@Xovian: You're probably right if you think I'm missing something there, because I clearly don't see what is useful about a card that literally does nothing. Even in YGO, there are cards that do nothing, but combined with other cards, are actually useful. Why not psych out your opponent with a card that actually does something, even the variety of utility can be a factor in considering usefulness. Auto-triggered cards just seems asinine, because most of the traps we have (as I've just shown) are intended to defeat an attacking monster (against a weaker defender) and are not intended to defend against an army. Why would you put that mechanic into the game and limit a player's creativity/decision-making?
Maybe I'm having trouble with seeing how to overcome an opponent who can spam me with field control, because I think that the usefulness of spell/traps to directly clear out monsters or balance the game field without stat-altering effects is lacking. As for MtG and YGO having similar drawbacks, I'd say yes and no. You're indeed right that in all TCGs, there's a point of no return when you allow your opponent to build advantage. But for me, perhaps it's just that you can get behind so quickly in this game, or that field control is far more important than actual card advantage/hand size, that I see a flaw. I have seen strong locks in MtG and YGO, but there's a reason many, many cards are banned/restricted in those TCGs because of the "hard locks" they can provide, or ridiculous card advantage.
To your point about not beating your opponents' monsters but rather delaying them, I'm not sure I understand. There's not alternate win condition here, and AFAIK, that would've been the main reason to run a stall tactic. Stalling allows your opponent to build up an army, and that can overwhelm you.