![]() We all know a game can be ruined when your deck isn't consistent, however there are also a lot of games lost because a deck lacks versatility. I know the value of consistency very well, but IMO there is nothing wrong with playing 2 or 3 cards with almost the same function when you have 4 or 5 slots for that kind of spell. This also applies for the amount you play the cards. I'd love to see more decks playing cards which are a little weaker than the staples we all use, but have way broader purposes. It played suboptimal cards like Funeral Charm, but even though Duress (at the time, now Thoughseize) would have been a lot stronger when you want discard, the option of killing Lackey or Dark Confidant (or even swampwalking a Goyf) is golden when you don't need discard. I once made a mid-range deck which followed this strategy. Especially when compared to agro-control like Threshold/CBT who are able to run builds/cards that don't need to see specific cards in a given order as much, and can play the aggressor while using free control, which is fairly exclusive to Blue.Īnd as LSV stated in the article, you will draw alot of irrelevant stuff against Control that is only relevant against Aggro, and vice versa, too frequently.This is why these kind of decks should, in my humble opinion, start playing cards which can serve multiple purposes even if they need to trade in some power. ![]() Obviously some of this is just mulliganing mediocre hands, but I can see the argument against strategies that look to play control and have to mull hands frequently because of curve issues. Since the decks' game plans sort of relied on curving out and having the T1-2 disruption (discard / StP) into the T3-4 gas/CA (Pernicious Deed or Survival), when you got the hands that had the gas, you'd often top deck into the disruption when it was too late. If you ever drew a hand full of Cabal Therapies and Gifts you died to aggro, and the Loxodon Hierarch / Living Wish / Wall of Roots draw really didn't cut it against control.I can definitely recall times testing Survival and Rock, and getting the hands with a bunch of disruption or a bunch of guys, and really needing the opposite. Even if it's not accurate in describing all metagames, it does a good job of going over the lies some people convince themselves of in playing aggro-control decks in metagames where they're bad, or where other midrange decks are simply much better. Well, I say that, but I kind of enjoyed it anyway. LSV even goes ahead and lists decks that are decidedly aggro-control as being good, such as Faeries and BW Tokens in Standard.īasically this article only works if you classify "midrange" as being, "aggro control but bad". But given strong cards like Survival, Recurring Nightmare, Jitte, Vitu-Ghazi, etc, mid range/aggro control decks have done very well in the past. GhostDad and Hand in Hand were both T2 midrange decks that were very successful recently, even if the aforementioned Loxodon Hierarch deck didn't do as well in the same metagame.Ī format with Grizzly Bears and Shock as your best aggro cards would produce shitty aggro decks. Survival, Life from the Loam, Counterbalance-Thresh, and arguably even Goblins are midrange decks that are successful in Legacy. The deck has a strong gameplan of it's own. The deck has the tools to switch roles easily Aggro and control are both viable in the metagame Midrange/ Philosophy of Water as a strategy only works if a few conditions hold It really depends on the format and what cards are available. I mean, it's certainly true of formats where you're playing Oversouls against Condemn.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |