So what is the problem with it? What is the lesson for control player wannabes out there? Is it the lack of win conditions?
The overarching lesson is that you need to properly understand the metagame before you build a control deck. I based my list from whatever random multiplayer games I could find, which 4 out of 5 times were fairly pedestrian, in playskill if not deck construction. I followed the decklist threads on NGA, but I didn't actually test much with other NGAers, which I could and should have. And for a tournament like this, be prepared to abandon the plan to play control if you can't cover enough of the angles. Better to do anything proactive than have a vulnerable defensive strategy.
The more specific lesson definitely relates to the threat density of the deck. You can get away with playing 4-5 win conditions in a deck if you are playing lots of cantrips and draw. The Esper lists play
Inspiration and sometimes
Countermand which help those decks keep their hands full and find their wincons by the time they need to put them down. A bunch of ramp spells would have also helped threat density by pulling lands out of the library. Or, just play more wincons (and not convincing yourself that
Lumbering Falls counts).
If I could do it again I'd go heavier green, lots of ramp (acid moss of course) and at least 4 sweepers including
Planar Outburst.
Is that an arguement for sideboarding then? If you take the assumption that they design the game since that there is no dominating meta, it's possible to build a counter to any deck. Of course the game does get broken due to players clever ingenuity.
Duels exist in a much more limited environment, hence the wait for the next release, and discovering the next 'big thing'.
If I realised, or predicted, that planar outburst might be good to have I could sideboard it. How much it might or needs to change the way my decks is built to win might depend, but it would at least give me options.
Login
Register
Card Search
NGAWiki
Search
