I understand this is a large topic, and often specific to your own deck, but i'd like to discuss different playing styles vs differnt archetypes. "aggro vs control" or maybe "graveyard hate vs reanimator".
Could also range into sideboarding options on card focus, not card specifics e.g. not "play doomblade" but "play cheap removal"
For example, I have been recently playing a Bant Ramp/Zegana - reliant on decent dorks/farseek early game (ramp) into beasties.
My most hated matchup is against control, as by the time im playing my winners, they have board control.
I found after reading an article (cant remember where) that suggested a different playstyle, my success went up dramatically.
e.g against control (typically esper) instead of trying to rush them, i would hold back, drop one threat, have it be countered, drop another.
I would not over-extend, instead forcing my opponent to deal with the creature on the table. As long as im using up their threats, all i need is to counter their Sphinx's Revelation and it puts me at a significant advantage. I managed this 3 of 4 games.
If they landed their Rev, then they had re-stocked and would stop anything I could do.
against aggro
I would add mass boardwipes rather than spot removal as my threats mid-late game would dominate theirs.
Aristocrats and midrange
spot removal works well
Just wanted to know if there were playstyles that you came accross that led to succes rather than individual cards...
Sure, most "mid-range" decks play the control role when playing aggro but step up the aggression when playing against full on control decks. In fact most decks have to do this somewhat unless they are suicide aggro, hard control or straight combo.
Uh, yeah. you can't just do the same thing against everybody...
An example is say, midrange vs control - if you go super aggro they get like, 5 or more kills with one verdict. If you slow your own game, pace it out a little, and keep plodding along, you dwindle their supplies. Even with Think twice its ok, its just Revelation that really steals it away.
So yes, obviously you play differently, but im curious as to how other people play against things, thats all...
Just that changing my play from aggressive to tempo against control (im my mind that was counter-intuitive) was a game-changer. Needed to read about it first!
It depends on your deck, the MU, play vs. draw but mostly your hand. Honestly, you could go in depth on every single MU and scenario if you really wanted to. I understand play styles differ but there's usually a correct course of action to take, i.e lines of play, in specific MUs.
I mean, I can tell just by looking at Prime Speaker lists that they are better equipped than something like Naya Midrange to deal with Control G1. They can match CA via Zegana, Sphinx's Revelation and usually run a larger number of PWs MB (Control hates resilient permanents). You should be able to grind it out from a general point of view.
But anyway, yes, if you can't get underneath Verdict consistently it's usually silly to try and bum rush Control.
I understand this is a large topic, and often specific to your own deck, but i'd like to discuss different playing styles vs differnt archetypes. "aggro vs control" or maybe "graveyard hate vs reanimator".
Could also range into sideboarding options on card focus, not card specifics e.g. not "play doomblade" but "play cheap removal"
For example, I have been recently playing a Bant Ramp/Zegana - reliant on decent dorks/farseek early game (ramp) into beasties.
My most hated matchup is against control, as by the time im playing my winners, they have board control.
[QUOTE=TheWrenster;10432694
I found after reading an article (cant remember where) that suggested a different playstyle, my success went up dramatically.
e.g against control (typically esper) instead of trying to rush them, i would hold back, drop one threat, have it be countered, drop another.
I would not over-extend, instead forcing my opponent to deal with the creature on the table. As long as im using up their threats, all i need is to counter their Sphinx's Revelation and it puts me at a significant advantage. I managed this 3 of 4 games.
If only things were this simple...
If they landed their Rev, then they had re-stocked and would stop anything I could do.
... which is exactly why they're not, and why control is so strong. if there's one threat on the table, the timer for you to win is lengthened considerably, allowing them to play more lands and draw more cards. maybe they don't have that sphinx in hand yet, maybe they don't have another counter to back it up. maybe they don't have a board sweeper in hand at all, maybe they can draw into another sphinx...
in a not so surprising fashion, a control deck will be more efficient than you in drawing themselves, with cards like Jace and Sphinx for raw advantage, Azorius charm/think twice/quicken/draw-du-jour for general thinning of the deck and so forth. it's more reliable than speaker, which is dependant on having another creature in play and thus very vulnerable to having this creature being spot-removed.
so you will have to adapt to the situation at hand and that may incur risking more on the board.
as a sidenote, planning on having anti-sweep (like rootborn defenses) or recurring threats (like angel of serenity) is the reliable method to overload them in bant, so you might want to go that route if you're having trouble.
This is an interesting topic. If you don't mind, I have another case:
Recently, I found out that reanimator (either BG zombies or 4 color reanimator) are the worst matchups for my UB mill-grow deck (in a control shell).
I know it's not a top tier deck, but I can usually go 2-3 on FNMs, and while playing, at least, I feel I have a chance against most decks.
But against reanimator decks I feel terribly helpless, like I'm helping them while filling their graveyard.
Against 4 color reanimator I still try to keep going while countering some of the big the threats. But eventually, the games gets to a point where I run out of counters/removal spells and they will land a few big threats and end the game quickly. In one of these cases I was hoping to win by milling (not my primary win-con), as the guy had something like 6 cards left when he finally could attack for lethal damage.
But BG zombies are really bad. It's faster. And they usually run cavern of souls, so my counters are less effective. And even if I counter/remove their zombies, they keep coming back from graveyard. And my few threats get promptly Putrefyed or Abrupt Decayed.
What do you do in such cases? Have a plan B? Or just accept the bad matchups?
I don't run graveyard hate because this is a deck that loves the opponent's graveyard. But reanimator decks love their grave even more!
This dynamic is why archetype modeling first evolved. Basically as a way of identifying fundamental dynamics in matchups. Of course with the interactions of specific cards it's never that simple. But this can drastically affect the ability to sideboard.
Fundamentally the bigger and slower the midrange deck the harder time it has with Control. That doesn't mean there aren't avenues to victory. Generally with sideboarding I think there are 3 strategies. I never look at it as just a collection of hate cards. It's meaningless without context.
1. Solidify your position. Upgrade cards in the matchup to solidify your role. Become better at the dynamic that defines the known matchup.
2. Flank the opponents position. I strongly recommend looking at Adrian Sullivan's Archetype wheel. Sometimes you just need to get to the otherside. A midrange deck that becomes more Tempo could be beneficial(Tempo decks fundamentally have a good control matchup). In this case a move from a focus on ephemerals over permanents is important. Similarly a Control deck may want to become more midrange to have a better aggro matchup.
3. Role invalidation. This is similar to flanking, but instead of coming from the otherside you basically become the opponents strategy. Sometimes the distance to becoming them is less than the distance to flanking. When midrange decks add more draw, or aggro threaten effects. Usually this approach only works over certain time windows but can be incredibly potent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Decks: GWUKnightfall Modern UWTempo Legacy UGRBurning Wish Cobra Vintage
My mono red has very aggressive low curve, but I can hold my burn for control. Just because it's mono red doesn't mean its straight burn. Any deck can play any number of ways basically.
What you are talking about is true, but also extremely matchup dependent and something that only comes with experience (or reading very good articles about a particular build and matchup). What you are talking about is the reason why two comparable players can take the same deck to the same tournament, but have drastically different chances of winning. Getting lots of experience against your most common matchups and paying attention to WHY you are winning/losing is how you make that leap.
So I wouldn't really call it a playstyle thing. It is more about being in a constant state of learning and not playing on autopilot. Don't just assume that because you are the beatdown you should be going balls to the wall. There may be matchups where that is the case, but as you saw in your example, there are others where you might actually have a better long game than you initially assume.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I understand this is a large topic, and often specific to your own deck, but i'd like to discuss different playing styles vs differnt archetypes. "aggro vs control" or maybe "graveyard hate vs reanimator".
Could also range into sideboarding options on card focus, not card specifics e.g. not "play doomblade" but "play cheap removal"
For example, I have been recently playing a Bant Ramp/Zegana - reliant on decent dorks/farseek early game (ramp) into beasties.
My most hated matchup is against control, as by the time im playing my winners, they have board control.
I found after reading an article (cant remember where) that suggested a different playstyle, my success went up dramatically.
e.g against control (typically esper) instead of trying to rush them, i would hold back, drop one threat, have it be countered, drop another.
I would not over-extend, instead forcing my opponent to deal with the creature on the table. As long as im using up their threats, all i need is to counter their Sphinx's Revelation and it puts me at a significant advantage. I managed this 3 of 4 games.
If they landed their Rev, then they had re-stocked and would stop anything I could do.
against aggro
I would add mass boardwipes rather than spot removal as my threats mid-late game would dominate theirs.
Aristocrats and midrange
spot removal works well
Just wanted to know if there were playstyles that you came accross that led to succes rather than individual cards...
An example is say, midrange vs control - if you go super aggro they get like, 5 or more kills with one verdict. If you slow your own game, pace it out a little, and keep plodding along, you dwindle their supplies. Even with Think twice its ok, its just Revelation that really steals it away.
So yes, obviously you play differently, but im curious as to how other people play against things, thats all...
Just that changing my play from aggressive to tempo against control (im my mind that was counter-intuitive) was a game-changer. Needed to read about it first!
I mean, I can tell just by looking at Prime Speaker lists that they are better equipped than something like Naya Midrange to deal with Control G1. They can match CA via Zegana, Sphinx's Revelation and usually run a larger number of PWs MB (Control hates resilient permanents). You should be able to grind it out from a general point of view.
But anyway, yes, if you can't get underneath Verdict consistently it's usually silly to try and bum rush Control.
If only things were this simple...
... which is exactly why they're not, and why control is so strong. if there's one threat on the table, the timer for you to win is lengthened considerably, allowing them to play more lands and draw more cards. maybe they don't have that sphinx in hand yet, maybe they don't have another counter to back it up. maybe they don't have a board sweeper in hand at all, maybe they can draw into another sphinx...
in a not so surprising fashion, a control deck will be more efficient than you in drawing themselves, with cards like Jace and Sphinx for raw advantage, Azorius charm/think twice/quicken/draw-du-jour for general thinning of the deck and so forth. it's more reliable than speaker, which is dependant on having another creature in play and thus very vulnerable to having this creature being spot-removed.
so you will have to adapt to the situation at hand and that may incur risking more on the board.
as a sidenote, planning on having anti-sweep (like rootborn defenses) or recurring threats (like angel of serenity) is the reliable method to overload them in bant, so you might want to go that route if you're having trouble.
Block: Frog & Princess :symw::symu::symb::symg:,Red Chess :symw::symr::symb:
Standard: Endless Fog :symw::symu::symb::symg:
Frog & Princess standard version - in development, coming soon
Recently, I found out that reanimator (either BG zombies or 4 color reanimator) are the worst matchups for my UB mill-grow deck (in a control shell).
I know it's not a top tier deck, but I can usually go 2-3 on FNMs, and while playing, at least, I feel I have a chance against most decks.
But against reanimator decks I feel terribly helpless, like I'm helping them while filling their graveyard.
Against 4 color reanimator I still try to keep going while countering some of the big the threats. But eventually, the games gets to a point where I run out of counters/removal spells and they will land a few big threats and end the game quickly. In one of these cases I was hoping to win by milling (not my primary win-con), as the guy had something like 6 cards left when he finally could attack for lethal damage.
But BG zombies are really bad. It's faster. And they usually run cavern of souls, so my counters are less effective. And even if I counter/remove their zombies, they keep coming back from graveyard. And my few threats get promptly Putrefyed or Abrupt Decayed.
What do you do in such cases? Have a plan B? Or just accept the bad matchups?
I don't run graveyard hate because this is a deck that loves the opponent's graveyard. But reanimator decks love their grave even more!
Fundamentally the bigger and slower the midrange deck the harder time it has with Control. That doesn't mean there aren't avenues to victory. Generally with sideboarding I think there are 3 strategies. I never look at it as just a collection of hate cards. It's meaningless without context.
1. Solidify your position. Upgrade cards in the matchup to solidify your role. Become better at the dynamic that defines the known matchup.
2. Flank the opponents position. I strongly recommend looking at Adrian Sullivan's Archetype wheel. Sometimes you just need to get to the otherside. A midrange deck that becomes more Tempo could be beneficial(Tempo decks fundamentally have a good control matchup). In this case a move from a focus on ephemerals over permanents is important. Similarly a Control deck may want to become more midrange to have a better aggro matchup.
3. Role invalidation. This is similar to flanking, but instead of coming from the otherside you basically become the opponents strategy. Sometimes the distance to becoming them is less than the distance to flanking. When midrange decks add more draw, or aggro threaten effects. Usually this approach only works over certain time windows but can be incredibly potent.
GWU Knightfall Modern
UW Tempo Legacy
UGR Burning Wish Cobra Vintage
Mabbz on MTGO | Demgrinds on Twitch & Twitter | Helpdesk
Indeed
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
So I wouldn't really call it a playstyle thing. It is more about being in a constant state of learning and not playing on autopilot. Don't just assume that because you are the beatdown you should be going balls to the wall. There may be matchups where that is the case, but as you saw in your example, there are others where you might actually have a better long game than you initially assume.