Whenever we playtest for an upcoming tournament, we always
remember to do both mainboard and sideboarded games. Typically, we want to test
more games with sideboards than mainboards. This is because in BO3 (best-of-3)
matches, you play exactly one game with mainboards and at most two games with
sideboards. Thus, if your win rate versus a deck improves considerably post-board,
then you should not consider that deck a bad matchup for purposes of deck
selection. Making sure that you are not on the wrong side of the meta is critical to deck selection. With Magic: Arena, WotC has introduced a new dimension of
competitive magic: BO1 (best-of-1) games. Arena’s rank ladder currently applies
only to BO1 matches in both limited and constructed. In this article, I focus
on the latter and examine how BO1 changes the dynamics of deck construction and
selection. I also analyze the efficacy of different decks in the current BO3
meta in the BO1 setting.
Throwing caution to
the wind
In a BO1 setting, you only get to face each opponent once
per match. Without sideboarded games, this means that decks that are very
strong game 1 despite being easy to counter with the sideboard are good deck
choices. This makes aggressive strategies more appealing than either midrange
or control strategies. Aggressive strategies are typically the best that they
can be in game 1, with almost every card in the deck directly contributing to its win condition. For
example, a Mono-Red deck typically has only 2 Lava Coils as cards that do not
directly help them win. The rest of the deck are creatures, direct damage
spells, and Experimental Frenzy (itself a win condition). On the other hand,
both midrange and control strategies need to balance control elements with win
conditions. If they include more control elements, they stand a better chance
of winning against some aggro decks but significantly worsen their matchups versus
other decks. This is a much smaller issue in BO3 matches since the 15-card
sideboard allows both midrange and control decks to adjust their strategies so
that they can be much more powerful post-board versus their current opponent.
On the other hand, aggro decks typically have sideboards that water down their aggressiveness
in exchange for having a way to counteract the cards that their opponents will be
bringing in against them.
The same analysis is applicable not just for aggro decks but
for linear decks in general. Some linear decks are too slow to be considered
aggro, but just the same throw caution to the wind game 1 by loading up on cards
that help accomplish their end game with little consideration as to what cards
their opponents would have. Selesnya Tokens and Merfolk are good examples of
these decks. Another class of decks that work well in the BO1 meta are decks
that have a lot of interaction but have these interwoven well with their game
plan. For example, Izzet Drakes has cheap removal spells but these help in
getting their Arclight Phoenixes out of the yard. Mono Blue Tempo has a lot of counterspells
which are used both to protect their creatures and to counter opponents' game-winning spells.
So you shouldn’t play
midrange/control?
In the great rock-paper-scissors of MTG, aggro-beats-control-beats-midrange-beats-aggro.
If aggro/linear decks are indeed favored in the BO1 setting, does it mean you
should not play midrange/control? Here is where it gets somewhat tricky. In BO3
magic, the meta tends to stabilize after some time, leaving only decks that are
competitive both in both pre and post-boarded games. Some decks that are good
in game 1 versus multiple decks get pushed out because their game 1 advantage
is easily mitigated in the sideboard. Examples of these are Merfolk, Mono Green
Stompy, and Elf Ball.
In BO1, if you know that over 50% of players are using
aggro decks, then playing a control deck that is tuned to beat aggro can lead
to favorable outcomes. Such decks differ considerably from control decks that strike
a balance between combating aggro and other decks, and differ also from control
decks that are turned specifically to winning the control mirror. As such, these
decks which are essentially different configurations of the same control deck
in the same colors need to be treated differently in terms of evaluating their
winnability, which leads to a much more diverse meta. Such a meta may not even stabilize
since any stabilization, once it becomes apparent to players, can be taken
advantage of. This means that an important aspect of playing midrange/control
decks is still having a sideboard of sorts. That is, you should be able to
tweak your deck to different configurations depending on what seems to be the
existing meta at a given time. For example, if you feel like you are facing one White Weenie/Boros aggro deck after the next in ranked matches, then it may be a good
idea to include that third copy of Ritual of Soot and those two copies of
Golden Demise on your next match. Catching the meta this way is likely quite difficult
though, so in my book going with a linear strategy is still more appealing. As
long as a majority of the playerbase is not gunning for Mono U Tempo, I should be
able to climb steadily up the ranks (for what little that’s worth right now).
May the shuffler be with you.
Comments
Post a Comment