|
warble
|
 |
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2005, 10:06:23 am » |
|
I'd have to concur, cut the crypt. You've got a fish build for 3cc, very metagamed, and the thing you don't understand is that for YOUR deck, metagaming so heavily is more detrimental then beneficial. Consider the "other" control deck, control slaver. If you cut all of the broken'ness of control slaver just to put in a bunch of situational cards, you make the deck have "more answers" but this is NOT GOOD.
Example:
Say you cut memory jar, demonic tutor, 1 thirst and 1 welder from CS. Then, you put in 1 tormod's crypt, 1 fire/ice, 1 arcane lab and 1 engineered plague. What have you lost and gained? If we assume a game takes approximately 4 turns to resolve the winner/loser, then we have lost a large portion of draw power, part of our combo, and a tutor. We gain "answers" to technical questions that the deck can be posed, but were any of the answers "likely" enough to appear to warrant this change? If we play against combo 30% of the time, and we draw lab another 40% of the time in 4 turns, and we actually get to resolve our lab 50% of the time, you have increased your win percentage against combo by 20%, increasing your overall deck win percentage on round 1 of the match by 6%. Looking at each situational card in this light (MOAT would definitely meet the criteria and is even less "useful" in the metagame) our guess has to meet the following two criteria:
1) The deck you are metagaming against must LOSE against the card in question.
2) The deck you are metagaming against must comprise at least 30% of your opposition in the tournament in question.
This is to gain the measley 6% for each card you are adding. The expense to your deck is a dead card, a loss of draw power, and a loss of deck utility. For control slaver, being a combo-esque deck, you can't afford to lose a tempo or a card. However, let's see now if 3cc can manage with this.
What makes 3cc different from slaver:
3cc seeks to remove all of the opponent's threats before the opponent can win with them. It does not care if the opponent resolves threats, as long as 3cc has a reactionary turn or play against the threat. If 3cc cannot control the threat or 3cc's retaliation, 3cc knows it will lose.
If we are going by this justification, then the following 6 cards from your list:
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Sacred Ground
1 Moat
1 Engineered Plague
1 Tormod's Crypt
1 Cursed Totem
in some form or other violate this constraint.
For cursed totem and engineered plague, what you are doing is making the deck you play against play around the card. You're hoping to delay the inevitable. Moat, crypt, sacred ground and recall all use this as a "delay" tactic, meaning you are going to try to win with exalted angel beatdown almost 100% of the time. With these cards maindecked and exalted angel being your "win" condition, you don't need Decree of Justice anymore, and in fact cards such as lightning greaves and sword of fire/ice that protect your exalteds can be a focus of your exalted angel beatdown deck. However, to maindeck 6 situational answers because you think exalted angel beatdown can win in type 1 is not the correct choice. Instead, you should focus on your win condition and stop thinking that life gain will win in type 1. The only situation that exalted angel beatdown should come into play is if you maindeck 4 mana leak's as well, which costs you 4 of the 6 situational cards you are maindecking. If you chose to play another 2 duress (almost never a dead card) then you have lost all of your situational cards, but what have we gained from this?
1) your deck is now a true control deck. Instead of having situational answers, you now have more counterspells then 90% of the decks out there. You are allowed this because you have a meager creature base (4 exalteds is probably too many)
2) your deck can now double-counter on turn 1. This brings you 1 turn closer to fighting with the decks you thought you needed to answer. One of the best plays on the first turn is a leak, and it is truly painful to have to force a mana leak only to have your threat plowed the following turn.
If you do decide to transform your exalted beatdown deck into a true control deck, you need to stop thinking the only answer is to threats on the board, and start thinking of an intelligent cunning wish sideboard for that. When you can answer everything your opponent plays with your board, you may be more comfortable increasing your counterspell count and decreasing your "dead card" count. I know this is a long post, and it is long because your fundamental deck construction is flawed. You have taken what is a beautiful thing (3cc) and transformed it into a beatdown deck with a lot of situational answers. I know people have pointed out other 3cc decks they know are better but have not expressed in a post what is "better" about them. Just consider that if your "guess" is EVER going to be wrong, or even if you want more consistency with your deck, once you and your opponent sideboard you will almost never remove your mana leaks, and the other cards will meet sideboard-post-match-one a good 70% of the time. Less dead cards, more counterspells, that's the 3cc motto. My old CoP build had 6 dead cards against artifacts, and that was enough for me to scrap the entire deck. You can't afford to have dead cards in a control deck, unless you're talking about Swords to Plowshares. If you want dead cards, put 4 of those in there and we'll talk.
Edit: Also, please do let us know what the fundamental turn is for your metagame. If you are allowed to draw over 60% of your deck, some of this post is in error for your metagame. However, this is a very Atypical metagame and it would be vital to also learn what cards in STAX, now that Trinisphere is gone, are hurting your deck.
|
