How does Bant control work?

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
I was looking at some meta decks on TCGplayer and i noticed that the bant control decks have no one drops. They also have a lot of heavy costing cards. So do they just hope for farseek on turn two to boost them towards thragtusk while using detention sphere to hold off the opponent?
What is the winning strategy?
Jace, AoT and Tamiyo provide a TON of power for the deck - holding creatures tapped down and weaking those which attack. Terminus and Detention Sphere are both very powerful cards.
Thragtusk provides a good win-con, as does Tamiyo's ultimate.

(at)MrEnglish22

Jace, AoT and Tamiyo provide a TON of power for the deck - holding creatures tapped down and weaking those which attack. Terminus and Detention Sphere are both very powerful cards.
Thragtusk provides a good win-con, as does Tamiyo's ultimate.

So this deck just doent have anything to play for the first couple turns?
Some have mana Elves, some have Farseek, some have various forms of card draw. Some have Centaur Healer. You might just be looking at bad lists. Some have counters like Syncopate.

Control decks generally aren't going to be playing creatures the first few turns unless they are things that defend them or help them get to the late game. No turn 1 beaters in your average control deck. 

(at)MrEnglish22

Jace, AoT and Tamiyo provide a TON of power for the deck - holding creatures tapped down and weaking those which attack. Terminus and Detention Sphere are both very powerful cards.
Thragtusk provides a good win-con, as does Tamiyo's ultimate.

So this deck just doent have anything to play for the first couple turns?


for the most part, this is correct. other than a few cards of interaction, the deck relies mostly on its mid and late game strategies to win.

i, personally, think the deck needs more early game, but i'm not really sure what that consists of 

Blue is the best color ever. How do you deal?  ------------------------------  Team GFG - "gulf, foxtrot, gulf" 

 

 

I produce Dubstep and House beats:

https://soundcloud.com/burning_forest

 

Best Pauper Deck in the format, not close:

http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2974646#comment-49713276

 

Photobucket

I been running 3 gatecreeper vine to give me more solid 2 drop early game and ensure that I have another land in hand when I don't actually draw one. My other turn 2 plays are farseek, think twice and Azorius charm.
Blue White CONTROL
It's not the only means of playing a GWU control deck, but the popular one right now uses bad answers that have lots of reach, lots of draw power and simply plays bigger stuff than it's opponent to win. The deck is essentially a knee-jerk reaction to Rakdos and Zombies, and capable of stopping them pretty hard, but has issues doing much of anything related to not breaking aggro decks (I've milled and staffed out Bant Battlecruisers more than I care to admit). They lean on Thragtusk's ability to be hard to remove and bulwark their lifetotal- which is the main reason for splashing :G: in most lists. Other sources of deck thinning, CA etc from :G: are used for convenience's sake.
IMAGE(http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af108/acatan/sigwynzermancopy.png) Signature by IMAGE(http://www.poke-amph.com/heartgoldsoulsilver/sprites/258.png)
It's funny because I never saw Bant control's win conditions as subtle. They pretty much win on the back of Angels, Tusks, walkers, or some combination of the mix. I understand some of the confusion though if you are a newer player.

Bant sacrifices the early game, stabilizes mid game, and plays trumps late. It just goes about winning in a much different manner.

<a href="http://www.wizards.com/Magic/PlaneswalkerPoints/1206663433"><img src="http://pwp.wizards.com/1206663433/Scorecards/Landscape.png" border="0" /></a>

It's not the only means of playing a GWU control deck, but the popular one right now uses bad answers that have lots of reach, lots of draw power and simply plays bigger stuff than it's opponent to win. The deck is essentially a knee-jerk reaction to Rakdos and Zombies, and capable of stopping them pretty hard, but has issues doing much of anything related to not breaking aggro decks (I've milled and staffed out Bant Battlecruisers more than I care to admit). They lean on Thragtusk's ability to be hard to remove and bulwark their lifetotal- which is the main reason for splashing :G: in most lists. Other sources of deck thinning, CA etc from :G: are used for convenience's sake.



actually i dont play bigger stuff than my opponent. Most of the deck is less than 5 casting cost minus a few terminus one armada wurm, one angel of serenity and some sphinx revelation... and cyclonic rifts overload cost. in that sense i just play my creatures and spells in a way to allow me the chance to see the opponents board clear so i can swing for damage. All of my creatures, spells, planeswalkers strive to keep me alive long enough to get the board state where playing creatures for my opponent is useless. Thats not playing bigger stuff to win, its controlling what stays on the board to win. My version can not handle a lot of things but people are just not playing them against me yet. mill, counterspells, hand destruction, land destruction are just a few that really hinder this deck as it needs all its land and threats to hit the board at least once. If they dont the deck crumbles.
It durdles with boardwipes and ramps with farseek until it feels like killing you with tusks and angels. It's a "self-gratifying" process.
It's not the only means of playing a GWU control deck, but the popular one right now uses bad answers that have lots of reach, lots of draw power and simply plays bigger stuff than it's opponent to win. The deck is essentially a knee-jerk reaction to Rakdos and Zombies, and capable of stopping them pretty hard, but has issues doing much of anything related to not breaking aggro decks (I've milled and staffed out Bant Battlecruisers more than I care to admit). They lean on Thragtusk's ability to be hard to remove and bulwark their lifetotal- which is the main reason for splashing :G: in most lists. Other sources of deck thinning, CA etc from :G: are used for convenience's sake.



actually i dont play bigger stuff than my opponent. Most of the deck is less than 5 casting cost minus a few terminus one armada wurm, one angel of serenity and some sphinx revelation... and cyclonic rifts overload cost. in that sense i just play my creatures and spells in a way to allow me the chance to see the opponents board clear so i can swing for damage. All of my creatures, spells, planeswalkers strive to keep me alive long enough to get the board state where playing creatures for my opponent is useless. Thats not playing bigger stuff to win, its controlling what stays on the board to win. My version can not handle a lot of things but people are just not playing them against me yet. mill, counterspells, hand destruction, land destruction are just a few that really hinder this deck as it needs all its land and threats to hit the board at least once. If they dont the deck crumbles.



Wiping and playing fatties is referred to as "big game". You get your CA from large wipes and durdling with cards. You play threats that are difficult to deal with at a mollasses pace and win by crushing your opponent under the weight of your CA and threat quality. I'm fairly familiar with how this works because I played it pre-rotation, and thus I've been playing it post-rotation. That said, it's far from perfect, and as the metagame evolves, the strategy needs evolve and take on a more reasonable way of dealing with smart-aggro and midrange decks- or when packing more wipes and beef then your opponents is no longer sufficient, whine about how broken some other strategy is (I prefer the former)
IMAGE(http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af108/acatan/sigwynzermancopy.png) Signature by IMAGE(http://www.poke-amph.com/heartgoldsoulsilver/sprites/258.png)