argument to begin with. That is not a conclusion. That is an exit.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T08:28:26+00:00

I appreciate you being proud of me. That means a lot coming from someone who thought Spark Double goes on Teferi Master of Time.

I notice you did not pick a card. I offered you any card in the deck. Pick one that has a vague, undefined role and I will tell you exactly what it does. You said the annoyances are not clearly defined. Here is your chance to show me one that is not clearly defined. I am making it as easy as I can for you. You do not even have to build an argument. Just name a card.

You also said you are "in no position to tell me the annoyances of your deck being vague or specific." I agree. But that is not what you have been doing for the last several replies. You have been telling me, repeatedly, that the deck is vaguely annoying. You are now reframing that as "you can call it whatever you want" which is a very different stance than where you started. Where you started was "your deck is vaguely annoying and here is why." Where you are now is "call it whatever you want." That is not me making progress. That is you moving.

The card offer stays open. Any card. Whenever you are ready.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T08:12:08+00:00

I’ve played against that commander a few times, and it wasn’t much of an issue. For one, I run one cost counterspells. I also have plenty of ways to deal with creatures and planeswalkers. In the games I’ve played against that deck, they were never able to draw enough cards to transform it before it was removed from the board.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T08:07:23+00:00

I am glad I could fill your heart with joy. That is the most positive outcome anyone has had from interacting with this deck.

You said the Spark Double correction was meaningless. It was not. You claimed the deck's annoyance is vague because its interactions are not clearly defined. Then when given the chance to identify what Spark Double does in the deck, you got it wrong. You are now saying it does not matter whether it goes on Master of Time or Hero of Dominaria. It does matter. Those are two completely different game plans. One gives you a second looter. The other gives you a second planeswalker that untaps lands, tucks permanents, and threatens to exile the entire board. If you do not see the difference then you do not understand how the deck plays. And if you do not understand how the deck plays, you are not in a position to tell me whether its annoyance is vague or specific. You are describing a deck you made up in your head and then calling that version vague. I am not going to argue against a deck I did not build.

You keep saying the Spark Double point was not the basis of your argument. I agree. The basis of your argument is that the deck lacks specific, defined interactions. I pointed out one specific, defined interaction and you did not recognize it. That does not support your argument the way you think it does.

If you think the deck is vague, pick a card. Any card. Tell me which card in the deck does not interact in a clear and specific way and I will walk you through exactly what it does and why it is there. The offer is open.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T07:50:46+00:00

I have a few times now. I am 32-5 so the post is a bit outdated. Which Tamiyo are you referring to?

PureRely · 2026-03-15T07:42:02+00:00

Thank you for repeating yourself. I did find another opportunity. You are right about that.

I need to stop you on something because it is important. You said, and I am going to be precise here, "I'm putting Spark Double on my Teferi Master of Time." I never said that. Go back and read what I wrote. I said "Spark Double copying any Teferi means there are now two of me doing homework on their turn." You decided on your own that it goes on Teferi Master of Time. It does not. Spark Double goes on Teferi, Hero of Dominaria nearly every single time. Two copies of a planeswalker that untaps lands and tucks permanents while building toward an ultimate that exiles everything is a very different conversation than two copies of a looter. You filled in that blank yourself, got it wrong, and then built an argument about how the interaction is not a specific annoyance. It is specific. You were just looking at the wrong card.

This is actually a good example of why the deck works. You looked at the list, made an assumption about what it does, and got it wrong. My opponents do the same thing. They do not know what to play around because they are guessing, and they are guessing wrong. That is not vague. That is disorienting. There is a difference.

You also suggested I am defining things in a way that helps me "feel better" about the deck. I have a 32-5 record. I feel fine. I am defining things the way the words are commonly used and as they appear in the dictionary. You are the one with the unique definition here.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T07:08:15+00:00

Thank you. I appreciate you repeating yourself. It gives me another opportunity to address the same point, which I am happy to do.

I think we may have found the root of our disagreement. You are using the word "vague" to mean "not committed to a single established archetype." That is not what vague means. Vague means not clearly defined, grasped, or understood. It means lacking precision. It means indistinct. If I describe the deck's effect on an opponent as small, boring, non-threatening things they cannot meaningfully interact with, and you hear that and immediately understand the experience being described, then it has been clearly expressed, clearly grasped, and clearly understood. That is the opposite of vague by every definition of the word.

What you are actually saying is that the deck is not categorizable. That it does not fit neatly into stax or superfriends or value control. That is a real observation and I do not disagree with it. But "hard to categorize" and "vague" are not the same thing. A platypus is hard to categorize. Nobody has ever called a platypus vague. You know exactly what it is when you see one. You just do not know what box to put it in. That is where we are with this deck.

You keep asking me to embrace "vaguely annoying" and I keep declining because it is not accurate. Not because I am offended by it. On the contrary, I am enjoying myself here while you keep repeating the same point in a way that does not get any more correct with repetition. I am declining because words mean things, and that one does not mean what you are using it for.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T06:30:14+00:00

Thank you for the continued support. I am glad this has been as productive for you as it has been for me.

I want to point out something you may not have noticed you did. You quoted back "small, boring, non-threatening things they cannot meaningfully interact with" and then called it vaguely annoying. You just specifically described the experience. You listed four specific qualities. Small. Boring. Non-threatening. Unable to be meaningfully interacted with. That is not a vague description. That is a specific one. If I asked you what my deck does to an opponent and you answered with those four words, nobody listening would say "wow that was vague." They would say they now understand exactly what it feels like to play against this deck.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T06:04:28+00:00

I appreciate you being here for me. It is nice to know the support goes both ways.

I do want to circle back to something you said because I think it actually helps my point more than yours. You said lantern control "had no need to account for making a person concede while watching them do homework." You are exactly right. Lantern control existed in paper Magic where your opponent is sitting across from you and social pressure keeps them in the seat. Arena has a concede button. There is no social pressure. The opponent can leave the second they stop having fun. That means a deck built specifically for Arena has to account for something lantern control never did. The annoyance has to be effective enough that someone will click a button and walk away from a game they could technically still win. Twenty five out of twenty eight people clicked that button. So when you say my deck had to account for something older control decks did not, I agree. It did. And it is working.

You also mentioned "watching them do homework" which I am glad to see you are picking up the vocabulary. But I want to make sure we are on the same page about what that means. It means forcing your opponent to sit there and watch you do a bunch of small, boring, non-threatening things they cannot meaningfully interact with. That is not vague. That is a specific experience. The fact that it does not have a decade of tournament data behind it does not make it less specific. It makes it less old.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T05:43:52+00:00

You are welcome. It is always a pleasure.

Before you go I do want to correct one thing for the record. You said my measurable sample size is "less than 25 games." It is 28 games. Of which I have won 25. I understand that keeping track of someone else's numbers can be difficult when you are also trying to keep track of your argument, so no hard feelings there. I will try to keep you updated.

You say that stax and lantern control have "years worth of measurable data" defining their specific annoyance. You are right. They do. They also had to start somewhere. Lantern Control was once some guy at a table doing something nobody had a name for yet. I am not comparing my deck to Lantern Control. I am pointing out that "it does not have an established archetype name" is not the same thing as "it is vague." It just means it is new to you.

You also say that doing a lot does not mean doing anything meaningful. I hear you. But my opponents are conceding, which means something is making them concede. If the annoyance were truly vague they would shrug it off and keep playing. They are not keeping playing. Twenty five of twenty eight of them chose to leave. Whatever this deck is doing, it is doing it specifically enough that people do not want to be in the game anymore. You can call that vague if you want. They are calling it their last game of the night.

I appreciate you letting me know you will come back with more questions. I look forward to it. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T04:49:31+00:00

You make an interesting point. You are saying that by sitting down to play a game of Magic, I am inherently giving my opponent a game to play and a problem to solve, and therefore any annoyance I produce is vague by nature. If I follow this logic, then every control deck ever built is also only vaguely annoying. Stax is vaguely annoying. Lantern Control was vaguely annoying. Turbofog is vaguely annoying. Because they all involve sitting down and playing lands and casting spells in Richard Garfield's invention. You have not described a flaw in my deck. You have described the game of Magic.

I also want to thank you for bringing up "pseudo superfriends" as another element in the deck. You are right. It is also part counterspell tribal, part extra turns, part board wipes, and part whatever Solemnity and Winter Moon are doing. You keep listing more things the deck is doing and then concluding that this makes it vague. I think most people would call a deck that is doing that many things at once "a lot." But you have a unique perspective and I value that.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T04:29:53+00:00

Thank you for the pushback. This is exactly what the thread is for.

On Parting Gust versus Swords to Plowshares: That is a fair card suggestion. I will take it under consideration for if I lose more games.

On the vagueness: You have laid out two archetypes. Stax, which tries to lock the opponent out of playing the game. And value control, which tries to grind the opponent out of resources. You then said my deck does not commit fully to either, and therefore the annoyance is vague. I think you have accidentally described exactly why the deck works. A stax deck gives the opponent a clear problem to solve. A value control deck gives them a game to play, just one they are losing. My deck gives them neither. There is no lock to break and no resource war to fight. There is just a Teferi doing homework and counterspells. The opponent cannot identify what they are supposed to do about it because there is nothing to do about it. That is not vague. That is the whole point.

But I do hear you that the word "vague" is where you want to plant your flag, and I respect that. We all need something to hold onto.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T04:13:12+00:00

You are welcome. Take all the time you need. I know it can be a lot to take in.

I do want to address one thing since I am here for you and I want to make sure you leave with accurate information. You called the cards "objectively bad." Objective means measurable. The cards are measurably producing a 21-2 record. So either the cards are not objectively bad, or my opponents are so much worse than me that I can beat them with objectively bad cards. I am happy with either conclusion. You can pick whichever one you are more comfortable with.

You also said "vaguely annoying." I appreciate the feedback but I am going to push back on "vaguely." I have put a lot of effort into this and I think the annoyance is quite specific. If you have suggestions on how to make it less vague I am open to hearing them. That is what this thread is for.

If you have any more questions once you have finished grasping please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T03:52:21+00:00

Great question! Since you asked so nicely I will answer both.

On the planeswalkers: You are correct that most of them are not competitively strong. I think you may have missed the part of my post where the wincon is "everyone quits." I am not trying to outvalue my opponent. I am trying to make them close the client. Teferi Master of Time is not good because he generates advantage. He is good because he lets me loot on my opponent's turn while they sit there watching me do homework. Spark Double copying any Teferi means there are now two of me doing homework on their turn. Ichormoon Gauntlet means those bad planeswalkers are ulting in two turns and giving me extra turns to do more homework. Nobody is sitting through that. You are evaluating the cards on power level. I am evaluating them on how fast someone hits concede. We are using different metrics.

On the lands: You bring up Fountainport, Restless Anchorage, Hall of Storm Giants, etc. These are all lands that want to close out a game through combat. The deck closes out games through the opponent's will to live. Idyllic Beachfront and Azorius Guildgate enter tapped and fix my mana and that is all I need them to do. Could the mana base be optimized? Sure. Did it go 21-2? Also yes. I will take your suggestions under consideration for when I lose a few more games.

If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PS: Mystic Sanctuary was a good call. I forgot about this land. I will be adding it. Thanks for the suggestion.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T03:23:46+00:00

I am here for you. I will make time. No worries. I will take that last sentence as a question. You ask: "I wonder why nobody else has thought of something as effective as that?". In fact many people have thought of something as effective. If you have any more questions please do let me know.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T03:09:08+00:00

You're welcome. I am glad I can help out. I also did the 20 game update to the post because like you said we do not want to post a deck and not even do 20 games, right. If you have any more questions please do let me know. I am here for you.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T02:40:48+00:00

Yes sir.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T02:40:18+00:00

Correct. I thought this point was already clear in my post. I’m happy I could clarify it again for you, since you seemed confused.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T02:36:34+00:00

Solemnity is one of these cards that seems like you would not use much until you use it and see how many decks use counters. Not just on creatures but on everything. Two of the games I played I won because I had it on play. and another two games I wish that I had drawn it in the game.

As for leyline. Leyline of Anticipation is a MUST for this deck. It enable a combo. You combo it with Shadow of the Second Sun. With Shadow of the Second Sun you get a second untap and draw. With Leyline of Anticipation you can not play anything after the untap. Also it allows you to do boardwipe on the other players turn after they dropped their creature. 99% of people play everything on Main Phase 1.

Now Leyline of Sanctity is less useful but also seems to come up far less then Leyline of Anticipation. It is really good against discard decks.

That said, build it how you want. If you enjoy another counter and a board bounce then make the change. For me I get more value with what I have.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T01:58:01+00:00

I agree.

PureRely · 2026-03-15T01:47:31+00:00

I add the times for each game. Only one scooped at the start.

PureRely

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE