A bit of game theory behind rush decks

[Acsabi44]

Very well written.  The only problem I have is with this one little section:

Phew, I know that this is a long and hard-to-understand post, but I want to say only one thing before I bid you farewell. And this is a shout-out to all my fellow aggro-players: 'Don't dilute your deck with creature removal!! Don't use Firebolts/Fire Lances, or Drain/Siphon lifes etc. in your aggro decks!' I know that it seems like a great idea to kill off opposing aggro creatures, but in reality you just diluting the threat density in your deck. consider this: The opponent plays a 5/1 Lava Golem. Which one would you rather draw: a Bolt to kill it, or a Crimson Dragon to outrace it? Of course you'd rather draw the Dragon. (Let's assume it's midgame and you have the quanta for playing the Dragon). If you say "but I don't have other creatures, and I should kill the Golem so I can buy more time", then I answer that your deck is wrongly assembled. You should have your own Lava Golems down on the battlefield. If you don't, that's maybe because the opponent killed them. That means s/he's the "slower deck" and you should "outrace" him/her anyway. Remember what I told you about racing? You don't need Bolts to race.

Assuming that the opponent you're facing is also a rush deck (and it's a good assumption, given the use of Lava Golem), they could very well set up their rush equal to yours, with one key difference of using Bolts instead of Dragons.  You may have the quanta to play the dragon, but if they have a Bolt waiting in the wings to kill off your dragon, then they have invariably slowed down your rush.  You have wasted 12 quanta on a creature that's no longer there, and they only wasted 3 to kill it.  A net gain of 9 quanta for them, despite their 12+ life loss because of the Dragons one attack. 

And while you're attempting to recover quanta to play another Golem or Dragon, the 9 quanta they didn't waste may have been enough to deal the "X" amount of damage they needed to finish you off that turn with a Bolt and their rushed attack.  While creature control may slow a rush deck down, if that same creature control can help you damage your opponent, it's not a wasted card in your hand.

Of course, I could be speaking out of my..., simply because I'm partial to a quantum control deck (Pests and the like), so I find more value in quantum than damage.

My point here was that if you have a slot in your deck for a dragon, and the opponent has the same slot for a bolt, then you are actively racing and s/he's not. You will draw the dragon and s/he will draw a bolt in the same slot, which is a dead card in terms of killing the opponent, while the dragon is not. (mono-fire firebolt decks of course aside.)
Sure, a creature control deck needs cards like firebolt, but a dedicated rush deck only dilutes its potential with them.

[Acsabi44]

Yeah maybe I wasn't very clear about this whole "speed vs. firebolts" thing so here it is again, simplified:

You are playing a rush deck. Your deck is inherently faster than the opponent's. You are capable of dealing the most damage in any given time. (that is, dealing 100 damage in fewer turns than the opponent). In this case, you don't *need* creature control to slow down your opponent, simply because you are faster than him/her anyways. You have to focus solely on dealing 100 before s/he deals 100 to you.
However, if you pack Bolts, then you are diluting the threat density of your deck(incerasing the chance of drawing a card that deals essentially NO damage to your opponent), and thus, decerasing the chance that *yours* is the faster deck.

If you are piloting a rush deck, and come across a different one that is inherently faster than yours, then you might need to play stall so your slower deck can "catch up" with the opponent's clock. But I suggest that instead of being prepared to stalling (that is, packing bolts), just simply design your deck to be faster.
Cause you might have as much as six bolts, but at some time you gonna miss that draw and the opponent will surely crush you and you won't be able to catch up (cause you have the bolts in your deck slots where the opponent has creatures).

The bottom line is if designing a rush deck, go for speed instead of preparing to "what if I have to stall" matchups, so you won't ever have to stall at all .

That's my 2 cents, maybe I'm wrong but I found out that when I started to remove bolts from my deck my win percentage increased.

Peace

[CLRose]

Which is all fine and well, except Bolts aren't exclusively creature control.  While they do have that use, they can also be used directly on your opponent, thereby never making it a dead draw (sans a reflective shield). If there's no threatening creature on board, use it against your opponent for some quick damage.  If there is, it's nice to have that option.

And the difference isn't as great as it would seem, especially in a metagame that consists of many creature control cards.  Let's just set up an example.  You've got 10 quantum.

For 10 quantum, you could put down a dragon that hits for 12 and is vulnerable to just about every creature control out there.  At 3 health, the only effects that don't outright kill it are low level drain lifes and ice bolts, and the latter has a chance to freeze the dragon. And that's not taking into account time reversal (which kills the momentum of a dragon rush), any amount of shields (dusk, fog, and phase being the big ones), or creature effects like Devour, Paradox, or Freeze.

For the same 10 quantum, you could hit your opponent for 6 with the Fire Bolt, unstoppable except for one or two select shields. Or you could take out any creature with 6 or less health, taking out those nasty Otyughs or Demons that seem to have no problem paradoxing your dragons/golems. Plus, after using the Bolt, you have 7 quantum left over, giving you the option of playing another card or getting a head start on next turn's play.

I understand the concept and the need for speed in a rush deck. However, with the vulnerability of the dragon in combination with the versatility of the Fire Bolt, it just seems like a smarter option to go with the Bolt.