Puschkin

While I appreciate the effort I can only repeat what has been said here already and what I wrote in similar decks in the past: It won't work in the current form! I understand and accept that you won't add any lands, no matter how beneficial, because no lands is what this deck is about. Okay. But then you have to make it work withing that limitation. And here is the problem:

Without Mycosynth Golem, you aren't doing anything, right? You need it's affinity for everyone so you can play the few cards of this deck that can win the game. The problem with that: Mycosynth Golem costs 11! Yes, it has affinity, but without any regular mana source this means you have to have 11 artifacts in play! Now, do the math: You start with 7 cards and draw one each turn, so you'll have 11 by turn 4 or 5 depending on who goes first. However, one of them must be the Golem and one of them must be the card you really want to play like Colossus. That means the earliest you can pull this off would be turn 6. But this assumes:
- that you go first
- that you draw Golem and Finisher
- that you dont draw a second finisher or Golem
- that your opponent doesn't destroy any of your 0-cc-artifacts during those turns (you have to play one each turn, otherwise it gets discarded)

That simply won't happen unless you play against an absolute noob and his all-islands-and-krakens-deck. Note that, in this case, it isn't even a thing of probability. Usually people throw decks together that need, like, 5 different cards in play to work. While it is very unlikely to pull that off, at least, it is possible to do so in turn 3 or 4. However, this one absolutely cannot do anything within the first 5 turns regardless of how you draw!

To make that work you would need card draw since cards is the limiting factor here. But there is no card draw that doesn't require mana to operate in the first place, so this is a dead end, too, unless I am missing an odd card. Even Skullclamp can't get you out of this.

For these reasons I think a landless decks should probably work differently. Something with cards like Elvish Spirit Guides, Chancellor of the Tangle and so on. Jessie once made a deck like this, maybe check that out.

Yes, but you wrote a response which helps keeping this on front page. And your complaint has now generated yet another response, adding to the popularity of this deck ("popularity" according to the algorythm that determines hot page). That's how this site works - weak decks, ideas and concepts have actually a better chance making the hot page since they will generate more responses since people will point out the flaws and make tons of suggestions. I am speaking from experience here, the more sophisticated my decks are, the less replies I get.

That's why I recommend ignoring the hot page altogether. I don't understand why it gets so much focus anyway and think it's a mistake of the site owners to make the hot page the default one. Instead it should be either "New" or "Unloved". "Active" and especially "Hot" will get their attention anyway, so don't make them the default view.

Even then - you need a Mycosynth Golem in play in order to play that Sol Ring. But by that time, you don't need a Sol Ring anymore.

Thank you. Since this is the only comment so far, I'll try marking this deck as "unloved".

I guess Khans block wasn't around when he made this deck and the last comment was from almost 2 years ago ...

And I always depised combo since it's first incarnation (ProsperBloom) :)

Nah, I didn't mean that degarotary. Well then, I do spell it out. It explains:
- Control was at it's peak before your time, so you can't know that it has been on steady decline since around 7th edition
- You started before Worldwake, so you don't know about that video I was referring to. It showed that famous scene of The Downfall with a new dubbing, Hitler reacting to the news that certain cards won't be reprinted in Worldwake and this control (Hitler's favourite deck style) isn't playable anymore. I'd love to link to it, but it has been removed from YouTube meanwhile.
- The newer generations of Magic players are generally more cutthroat ("competitive") than the older ones, explaning your general attitude. Casual is almost lost to them - which isn't necessarily their fault, it's what Wizards fosters.
- You also didn't experience a lot of the developments I was talking about. Dangerous Upkeeps, symmetrical cards etc. have already been on the brink of extinction by the time you started playing.
- Same is true for mana burn and the cards and playstyles associated to that - Power Surge, Citadel of Pain, Eladamri's Vineyard and so on are waaay back before your time.

From your point of view, everything might look as you describe it. I always forget that I am a dinosaur by now - it's very hard to talk about things like these when everybody has so drastically different experiences with this lovely game.

Started during New Phyrexia, now that explains alot.

As usually we have exact polar opposite opinions on everything ... but thank you for staying civil, something most people cannot :)

"I certainly believed control was dead" <= Your own words.
When I speak about Magic, I see and speak of it over all formats, tournament and casual and throughout history. Control has always been strong in the first part of Magic's colorful history but somewhere around the time they decided a hardcounter should cost more than UU control is on decline. Do you remember those "Hitler reacts to Worldwake" videos? At that point control was weak enough (compared to everything else) that it got it's own meme ...
Of course there will always be a playable deck here and there. But think of it from Wizard's POV again: Control is the hardest to play (both playing it and playing against it) and it drags out games which is something they don't want. This generation wants quick and brutal games. There is a reason why newer games like Hearthstone don't have instants, take the mana generation out of player's hands and generally foster fast and aggressive play. Control is Wizard's least favourite now.

Mana burn again (why does people always hang up on this one fragment!?), what it does add:
As I said, it adds strategic decisions you have to make when dealing with odd mana, excess mana and the rare occasions you give your opponent mana. It also gives certain cards a reason to exists and therefore allows for some decktypes that would not be possible otherwise. Furthermore it reminds players to play less sloppy and plan ahead - only tap for mana if you are going to use it. Furthermore it allows for some unique and interesting situations. My favourite example for this was when a buddy of mine had an out-of-control Black Market going where he got increasingly more desperate to discharge all that mana. And we, scared of the amounts of mana he had, decided to kill even more creatures so he would eventually burn himself to death. It was a very memorable game that forced all of us to play inventive.
Finally, the existance of mana burn is a small but sometimes decisive barrier for cheesy (infinite) mana combos. If you have a Gaea's Cradle going and used that mana to generate lots of tokens so that the Cradle generates even more mana, then, back when mana burn was a thing, you'd better use that mana all up when you tap the Cradle. Mana burn keeps some cards that are as annoying or borderline broken as Mindslaver in check. It's not a great achievement or skillful to drop some Swamps and Cabal Coffers and then go bonkers with dozens of black mana ... but with mana burn, those Coffers do at least have *some* drawback and need *some* skill to operate.

All of this from the casual POV of course. In tournaments, everything is cutthroat and something like Coffers is too slow. Then again I don't see why mana burn would hurt in tournament play either.

My playgroup added mana burn back. My original comment was about Wizards dumbing the game down being a factor why control is on a decline. Removal of mana burn (a rule that forced players to make tactical decisions) was just one of many examples of that dumbing down (or "simplifying" or, even more corporate-speak: "streamlining") the game. Of course it makes sense from Wizard's point of view but I am not Wizards and don't like their decision.

That's because all you can think of is tournaments. Half of all games played are still at the kitchen table. Mindslaver doesn't affect Standard either, so that argument is nil even by your standards. Moreover - if it doesn't affect you anyway, why remove it in the first place!?

I know Mindslaver pretty well. What I am objecting is that you are proposing a rules change based on a single card. Isn't that a bit silly? I am playing since 1994 and lived through the Black Summer and Combo Winter, endured the reign of Trix, Fruity Pebbles and all sorts of unspeakable nonsense. But so far the solution to problematic single cards has been banning (Memory Jar, Academy etc.) or errata'ing (Karmic Guide) the offending card, not changing the rules to fix an particular card. And even then they sometimes kept problematic cards unchecked rather than changing anything (Necropotence).
Moreover, getting rid of mana burn renders many cards obsolete. Cards like Power Surge and Citadel of Pain just don't work if the opponent can just tap out without using the mana. What about those?

How many cards do exist that allow you to take over control of a player's turn, eh? I count exactly 3. And in many cases you can call yourself lucky if the opponent uses your mana to mana burn you. Mindslaver costs 6 to cast and 4 to activate, that mana could have been invested in direct damage spells that do approximately as much damage as you do via mana burn during the opponent's turn. The other 2 cards are the Zendikar Sorin Makov where it's the ultimate (planeswalker ultimates do nasty stuff, whats the point?) and Worst Fears which has a casting cost that puts that card directly in the crap (mythic) rare bin.
It was less the wording and more that "turn control" didn't even cross my mind as being an issue. 3 cards!

On the other hand, if you keep on spending 20 dollars on budget decks time and again, you will never build up a decent card pool. At some point it's actually counterproductive to keep on buying those cards - you'll end up with a pile of sub-par cards that you will never be able to trade away. It's like buying regular batteries each weak because rechargeable ones are too expensive for you.

Also, especially when talking about the mana base, what's so difficult about adjusting the mana base to what you have!? I mean, why does every deck posted here needs to have cheap lands listed? I made the experience myself, if I list a deck with expensive duals, people are ignoring the deck - jeez, all they have to do is replacing them with cheaper duals if they want to copy the deck. Can't be that hard.

AND, I really, really doubt anybody actually builds the decks Northy posts here. Why? Simple, if you are the type of guy that is that desperate for budget, you most likely have a small card base to work with. So, while these decks are compareably cheap, they will most likely contain cards that the typical target audience won't have. And I highly doubt these people would order those cards online or go out and invest all the effort to hunt down those cards and trade for them. No, these decks are more like inspirations. But if they are, there is no need to keep it artificially low regarding things like the mana base.

Oh and Polymorphist’s Jest is a must, too!

Okay but it's painful for me either way because I am always like "oh, he should add this - nope, not Standard. But maybe ... nah, neither." You know what I mean. But I like your style (you include roleplay elements/flavor, add cards in singles or 2-ofs and are generally more Johnny), so I hereby promise to check out the other ones, too :P

One copy of Emeria and Gift of Immortality is all I have. I think Deathrender it is - also because it brings varity to the deck. If I add more ways to reanimate Eminem, then the deck becomes annoying and cumulates in a "do you run out of removal before I run out of reanimation spells" race. Deathrender means I have an alternate way to play the deck.

I sold all my Sneak Attacks.

Yes, Faith's Reward is to my liking. I recently picked one up for cheap, this might as well be it's new home, thanks.
BTW, I commented 2 of your decks. Don't know if I'll comment on the remainig ones since I despise Type II and won't be of much help there.

Excuse me, but how is giving your opponent extra mana and mana burning them more frustrating than, say, milling them to death or poisioning them to death or using a cheesy combo? By your reasoning, all of that should go, too. Also, giving your opponent mana is a) a rare thing and b) extremly risky because he might as well put that mana to good use and fry you instead! By the way, you don't generate mana for the opponent just by tapping their lands. Maybe that's where the confusion comes from. Only a select few cards give your opponent mana, Eladamri's Vineyard comes to mind.
Apart from that, the existance of mana burn forced you to make some strategic decisions whenever you generate excess mana yourself, for example when you Dark Ritual but only need one extra mana or when you have a Mana Flare in play and only need an odd amount. And, of course, there are some cards that just don't make sense anymore without mana burn, such as Power Surge.
So, all I see is a strategical option gone.

About Shroud and Hexproof "it's not that they didn't like the mechanic or that it was too hard to work around, but not being able to target your own stuff is incredibly frustrating" <= Tell my *why* it is frustrating? Because it's hard to work around? Technically a creature with shroud instead of hexproof could be a bit stronger or cost one less mana to compensate for it being not targetable by yourself. That's actually the same line of thinking why there are so few symmetrical cards or dangerous upkeeps these days. We have Honor of the Pure now instead of Crusade because players couldn't wrap their little minds about the idea that their card could sometimes beef up opponent's creatures, too. You can call it "it's frustrating for players" while I call it "players are getting lazyminded" but in the end, all of this IS a dumbing down of things.

Wizards simply caters their biggest demographic and those aren't control players because, as I said, that's the most complicated deck type to play. Instead we get preconstructed decks and block mechanics, tribals and guilds that make it very VERY obvious which cards should be played together. It is ...
... wait, it's me ranting again. I should stop doing that :)

Control was almost dead because they are busy dumbing down the game for years now (and control was the hardest to play). I mean, did you notice all the things they stopped to print? THings like dangerous upkeeps (or "true" upkeep costs in general)? Or symmetrical effects? Because you need brains to make them work. Or that there is only hexproof now but not shroud? There is a reason why they removed game mechanics like mana burn.