Bant: Aggro or Control?
Standard forum
Posted on Dec. 30, 2012, 12:39 a.m. by Bigburlybill
I've been seeing two main strategies stick out when reviewing Bant for standard play: Aggro and Control. My first thought is: "Which is Better?".
Well I made a deck focusing on Aggro and ending the game by turn 4-5. However, I'm curious if you guys think that control is better than an aggro-based style?
Do you think that switching between aggro and control by sideboarding certain cards is a viable option?
For reference, here is the deck that I built, with the aggro style, and here is a great deck that zandl created, which is control based.
Aggro: The Glory of Bant
Control: Zandl's Big-Ass Wipes (1st @ FNM!)
hollandboys says... #3
And no I don't think sideboarding to change the entire nature of the deck is a viable option, pick a game type and stick with it.
December 30, 2012 1:05 a.m.
Personally I think control is the better route, 3 colors just gets in the way for aggro. Aggro needs to be consistently blazing fast in the current meta of Supreme Verdict , Thragtusk , Terminus , etc, and adding another color just makes it that much more likely that you'll not be dropping cards when you need to.
If you still want to play a more aggressive 3 color deck I would make a more midrange build.
December 30, 2012 1:28 a.m.
Bigburlybill says... #5
I see. I like the game ending relatively fast, unless it's multiplayer. Thus, I suppose aggro is my preferred method of choice.
I'm interested in mid-range style. Can you please elaborate on how to differentiate between aggro and midrange? What are some of the major differences besides the game's length for each style? I'll also accept an article, or whatever method you choose to respond with.
It's interesting though that you say to stick with a game style. My current thought is that the deck can be constructed with a basic skeleton, and certain cards can be exchanged to incorporate another style of play. If this is a bad method, please help me understand why that is a bad choice. I'm still relatively new to competitive play, so I'm just trying to learn as much as I can. ;)
December 30, 2012 1:32 a.m.
hollandboys says... #6
Midrange seems to be dominating the current meta, with jund, naya and bant builds rampant right now. Generally the difference is the length of the game/time in the game at which the deck excels. Midrange seems to be able to compete at any point during the game, whereas aggro you drop your hand and hope it is enough to win because if your opponent has enough time to set up chances are his top decks will trump yours late game. If I can use my midrange deck, Here Comes the Flood (1st at FNM!), as an example, you will see the strong presence that I intend to throw down through turns 3-10. A turn 3 Thragtusk is a possibility but the more common situation involves a turn 2 or 3 Lingering Souls stalling out until the Thragtusk s, Geist-Honored Monk s, and planeswalkers can be dropped. I continue to build my field with the help of a couple anthems (Intangible Virtue and Sorin, Lord of Innistrad 's -2) until I can break through for the win, usually by having too many creatures for my opponent to control. However, if I get forced to play later than turn 10 I can still have a chance (something aggro decks generally do not have later than turn 10) due to the card drawing ability of Garruk, Primal Hunter , and the tutoring of Garruk Relentless Flip combined with the flickering of my token producing creatures using Restoration Angel . I think that a bant midrange deck would be the best way to go. You can still include removal such at Detention Sphere and Oblivion Ring while also being semi-aggressive using Geist of Saint Traft , Thragtusk , and Restoration Angel . A little advice for that is the use of Rootborn Defenses . You can swing with the geist, the angel comes out, you cast defenses so it is all indestructible and you get to populate the angel so that one of the tokens stays on the battlefield. It's a nice little combo.
I generally say to stick with a game style just because the difference between aggro and control is so vast, and cast really be changed with only a 15 card sideboard. Maybe I shouldn't say that it can't be changed, rather than it can't be changed well. However, when running a midrange deck you can sideboard in depending on what you are playing against easier. To go back to the example of my deck, Sigarda, Host of Herons is a great sideboard card against control decks, as that is a 4-swing win flying bomb that control decks have a very hard time removing. Against aggro decks I will sideboard in cards like Abrupt Decay in order to remove their early game threats, and then once a Thragtusk or a planeswalker in dropped I have control of the game. I guess what I am trying to say is that you shouldn't make your sideboard to change your own deck as much as combat your opponent's deck.
I really hope all of this helped and that you actually take the time to read it ;) If you have any more questions let me know and I'll try my best to answer
December 30, 2012 2:07 a.m.
Just as a quick counter point, it's not quite that bleak for aggro. While dropping your hand and hoping it's enough is largely an accurate assessment, it still gets the job done.
The two decks that have clocked the most Top 8s in the current standard block are Bant Control and BR Zombies(aggro). Below that you have a bunch of mid-range(Jund, GW and UWR) and then GW aggro and RDW below those. So it's certainly not dead or being completely dominated.
As mentioned though, personal preference goes a long way. Most everyone gravitates towards a style of decks.
December 30, 2012 2:31 a.m.
hollandboys says... #8
I never meant to imply it was bleak for aggro at all, just that it tends to have a hard time playing a game that goes anywhere past turn 8. According to http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=ST however, selesnya/naya "aggro" (it's more like midrange) is the deck that has placed the most. It is getting quite hard to place decks into specific ranges of play lately though, so lots of decks marked aggro or control are actually midrange decks that don't want to be called that. The Ontario provincial champion (who plays FNM at my LGS) put it pretty well by saying that directly after sets come out and when there isn't a large card pool to choose from (like right now) control tends to dominate. Once the aggro players figure out what works with the new cards and start to iron out the mistakes it begins to take over.
But to say it again for a third (or maybe fourth) time, it is personal preference. There will always be good aggro, midrange, and control decks around that will all beat each other depending on what is drawn opening hand, what is top-decked, and who is playing. Wizards makes sure that one deck doesn't dominate by balancing the card pool very well, after all they have been doing it for many years.
December 30, 2012 2:49 a.m.
No worries, I just wanted to cover all the bases.
So I was actually pulling my data from TCG Standard Deck Database, which looks like it somewhat more successfully splits decks apart by archetype. But yeah, there's always going to be some cross over and tough delineation between builds.
December 30, 2012 3:04 a.m.
The real difference between aggro, midrange, and control, is when the decks are playing threats. Aggro lists can play the vast majority of their threats between turns 2-3 (Think of cards like Stromkirk Noble and card:Geralf's Messenger), midrange excels in the midgame of turns 4-5 (Restoration Angel and Thragtusk ), and control is best on turns 6 and on (Planeswalkers, card:Sphinx's Revelation, various fatties).
There is always some overlap in a deck, or sometimes decks do two things very well. Cawblade, Delver, and the older U/W Sliver decks are examples of times when the line between aggro and control have blurred to nearly unrecognizable. Delver was called "aggro/control," which is actually called "Tempo."
Basically, if you want the game to be over fairly quickly, but don't want control to have massive inevitability over your deck, you should play Midrange. The most popular midrange deck at the moment is called "American Midrange," due to its colors of U/W/R. You can find a huge list of decks here.
Best of Luck...
-BuLLZ3Y3
December 30, 2012 4:15 a.m.
Um. Just for the record, my deck's not really control. It has very little countermagic, the only removal is board-wipes, and it has a lot of ramp. I'd like to think of it more as mid-range.
December 30, 2012 1:57 p.m.
Bigburlybill says... #12
You don't say. I guess I haven't fully grasped deck-types yet. lol I noticed board-wipes and thought that they would be considered control spells as you're controlling the field. I apologize for misrepresenting your deck. =)
December 30, 2012 4:17 p.m.
hollandboys says... #13
This discussion has inspired me to make a bant midrange of my own. If you guys could check it out at deck:geist-of-long-shaft that would be great as you have experience playing bant and I don't.
December 30, 2012 4:27 p.m.
Well, board-wipes are control, but a mid-range deck is characterized as ramping mana to power out big threats. They also use lots of removal to get ahead on card advantage.
December 30, 2012 6:46 p.m.
Bigburlybill says... #15
I suppose that my deck would be more of a midrange style as well given all of these explanations. Most of my threats are 3-4 cmc and are ramped into faster with dorks and farseek. Not to mention that I'm running a bit of control in sideboard to make it even more midrange. I'll have to re-examine it then based on this new enlightenment.
hollandboys says... #2
I think that both are quite viable and that it will depend on the player. If you prefer playing control and you have experience playing control then you should play that, and vice versa with aggro. I personally prefer a midrange deck because it has a little bit of aggro flavour mixed with a little bit of control flavour. What I have found with that is that control is generally harder to play, and if you are someone to miss cues and get impatient every once in a while I would recommend an aggro deck. However, if you get stuck playing a long game with an aggro deck you are kinda screwed, which is why I play midrange. It's all personal preference
December 30, 2012 1:05 a.m.