Speaking of old cards coming back, with Eldrazi and Death's Shadow losing so much market share, I've been seeing more and more UW(x) lists running 1-of Spell Snares. I'm not a fan of running singletons of conditional cards unless they have high ceilings, but it could be that Snare fits in as part of the early gameplan at 2-4 copies.
I've been running two copies of spell snare MD. I like it because it makes blue mirrors MUCH better... and there will always be the times where you hate seeing them, but they have been fine for me.
Forgive a common peasant, but why is this deck called "Draw-Go"? Is it because you get to draw cards with Esper Charm and then just go nuts?
It's shorthand for Draw-land-go, which is the most common play pattern for your own turn in a deck that operates entirely, or near entirely at instant speed.
After 3 years, I've come to prefer the 4 Leaks over variations of Remand, Logic Knot, Negate, and Countersquall. Teachings for Gearhulk, Cast Out, Rev, and Secure.
I personally feel that either playing 0, or 2-3 teachings is best.
Being able to teachings for teachings, or simply have more access to the tutor that the deck is "supposed" to be built around is usually worth the slot.
I think mana leak is bad, and will not serve you as well as most other counterspells, but I get that you don't agree.
I think 3 copies of settle the wreckage is too many. 1 settle, 2 supreme verdicts feels like a better split to me, as hitting non-attacking creatures is pretty important.
I also don't really see what the 2 lingering souls are doing for you. IMO, they could be replaced with basically anything.
In your sideboard, I feel like the single stony silence and the single flaying tendrils are out of place. There are plenty of other cards that are more valuable there, IMO.
Is anybody even playing 26, still? Even UW (which has a higher curve than this deck) is running 25, and some lists have dropped to 24 + Crucible. You also have several times the card draw in this deck, which makes for a higher effective land density.
I can see 24 being scary for some people, especially the ones not running Serum Visions or Opt. 26 just sounds antiquated, though.
Hey all, I've been reading a lot of the posts from this thread and have always wanted to play a pure control deck in modern, I was hoping I could get some feedback on the first draft i've made of esper Draw-Go https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/841718
some things to address:
I'm not playing celestial colonnade or any other man lands because I wanted to try shaving out almost all win cons to make the deck run as smoothly as possible. (including lands)
I have no idea how good Search for Azcanta is, I just feel with this build the game is going to go extremely long and it can flip reasonably effectively
I'm playing white sun's zenith for the same reason as Azcanta, in a longer game I think it is better than secure the wastes
The nephalia drownyard in the side is my silver bullet for my meta game which is heavily control.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
I'm still playing 26. I think for the original build of the deck, 26 is still correct. Some people have moved on from that, and their land counts have changed, but 26 is only antiquated if the original 30-ish is antiquated, which may be arguable, but is certainly not fact.
I don't really like your build very much. Shaving on lands but keeping zenith, playing only 3 esper charm, playing search, only 1 rev, your mana base in general, etc, are simply not things I agree with.
Amalek has been a big proponent in playing only ~2 leylines (and not the full set) which I can agree with, as 2 has been the magic number for me as well. Relic is also not really the best graveyard hate card for us. Nihil spellbomb is almost strictly better IMO, but surgical and rest in peace are the 2 most popular.
I'm also not a huge fan of drownyard, and I think there are better control bullets, but its fine.
Hey all, I've been reading a lot of the posts from this thread and have always wanted to play a pure control deck in modern, I was hoping I could get some feedback on the first draft i've made of esper Draw-Go https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/841718
some things to address:
I'm not playing celestial colonnade or any other man lands because I wanted to try shaving out almost all win cons to make the deck run as smoothly as possible. (including lands)
I have no idea how good Search for Azcanta is, I just feel with this build the game is going to go extremely long and it can flip reasonably effectively
I'm playing white sun's zenith for the same reason as Azcanta, in a longer game I think it is better than secure the wastes
The nephalia drownyard in the side is my silver bullet for my meta game which is heavily control.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Playing no Colonnades whatsoever might make sense if you're seriously expecting to play mono control mirrors most tournaments, but that seems a bit hard to believe.
Drownyard is no good if the Control mirrors you're facing are UW control. They're going to just hit it with Field of Ruin, especially if you've got no Colonnades. If you're playing on paper, I'd hate to have a sideboard plan of milling them out games 2 & 3, since losing game 1 would basically mean forfeiting the match. Online this isn't an issue, but finishing 3 games has always been a challenge for me on paper. Normally it involves someone scooping game 1 when they know need to close 2 games quickly. If your metagame is all Control I would consider maindecking a trump card. Maybe Elixir of Immortality or Perpetual Timepiece. Hell, if you have so many Control Mirrors that your doing crazy sh*t like cutting Colonnades, you might even maindeck a Psychic Spiral and just troll everybody. Jace, Memory Adept is almost as troll, but a bit more relevant in other matchups.
Why do you have 3 Relics? In general that's a terrible card to bring in just for value's sake. If graveyard hate completely shuts down a deck, you want RIP; if it's just an incremental value card then it probably doesn't belong in a sideboard. Surgical is also another option if the target is something like Storm or Dredge, though Dredge is better solved by Settle the Wreckage and Storm by Rule of Law.
Also, I'm sure someone else will chime in on this, but less than 4 Esper Charms is blasphemous. I'd suggest Think Twice a the cut before Esper Charm. Search flipping Think Twice isn't something to write home about, especially if casting that Think Twice is going to put you another turn of flipping Search, thereby trading 3 mana for a random card now, instead of 3 mana for an Impulse later.
I'm still playing 26. I think for the original build of the deck, 26 is still correct. Some people have moved on from that, and their land counts have changed, but 26 is only antiquated if the original 30-ish is antiquated, which may be arguable, but is certainly not fact.
No, this isn't the type of game where anything is a "fact". Every last blue deck in Modern starts with 4 1-mana cantrips, so there's not even a comparison to make. And blue decks have actually made a comeback in Modern.
Every last black deck in modern starts with 4 discard spells main, we're a black deck... should we play discard spells?
Just because we share a base color with these decks does not mean we share a game plan.
On a different note,
I see this pop up every now and then, that people sometimes struggle with closing out games in time/finishing in the ~50 minutes. Obviously sometimes your opponent will just play agonizingly slowly and there isn't anything you can do about that, but in the other games this applies.
This originally came about for improving at real-time games (and not turned based games), but I feel this does apply when time is a concern in magic.
When you're playing a game, you should aim to make decisions quickly. Keep track of the decisions you make, and get a feeling on the outcomes.
After the game (and really, any time outside of a game), think about how to decisions you're making are impacting the outcome of your games. Think about the decision points in the games that you really struggled with, or where your initial reaction was wrong.
Next time you play a game, try to implement those changes in theory, and re-evaluate.
The goal is not to deliberate on each decision you make in a game (or even to maximize you chances of winning an individual game), but to get yourself to the point where you're making the correct decisions internally, and quickly.
Obviously this isn't a good strategy to use at say, a PPTQ, where the specific outcome is important, and you're kind of stuck in a never-ending "I'll lose this game for the vague sense of improvement", but I will say it does work. It kind of summarizes as "During the game, play quickly, and mentally take notes of your initial reactions, and after the game, actually deliberate over the difficult decisions, and change what your initial reaction will be for next game".
I feel reasonably confident in my abilities to play this deck, and I absolutely play quickly, which I feel can be attributed to this sort of method.
A lot of scenarios come up over and over again when playing a single deck in this format. Sideboarding, for example, is absolutely something I'd recommend doing this way, especially since its a good way to eat up a lot of match time. If you sideboard quickly, there is a good chance your opponent (atleast at FNM level) is likely to cut their deliberations short as to not keep you waiting.
I don't really understand how people ALWAYS go to time with Esper, the game should be almost universally played on ONLY your opponents turn... meaning it shouldn't be that long at all.
It isn't ever quick by any means, but usually 30-35 mins for a typical MU.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
@RoboMemer on Discord
@Robo_Memer on Twitter, Twitch, Reddit, and YouTube
Feel free to PM me about Affinity decks in any format!
Every last black deck in modern starts with 4 discard spells main, we're a black deck... should we play discard spells?
Just because we share a base color with these decks does not mean we share a game plan.
My point was just that you end up insulating yourself from scrutiny and therefore growth when you tell yourself that your deck's special. It may very well be, and Serum Visions may be a poor choice, but I wouldn't use a vague notion of having a different gameplan to justify it. With 2 Azcanta, 1 Jace, and 1 Revelation, I'd argue that UW Control has as much card draw potential as the original list at this point. No reason to write off the innovations that you see elsewhere in the format's Control decks.
On a different note,
I see this pop up every now and then, that people sometimes struggle with closing out games in time/finishing in the ~50 minutes. Obviously sometimes your opponent will just play agonizingly slowly and there isn't anything you can do about that, but in the other games this applies.
This originally came about for improving at real-time games (and not turned based games), but I feel this does apply when time is a concern in magic.
When you're playing a game, you should aim to make decisions quickly. Keep track of the decisions you make, and get a feeling on the outcomes.
After the game (and really, any time outside of a game), think about how to decisions you're making are impacting the outcome of your games. Think about the decision points in the games that you really struggled with, or where your initial reaction was wrong.
Next time you play a game, try to implement those changes in theory, and re-evaluate.
Assuming we're talking specifically about Control mirrors, I don't personally do that. I limit the amount of time I spend tanking if the matchup is a slow one, but I would never want to become the type of player that doesn't identify all of the different lines. I can see using instinct to decide between 2 similar EV plays, but I'm always going to evaluate changes in mana and what my next 2-3 turns could look like. I also think it's important to distinguish between evaluation (identifying the lines) and decision making.
Speed-playing the Control mirror from turn 1 is probably effective, especially if the other guy feels pressured to keep pace with you. A friend of mine played Todd Anderson in a UB Drownyard mirror a few years back and basically let the guy walk all over him. He felt Todd was main-phase Drownyarding and asking him to play faster just to discourage him from doing anything on his end step. It's an extreme example, but you may be doing it to others at some level without realizing it.
It's not necessarily "speed-playing." Playing a land and saying "go" when most of what you're doing (and most of your thinking) happens on your opponent's turn is not a big deal. However, people who want to find every line on every turn are literally wasting time. If you have identified a line, you shouldn't need to re-evaluate all the things all the time. You're just wasting time at that point and/or you don't know what you're doing, which leads back to play-testing, practice and taking notes of situations..
I admit this is one of those things I'm not very good at explaining, yet seems to keep poking back up.
Your point is fair here, but only half the story I feel.
Search for azcanta and jace are both nice, but they are partially card selection, and they find spells and not lands. A deck playing zenith is not inherently suited towards playing these types of cards (a deck full of lots of cheap spells is).
Now its possible that playing search/jace is better than playing zenith/rev, but I do think this is a point in which you say "esper is a better rev/zenith deck, and UW is a better search/jace deck" and its possible UW might just be the better deck, but taking whats good about UW and putting it into esper is not likely to work because of this whole "different decks, different plans" thing.
The innovations might be just that, but keep in mind that they're coming from either "how do we make UW control the best it can be" or simply "how do we make control in modern the best it can be" and esper may not factor into either of those at all.
I don't usually use statements like "In my recent testing" unless specifically called for (because otherwise everything I say would likely be prefixed), but I've yet to be convinced that fewer than 26 lands, and 1mana cantrips is the correct way to play esper right now. It might be the best way to play control right now (in UW), but those are distinct things.
Its not only control mirrors, its just how I play magic at FNMs, or anything that casual/less casual. I do absolutely think you should be thinking about things like EV, or mana changes, etc, but my point was basically that you have a lot of time to make these decisions if you "free yourself" from only using the time you have in the moment to make these changes.
Example, I've played against jund god knows how many times, and I'm pretty aware about what cards to play around, what cards are relevant, and how relevant they are in these matchups. Often times, if they cast, for example, a tarmogoyf, I'll make a decision about whether it resolves in ~1 second because I've been confronted with this decision point many many times, and I know approximately how I feel about goyfs in similar scenarios.
While I do agree that the difference between identifying lines, and deciding from amoung them is an important distinction, I feel this applies to both.
Realistically, my decklist doesn't drastically change, nor do the decklists of my opponents (ie all jund decks are reasonably similar) and I don't have all that many different lines available to me at any given time, and I've likely thought quite a bit about them throughout all of the games of magic I've played vs jund in the past.
As for the speed playing thing, absolutely possible. Its not really possible for me to know what kind of an impact my play speed is having on my opponents, but no one has ever told me they felt I was nonverbally "rushing" them to make plays faster. (Though of course thats not terribly informative).
I think it all boils down to me not really looking at each game as a distinct thing, or even an important thing. I've encountered any individual decision point numerous times (obviously there are exceptions, but I feel that I'm rarely ever at a loss/feel like I'm trying to "start my thinking from square one" if that makes sense). Sometimes the decisions I make are wrong, but I'm often able to identify that and change it for the future.
In general, I'm trying to improve my instincts, and sort of play the game on autopilot.
FWIW, its possible I'm better able to "mentally take notes" on the decision points because I'm spending less mental energy on the actual decisions of the game, and relying on initial reactions.
There are some times where I absolutely think its fine to tank for a while, but the most important question(s) to ask yourself during this is "what is my initial reaction here?" "Have I ever done that before?" "What was the outcome/why?".
In complete agreement on virtually every point here, Cody. I've been playing Control and Midrange decks for almost 10 years now, and I've been playing them with my best friend/partner the entire time - for most of the last 18 months, he's been on Modern Jund and I was on Esper.
Every decision you make has the chance to be impactful because of the overall power level of Modern. Feeling when something is bait, when something is a last-ditch effort, or when something is immensely crucial - that comes from knowing both your deck and the opponent's deck intimately.
When you have played Uxx control for long enough, you know how to approach the grindy games. You know how to approach the aggro games. You know how to approach the combo games.
Just like Amalek says in the primer, knowing when to choose Mind Rot for Esper Charm is a huge part of mastering this deck - and it's one decision that can't be overvalued, because Mind Rot will singlehandedly win you some games while being completely irrelevant in others. Especially against a competent opponent who will save his most powerful spells for after you've depleted your resources battling his low-cost threats.
You should know what spells you can't afford to let resolve, what creatures can hit you a few times before you get worried, when it's safe to tap all the way out for Rev/Zenith and when you should leave up UU for Logic Knot - if you've played this deck for more than a handful of matches, you should just KNOW how you play against the top tiers and only adjust your gameplay when new data is presented.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
@RoboMemer on Discord
@Robo_Memer on Twitter, Twitch, Reddit, and YouTube
Feel free to PM me about Affinity decks in any format!
I've been playing my esper draw-go off and on, stock list where I basically use 2x shadow of doubt as flex spots to hate on valakut decks (incidental hate for gifts ungiven out of storm is nice too), 2 secure 0 zenith.
The big problem I'm having with this deck - and frankly most interactive modern decks I try - is consistency. I run 2 negate, 4 path, 3 verdict, 1 push, 2 knot, 4 cryptic. What happens is I'll draw my creature removal when its useless as my opponent ends up being ad nauseum or lantern or taking turns or some snapcaster burn deck. Or I'll draw knots and cryptics while my opponent goes turn 1 cavern-vial pass turn. I'll draw both negates vs humans and no verdicts. etc.
The worst is spell snare. I put 2 in the maindeck again harkening back to the older builds that ran 2-3 as a way to survive the first 3 turns. My opponent goes 1 drop, 3 drop, 4 drop, 1 drop+3drop while I pair my opening hand snare with my other copy and stare at two dead cards.
And I guess that's it in a nutshell - because the deck is like 100% reactive and answers are necessarily somewhat narrow, way too often I'm sitting on bad or useless cards in my hand - so my esper charms and revelations are just keeping me afloat by bringing me back up to the same # of relevant cards drawn as my opponent who's doing a linear thing and mostly ignoring me.
When we are trying to lineup answers to threats its just so easy for them to not line up properly. When they do it feels like a dream - push the dork, knot the 3 drop, cryptic the 4 drop, negate the next turn and charm to draw 2, yeehaw. But instead I get situations like this recent one:
Me: no fetchland, hand with logic knot and shadow of doubt. Keep. win roll.
T1: colonnade pass
Opp: t1 shock tapped pass.
T2: watery grave untapped take 2 pass.
Opp: mountain cathartic reunion.
....
So no fetch for me to SoD, and I have no fetch myself to enable t2 knot. He goes for an utterly brutal cast that deserves to be punished (2 open blue mana and he chooses to discard 2 extra cards...) and he gets away with it. And of course I did not have either of my 2 spell snares, they're waiting for the matchups where my opponent plays no 2 drops, or here he goes t2 cavern hu hu hu.
Anyways that turned into a rant. But that's been my experience lately with this deck and I can't tell if I just need more practice (been playing it for years), a better build (as I say, its pretty stock other than 2x SoD as flex) or to just accept these losses as the variance of magic. I love the idea and playstyle of draw-go but its a ***** finding ways to answer the huge variety of angles people attack from in modern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's shorthand for Draw-land-go, which is the most common play pattern for your own turn in a deck that operates entirely, or near entirely at instant speed.
Esper (Teachings Variation)
60 Maindeck
3 Creature
2 Snapcaster Mage
1 Torrential Gearhulk
1 Enchantment
1 Cast Out
27 Instant
1 Mystical Teachings
4 Path to Exile
3 Settle the Wreckage
4 Mana Leak
4 Esper Charm
3 Think Twice
3 Cryptic Command
1 Secure the Wastes
1 Sphinx's Revelation
1 Shadow of Doubt
2 Spell Snare
27 Land
3 Celestial Colonnade
2 Watery Grave
2 Hallowed Fountain
1 Godless Shrine
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
2 Glacial Fortress
2 Drowned Catacomb
3 Island
1 Swamp
2 Plains
1 Ghost Quarter
2 Sorcery
2 Lingering Souls
15 Sideboard
1 Artifact
SB: 1 Engineered Explosives
1 Enchantment
SB: 1 Stony Silence
11 Instant
SB: 1 Fracturing Gust
SB: 1 Blessed Alliance
SB: 2 Negate
SB: 2 Dispel
SB: 2 Celestial Purge
SB: 3 Surgical Extraction
2 Sorcery
SB: 1 Supreme Verdict
SB: 1 Flaying Tendrils
After 3 years, I've come to prefer the 4 Leaks over variations of Remand, Logic Knot, Negate, and Countersquall. Teachings for Gearhulk, Cast Out, Rev, and Secure.
Being able to teachings for teachings, or simply have more access to the tutor that the deck is "supposed" to be built around is usually worth the slot.
I think mana leak is bad, and will not serve you as well as most other counterspells, but I get that you don't agree.
I think 3 copies of settle the wreckage is too many. 1 settle, 2 supreme verdicts feels like a better split to me, as hitting non-attacking creatures is pretty important.
I also don't really see what the 2 lingering souls are doing for you. IMO, they could be replaced with basically anything.
In your sideboard, I feel like the single stony silence and the single flaying tendrils are out of place. There are plenty of other cards that are more valuable there, IMO.
Why play a 27th land? I feel it's a bit excessive. Otherwise, I agree with what Cody said.
Some Cliques or some Quellers would be welcome.
UWB Esper Draw-Go Control (clicky)
UW Azorius Control (clicky)
Currently pursuing a degree in Biochemistry.
EDH: I've decided I don't like multiplayer formats.
I can see 24 being scary for some people, especially the ones not running Serum Visions or Opt. 26 just sounds antiquated, though.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/841718
some things to address:
I'm not playing celestial colonnade or any other man lands because I wanted to try shaving out almost all win cons to make the deck run as smoothly as possible. (including lands)
I have no idea how good Search for Azcanta is, I just feel with this build the game is going to go extremely long and it can flip reasonably effectively
I'm playing white sun's zenith for the same reason as Azcanta, in a longer game I think it is better than secure the wastes
The nephalia drownyard in the side is my silver bullet for my meta game which is heavily control.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
I don't really like your build very much. Shaving on lands but keeping zenith, playing only 3 esper charm, playing search, only 1 rev, your mana base in general, etc, are simply not things I agree with.
Amalek has been a big proponent in playing only ~2 leylines (and not the full set) which I can agree with, as 2 has been the magic number for me as well. Relic is also not really the best graveyard hate card for us. Nihil spellbomb is almost strictly better IMO, but surgical and rest in peace are the 2 most popular.
I'm also not a huge fan of drownyard, and I think there are better control bullets, but its fine.
Drownyard is no good if the Control mirrors you're facing are UW control. They're going to just hit it with Field of Ruin, especially if you've got no Colonnades. If you're playing on paper, I'd hate to have a sideboard plan of milling them out games 2 & 3, since losing game 1 would basically mean forfeiting the match. Online this isn't an issue, but finishing 3 games has always been a challenge for me on paper. Normally it involves someone scooping game 1 when they know need to close 2 games quickly. If your metagame is all Control I would consider maindecking a trump card. Maybe Elixir of Immortality or Perpetual Timepiece. Hell, if you have so many Control Mirrors that your doing crazy sh*t like cutting Colonnades, you might even maindeck a Psychic Spiral and just troll everybody. Jace, Memory Adept is almost as troll, but a bit more relevant in other matchups.
Why do you have 3 Relics? In general that's a terrible card to bring in just for value's sake. If graveyard hate completely shuts down a deck, you want RIP; if it's just an incremental value card then it probably doesn't belong in a sideboard. Surgical is also another option if the target is something like Storm or Dredge, though Dredge is better solved by Settle the Wreckage and Storm by Rule of Law.
Also, I'm sure someone else will chime in on this, but less than 4 Esper Charms is blasphemous. I'd suggest Think Twice a the cut before Esper Charm. Search flipping Think Twice isn't something to write home about, especially if casting that Think Twice is going to put you another turn of flipping Search, thereby trading 3 mana for a random card now, instead of 3 mana for an Impulse later.
Just because we share a base color with these decks does not mean we share a game plan.
On a different note,
I see this pop up every now and then, that people sometimes struggle with closing out games in time/finishing in the ~50 minutes. Obviously sometimes your opponent will just play agonizingly slowly and there isn't anything you can do about that, but in the other games this applies.
This originally came about for improving at real-time games (and not turned based games), but I feel this does apply when time is a concern in magic.
When you're playing a game, you should aim to make decisions quickly. Keep track of the decisions you make, and get a feeling on the outcomes.
After the game (and really, any time outside of a game), think about how to decisions you're making are impacting the outcome of your games. Think about the decision points in the games that you really struggled with, or where your initial reaction was wrong.
Next time you play a game, try to implement those changes in theory, and re-evaluate.
The goal is not to deliberate on each decision you make in a game (or even to maximize you chances of winning an individual game), but to get yourself to the point where you're making the correct decisions internally, and quickly.
Obviously this isn't a good strategy to use at say, a PPTQ, where the specific outcome is important, and you're kind of stuck in a never-ending "I'll lose this game for the vague sense of improvement", but I will say it does work. It kind of summarizes as "During the game, play quickly, and mentally take notes of your initial reactions, and after the game, actually deliberate over the difficult decisions, and change what your initial reaction will be for next game".
I feel reasonably confident in my abilities to play this deck, and I absolutely play quickly, which I feel can be attributed to this sort of method.
A lot of scenarios come up over and over again when playing a single deck in this format. Sideboarding, for example, is absolutely something I'd recommend doing this way, especially since its a good way to eat up a lot of match time. If you sideboard quickly, there is a good chance your opponent (atleast at FNM level) is likely to cut their deliberations short as to not keep you waiting.
Yeah, whenever Codey does this I copy it into a doc to reread later
UWR Control
BR Hollow One
It isn't ever quick by any means, but usually 30-35 mins for a typical MU.
@Robo_Memer on Twitter, Twitch, Reddit, and YouTube
Feel free to PM me about Affinity decks in any format!
Assuming we're talking specifically about Control mirrors, I don't personally do that. I limit the amount of time I spend tanking if the matchup is a slow one, but I would never want to become the type of player that doesn't identify all of the different lines. I can see using instinct to decide between 2 similar EV plays, but I'm always going to evaluate changes in mana and what my next 2-3 turns could look like. I also think it's important to distinguish between evaluation (identifying the lines) and decision making.
Speed-playing the Control mirror from turn 1 is probably effective, especially if the other guy feels pressured to keep pace with you. A friend of mine played Todd Anderson in a UB Drownyard mirror a few years back and basically let the guy walk all over him. He felt Todd was main-phase Drownyarding and asking him to play faster just to discourage him from doing anything on his end step. It's an extreme example, but you may be doing it to others at some level without realizing it.
Your point is fair here, but only half the story I feel.
Search for azcanta and jace are both nice, but they are partially card selection, and they find spells and not lands. A deck playing zenith is not inherently suited towards playing these types of cards (a deck full of lots of cheap spells is).
Now its possible that playing search/jace is better than playing zenith/rev, but I do think this is a point in which you say "esper is a better rev/zenith deck, and UW is a better search/jace deck" and its possible UW might just be the better deck, but taking whats good about UW and putting it into esper is not likely to work because of this whole "different decks, different plans" thing.
The innovations might be just that, but keep in mind that they're coming from either "how do we make UW control the best it can be" or simply "how do we make control in modern the best it can be" and esper may not factor into either of those at all.
I don't usually use statements like "In my recent testing" unless specifically called for (because otherwise everything I say would likely be prefixed), but I've yet to be convinced that fewer than 26 lands, and 1mana cantrips is the correct way to play esper right now. It might be the best way to play control right now (in UW), but those are distinct things.
Its not only control mirrors, its just how I play magic at FNMs, or anything that casual/less casual. I do absolutely think you should be thinking about things like EV, or mana changes, etc, but my point was basically that you have a lot of time to make these decisions if you "free yourself" from only using the time you have in the moment to make these changes.
Example, I've played against jund god knows how many times, and I'm pretty aware about what cards to play around, what cards are relevant, and how relevant they are in these matchups. Often times, if they cast, for example, a tarmogoyf, I'll make a decision about whether it resolves in ~1 second because I've been confronted with this decision point many many times, and I know approximately how I feel about goyfs in similar scenarios.
While I do agree that the difference between identifying lines, and deciding from amoung them is an important distinction, I feel this applies to both.
Realistically, my decklist doesn't drastically change, nor do the decklists of my opponents (ie all jund decks are reasonably similar) and I don't have all that many different lines available to me at any given time, and I've likely thought quite a bit about them throughout all of the games of magic I've played vs jund in the past.
As for the speed playing thing, absolutely possible. Its not really possible for me to know what kind of an impact my play speed is having on my opponents, but no one has ever told me they felt I was nonverbally "rushing" them to make plays faster. (Though of course thats not terribly informative).
I think it all boils down to me not really looking at each game as a distinct thing, or even an important thing. I've encountered any individual decision point numerous times (obviously there are exceptions, but I feel that I'm rarely ever at a loss/feel like I'm trying to "start my thinking from square one" if that makes sense). Sometimes the decisions I make are wrong, but I'm often able to identify that and change it for the future.
In general, I'm trying to improve my instincts, and sort of play the game on autopilot.
FWIW, its possible I'm better able to "mentally take notes" on the decision points because I'm spending less mental energy on the actual decisions of the game, and relying on initial reactions.
There are some times where I absolutely think its fine to tank for a while, but the most important question(s) to ask yourself during this is "what is my initial reaction here?" "Have I ever done that before?" "What was the outcome/why?".
Every decision you make has the chance to be impactful because of the overall power level of Modern. Feeling when something is bait, when something is a last-ditch effort, or when something is immensely crucial - that comes from knowing both your deck and the opponent's deck intimately.
When you have played Uxx control for long enough, you know how to approach the grindy games. You know how to approach the aggro games. You know how to approach the combo games.
Just like Amalek says in the primer, knowing when to choose Mind Rot for Esper Charm is a huge part of mastering this deck - and it's one decision that can't be overvalued, because Mind Rot will singlehandedly win you some games while being completely irrelevant in others. Especially against a competent opponent who will save his most powerful spells for after you've depleted your resources battling his low-cost threats.
You should know what spells you can't afford to let resolve, what creatures can hit you a few times before you get worried, when it's safe to tap all the way out for Rev/Zenith and when you should leave up UU for Logic Knot - if you've played this deck for more than a handful of matches, you should just KNOW how you play against the top tiers and only adjust your gameplay when new data is presented.
@Robo_Memer on Twitter, Twitch, Reddit, and YouTube
Feel free to PM me about Affinity decks in any format!
The big problem I'm having with this deck - and frankly most interactive modern decks I try - is consistency. I run 2 negate, 4 path, 3 verdict, 1 push, 2 knot, 4 cryptic. What happens is I'll draw my creature removal when its useless as my opponent ends up being ad nauseum or lantern or taking turns or some snapcaster burn deck. Or I'll draw knots and cryptics while my opponent goes turn 1 cavern-vial pass turn. I'll draw both negates vs humans and no verdicts. etc.
The worst is spell snare. I put 2 in the maindeck again harkening back to the older builds that ran 2-3 as a way to survive the first 3 turns. My opponent goes 1 drop, 3 drop, 4 drop, 1 drop+3drop while I pair my opening hand snare with my other copy and stare at two dead cards.
And I guess that's it in a nutshell - because the deck is like 100% reactive and answers are necessarily somewhat narrow, way too often I'm sitting on bad or useless cards in my hand - so my esper charms and revelations are just keeping me afloat by bringing me back up to the same # of relevant cards drawn as my opponent who's doing a linear thing and mostly ignoring me.
When we are trying to lineup answers to threats its just so easy for them to not line up properly. When they do it feels like a dream - push the dork, knot the 3 drop, cryptic the 4 drop, negate the next turn and charm to draw 2, yeehaw. But instead I get situations like this recent one:
Me: no fetchland, hand with logic knot and shadow of doubt. Keep. win roll.
T1: colonnade pass
Opp: t1 shock tapped pass.
T2: watery grave untapped take 2 pass.
Opp: mountain cathartic reunion.
....
So no fetch for me to SoD, and I have no fetch myself to enable t2 knot. He goes for an utterly brutal cast that deserves to be punished (2 open blue mana and he chooses to discard 2 extra cards...) and he gets away with it. And of course I did not have either of my 2 spell snares, they're waiting for the matchups where my opponent plays no 2 drops, or here he goes t2 cavern hu hu hu.
Anyways that turned into a rant. But that's been my experience lately with this deck and I can't tell if I just need more practice (been playing it for years), a better build (as I say, its pretty stock other than 2x SoD as flex) or to just accept these losses as the variance of magic. I love the idea and playstyle of draw-go but its a ***** finding ways to answer the huge variety of angles people attack from in modern.
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron