Deck Tuning Theory: To Hedge Against Agro or Control in Game 1?
Introduction
I've been tuning my Grixis build preparing for the arena MCQ this weekend, and right now I'm facing an interesting tuning decision. I expect a significant rise in Esper control from recent tournaments and unfortunately there are very few cards that are both good against Esper AND good against Vampires!!
This is a common issue that you might face when building a midrange or control deck in a metagame that that pulls you in two directions. If you load up on removal, you'll have lots of dead cards when you play against control.. If you load up on card draw and expensive threats, you wont ever get to use those cards against agro because you will die before you can cast them (which is identical to virtual dead cards).
It's tempting to put a few cards of column A and a few cards of column B into your main deck and call it a day.. However, I think doing so without thinking about subtlety is a significant mistake.
Advanced principles
1) How dead ARE the cards against the deck they are bad against? A doom blade against a creatureless control deck is always 0% value. Expensive card draw against an agro deck is bad, but if they draw poorly, or you are able to cast it on a relatively stable board, it could pull you ahead in the match.
2) There is an exponential nature to the effect of dead cards on winrate in matchups. Each additional dead card has a greater relative decrease on your winrate than the last dead card. It compounds. However, if your opponent is also forced to have dead cards, it only matters how many more dead cards you have than them :)
3) How good are the cards against the various matchups? If everything else is equal, the more powerful card should be played. Cards that can single handedly win a matchup by itself are particularly appealing. You normally hear of the term "bomb" in limited, but the same concept applies to constructed. If you can beat one strategy by drawing this card, and you have to beat the other strategy by incremental value that requires all your cards, it's better to tune the main deck towards beating the incremental value deck and play a few bombs hoping you can get lucky in the other matchup. Wrath of god would be an example of a bomb against agro decks and command the dreadhorde would be an example of a bomb against control decks.
4) What are the CMC's of the various cards? Cheap spells that are good against control have more value than expensive spells with the same criteria. This is because agro will kill you early some % of the time and you may never cast your expensive spell. I'd rather have a spell like search for azcanta than drawn from dreams when knowing the meta has a lot of agro. Azcanta comes down before board stabilizers like cry of the carnarium or ritual of soot. Being a cheaper cmc than a wrath is a big deal than being the same CMC or more expensive, since you can fall behind in tempo and then catch up. Azcanta has more bomb like properties against control. If they answer it? Nothing. If they don't? You probably win. Drawn from dreams works better as part of an incremental value gameplan. (This is assuming the cards were equal in power level averaged across all situations, which is another debate)
5) All things being equal, It's significantly better beating agro game 1 than it is beating control. This is because being on the draw in game 3 is much much worse against agro. The degree to which this is exaggerated depends on the format. In some environments, it may even be correct to draw in control mirrors! In the current standard format, it isn't. Cards like 3 mana Narset and thought erasure are so much better on the play than on the draw. Regardless, it's still significantly better to be on the play against agro than it is against control in this format.
6) Looting effects are big when it comes to dead cards. Be more inclined to play narrow/powerful cards the more looting effects you have.
Conclusion
Using these principles, I've decided to gear my deck more towards beating agro (vampires) in game 1. The Bolas' are cards that range from great to ok vs agro, but they also act as a bomb against control if they go unanswered. Grixis' strength is in their removal suite and the big daddy dragons. Therefore, I felt leveraging those strengths, rather than hedging against all matchups was important. Often if you find yourself having to hedge away from your decks strengths, you probably should be playing a different deck.
I've been tuning my Grixis build preparing for the arena MCQ this weekend, and right now I'm facing an interesting tuning decision. I expect a significant rise in Esper control from recent tournaments and unfortunately there are very few cards that are both good against Esper AND good against Vampires!!
This is a common issue that you might face when building a midrange or control deck in a metagame that that pulls you in two directions. If you load up on removal, you'll have lots of dead cards when you play against control.. If you load up on card draw and expensive threats, you wont ever get to use those cards against agro because you will die before you can cast them (which is identical to virtual dead cards).
It's tempting to put a few cards of column A and a few cards of column B into your main deck and call it a day.. However, I think doing so without thinking about subtlety is a significant mistake.
Advanced principles
1) How dead ARE the cards against the deck they are bad against? A doom blade against a creatureless control deck is always 0% value. Expensive card draw against an agro deck is bad, but if they draw poorly, or you are able to cast it on a relatively stable board, it could pull you ahead in the match.
2) There is an exponential nature to the effect of dead cards on winrate in matchups. Each additional dead card has a greater relative decrease on your winrate than the last dead card. It compounds. However, if your opponent is also forced to have dead cards, it only matters how many more dead cards you have than them :)
3) How good are the cards against the various matchups? If everything else is equal, the more powerful card should be played. Cards that can single handedly win a matchup by itself are particularly appealing. You normally hear of the term "bomb" in limited, but the same concept applies to constructed. If you can beat one strategy by drawing this card, and you have to beat the other strategy by incremental value that requires all your cards, it's better to tune the main deck towards beating the incremental value deck and play a few bombs hoping you can get lucky in the other matchup. Wrath of god would be an example of a bomb against agro decks and command the dreadhorde would be an example of a bomb against control decks.
4) What are the CMC's of the various cards? Cheap spells that are good against control have more value than expensive spells with the same criteria. This is because agro will kill you early some % of the time and you may never cast your expensive spell. I'd rather have a spell like search for azcanta than drawn from dreams when knowing the meta has a lot of agro. Azcanta comes down before board stabilizers like cry of the carnarium or ritual of soot. Being a cheaper cmc than a wrath is a big deal than being the same CMC or more expensive, since you can fall behind in tempo and then catch up. Azcanta has more bomb like properties against control. If they answer it? Nothing. If they don't? You probably win. Drawn from dreams works better as part of an incremental value gameplan. (This is assuming the cards were equal in power level averaged across all situations, which is another debate)
5) All things being equal, It's significantly better beating agro game 1 than it is beating control. This is because being on the draw in game 3 is much much worse against agro. The degree to which this is exaggerated depends on the format. In some environments, it may even be correct to draw in control mirrors! In the current standard format, it isn't. Cards like 3 mana Narset and thought erasure are so much better on the play than on the draw. Regardless, it's still significantly better to be on the play against agro than it is against control in this format.
6) Looting effects are big when it comes to dead cards. Be more inclined to play narrow/powerful cards the more looting effects you have.
Conclusion
Using these principles, I've decided to gear my deck more towards beating agro (vampires) in game 1. The Bolas' are cards that range from great to ok vs agro, but they also act as a bomb against control if they go unanswered. Grixis' strength is in their removal suite and the big daddy dragons. Therefore, I felt leveraging those strengths, rather than hedging against all matchups was important. Often if you find yourself having to hedge away from your decks strengths, you probably should be playing a different deck.
Comments
Post a Comment