General Deckbuilding

[Rakarth]

Alright, here's a general question for you. How does everyone deck build?

Itis a bit of an open question really, how do you personally build a deck? As I am still relatively new to the game I have difficulty with deck building still. I have managed a few concotions which work ok but I still kind of follow the advice given to all new players when they ask this question. That is you pick two colours you like, put in 22-24 land (11-12 of each), then 1/3 of what's left for spells and the rest creatures. After this I try to refine the deck and swap out stuff until I get something I like.

However, I can't see this getting me anywhere good as I (hopefully) get better at this game. I don't have the extensive card knowledge of some and so I can't immediately recall a card that will be useful in a certain situation. I have come to the point where I spread all my cards out on my bedroom floor and laboriously trawl through them and pick up cards which I think might work in a deck and put them aside. So then I concentrate on them and either I end up with a deck (maybe) or with nothing and I start again.

I'd like to know if this is the only way to do things? How does everyone else construct their decks, do you decide to do a black/blue control deck and go for it or do you trawl for inspiration?

Rakarth

 

[Ransac]

For me, there are several things to consider when building a deck. In no particular order:

Determine what you want the deck to do: Are you trying to hit your opponent with creature damage as fast as possible? Do you have a combo that you want to exploit? Do you want to control the board and win when you want to win?

Expand your cardbase knowledge: If you think that 4/4 haste monster for 5 mana is sweet, think again.... there's a better card out there. I recommend researching each block, and then each set through each block. See what the themes being focused on were, along with the keywords. See what the designers were trying to accomplish with their themes and how (if) the players were able to exploit them.

Actually..... those are my two big ones. Anyone else?


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Budget Player Cadet]

Whenever I get a bunch of boosters from a new set, a theme clicks into my head, and I can't stop until I have a complete deck around that theme (that's how my treefolk and rogue decks started out)!

 

[Spiderman]

I usually have some sort of idea of what the deck should be based around; either a creature or a combo or a certain card. Then I usually go through my cards and look for any good supporting spells/creatures. Then I start going through those picks looking at mana costs and making sure I don't have too many 5 ccs and up - like for creatures, I try to space them out, like 4-8 1cc, 4-6 2 ccs, 3-4 3 ccs, 2-3 4 ccs, 1-2 else. Support spells are usually removal-type stuff. Then I fill in the lands, usually 22-23.

 

[turgy22]

Wow, what a great question! I really hope this turns into a robust discussion and everyone decides to chime in. Because there really is no right or wrong answer, we should hear a lot of different opinions on the subject.

When I first started playing Magic, I built my decks a lot like you. Instead of having ideas for a deck theme, I simply decided what color or colors I wanted to use and put in a handful of random cards that I liked and played it. Then, as I continued playing the deck, I got a feel for what was and wasn't working and tried to tune the deck in a direction that made it work better. A lot of my "real life" decks are the products of this system and they're some of my best decks, as well. No amount of planning can replace the things you learn by sitting down and actually playing. Another advantage of this method is that it conforms to the cards you own, since you'll only try cards in your collection. This will keep your budget intact, although it might hamper the maximum potential of your deck.

After I graduated college and had a large disposable income, I got in the habit of creating more idea-based decks. I would spot a card or combo I liked, and buy all the cards needed for the deck (excluding the ones I already owned, of course). This helped me explore a lot of cool ideas, but I soon discovered that a lot of what I thought would work simply did not. So I spent a lot of money on narrow-use cards and didn't have a lot of solid decks to show for it. Later, I learned to only buy singles if I already had a deck that could use them.

Nowadays, I almost exclusively play and build decks online (MTGO, specifically). My deckbuilding strategies lie somewhere in between my first two situations. Usually, I'll acquire some card or cards that I really want to use and just browse through my collection looking for other cards that work well with it. Then I try to fill out the deck with solid utility cards and smooth out the mana curve - much like Spidey describes. Other times, I just think of a theme I'd like explore (weenie, reanimation, affinity) and build a deck around the theme, instead of around the cards.

Here's some examples of decks I've recently constructed:
1) Phthisis: Built around the card. I made a green/black deck with lots of pump-effects. If I suspend Phthisis early, I'll pump an opponent's creature when it's cast; otherwise, I'll pump my own creatures and play it like a typical aggressive creature deck, instead of combo. Too often, it backfires against creature-light decks, so I'm thinking of acquiring some Forbidden Orchards to get around that. Sadly, Hunted Horror does not work.
2) Green/White Aggro: I had four copies each of Hedge Troll and Watchwolf, so I basically just piled it full of really efficient green and white creatures, like Leonin Skyhunter, Llanowar Elite and put a few cheap global boosting effects, like Tolsimir and Crown of Convergence.
3) Sort-of-Mono-Black: This was actually inspired by three cards. In a short time span, I acquired one each of Garza Gol, Sol-Kanar and Nicol Bolas. Then I realized I had three awesomely cool, but prohibitively expensive three-color cards - none of which had any deck to be in. So I created a sort-of-mono-black deck that I could put them all in. I filled the deck out with efficient black creatures and spells and bought all the Tainted lands to make everything run smoothly. I also threw in some other big black rares that weren't being used elsewhere (Nightmare, Helldozer). As I play, I rotate around the cards to see what works best and what it most fun among my one-of rares.

If you're further interested in my deck-building thought process, I've written numerous articles, using various methods.
Pet Decks: Tapping Tims
Double FOIL Witch-Maw FTW
Tournament Preparation: The Precon of Doom
One of a Kind: Booby Trap
One of a Kind: Bloodbond March

 

[DarthFerret]

Heh, My deck building process is a bit strange. It usually starts out as a 1 or 2 card idea, and then trying to find cards with synergy. As for the ratio of land creature spell, I generally go with 20/20/20 or with 20/40. Now if the deck is a high cost deck, then I will jump to the more generally accepted 24/18/18 or similar.

I have an article somewhere on here that kind of explains one of my deck building processes, where I started with one card (manabarbs), and eventually came up with a theme deck that people hate (all global enchantments and mono artifacts [one use] with no creatures, instants, sorceries and the like). However that was a special case. Generally I build around ideas (hey, lets make a white deck that acts like a black deck, etc...)

 

[train]

I base my decks on utility... it has to be utility filled... through creatures or spells, even artifacts and lands... doesn't matter...

I like having answers, even if the deck doesn't always win - the games are always good...

 

[Rakarth]

I like building decks based really strongly around a theme, I pick a mechanic (usually) or card and try to build the deck around it. Like my bloodthirst deck, it's not that efficient really, and a red and green deck would be better filled with just larger creatures instead of those that require 'triggering' but that's no fun is it?

I have trouble building decks on a theme though as my cardpool is quite small, 2000 cards maybe? Not really that many although it's getting bigger all the time

I do have trouble in deciding when a deck is done though, how do you know when you reach that point? Disregarding the release of new sets and hence cards that might perform better for cheaper, how do you decide when the deck has all the abilities that it requires?

How do you know when you have enough of the type of spells in a deck? Enough enchantment/artifact removal, bounce, counterspells etc? Not a specific card as such, but an answer like train said..

Rakarth

 

[Ransac]

How do you know when you have enough of the type of spells in a deck? Enough enchantment/artifact removal, bounce, counterspells etc? Not a specific card as such, but an answer like train said..

You really don't know when there are enough, but you need to determine which functions are most important. You may decide that you don't care about your opponent's strategies until after sideboarding. See what you need to have to make the premise of your deck deck worth well, first.


Bloodthirst, while a cool ability, never jumped out at me as being a worthwhile theme to build a deck around, considering the limited card supply for that keyword.


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Modus Pwnens]

Idea's all the way, but wait for my next article, in which I attempt to tackle this "problem"

 

[Killer Joe]

First, I think of ways to BORE my opponents to death and how delightful it is to see them die of either boredom and/or run out of cards

If you think I'm kidding just ask Moosie!

For me, here's a few general rules of thumb for my control decks:
1.) How to deal with "Show Stoppers" like Platnium Angel or the likes.
2.) Since I basically hate having creatures in my decks I always include spells that gain me life along with mass creature destruction cards like Wrath of God.
3.) For a 61 card deck, no less than 24 lands.
4.) For my personal taste the deck has to be THREE COLORS!!!!! (recently my favorite combination of colors are Black-White-Green)
5.) The cards have to have SYNERGY!!!!!!! If this card, that card and the other card have nothing in common then why put them in the same deck? "Oh, what the heck." is just not enough justification for a card to be in my deck.

Sample Deck: UW Counter Control (I know, it's a two-color deck)
4 Wrath of God (Creature Control)
4 Gerrard's Wisdom (Life)
4 Disenchant
4 Counterspell
4 Absorb (or Mana Leak)
4 Propaganda
2 Capsize
4 Accumulated Knowledge
2 Fact or Fiction
3 Millstone (Boring Tech )
2 Story Circle
24 Land to Taste (maybe include several Quicksand or Stalking Stones)

Okay, that's all I got.....

 

[Rakarth]

Thought I'd add another question along the line of this thread.

How much do you want your decks to have answers? Inspired by train's comment I have several decks which work really well when they are left alone. This is obviously the perfect situation for any player. Leave me cards alone, don't kill any of my cards, no counterspells, burn or removal

Alas, life isn't like that so we have to deal with the other player actually doing something as opposed to just letting me win So how much of the deck do you devote to responding to the threats from your opponent against the main components of your deck? I know people like to include a ways of getting rid of artifcats and enchantments as they can be a pain, but if you're playing blue do you always play counterspells? Do you always play artifact and enchanment removal even? Is there a way of playing black that doesn't include kill spells?

I suppose that this can start off a tangent about playing with the less obvious characteristics of a colour, like Blue and Black's subterfuge and sneakyness as opposed to countermagic and outright destruction

Back to the topic at hand, I'm a compulsive tinkerer and when one of my decks is beaten by something that it itself isn't really equipped to handle I have to change it I have to make it so I won't be beaten like that again, and in doing so I get beaten by decks that I used to have no trouble in winning against. Realising I can't win every game I always go back to my original build

So how does everyone decide when to leave the deck alone and play through anything the opponent throws at you. Is it determined by playing style or by deck style? Perhaps by the style of the decks you play against often?

Rakarth

 

[Spiderman]

I think it's determined by both deck style and playing style. If you're playing an fast, offensive deck, you just want to clear things out to make way for your guys, with maybe an answer to troublesome enchantments that might slow you down. If you're playing slow control decks, you have more room for answers against all decks.

 

[Mooseman]

I usually build decks in 10-20 minutes, and that is not a joke. I have a very large card pool (although they are not organized much) and I just see a few cards that I think may work together or might be a theme and then fill the deck out with other cards. I usually include 70 or 80 cards (with 20 to 24 land) and then whittle it down to 60-63 cards.... I do play a few mock games to see what the deck is bring out and then try to cut the chaffe.....

I rarely revisit a deck and "tune it", as I want to build something else.

Recently, I have actually worked on a deck (Leviathan), this is new to me and that is why I asked a lot of questions on this board. I have so far contructed 2 decks in this new way, the elf deck and a suspend deck with Jhoira of the Ghitu. Neother of these decks worked wonders, but they were in a new format of 75 cards, so I will try to tune them.

I always like to have some removal or destruction in my decks. I hate games were an opponent gets something out that totaly shuts down your deck.... like humility or anything KJ plays....

I don't like one trick pony decks, they need to have 2 or more win solutions. Even if one is real slow and may take 20 turns, it has to be possible. Scooping is not a fun way to end a game.

I think I am the worst deck builder on this site, so don't take my suggestions or insights to seriously.......

 

[Melkor]

I don't play or make decks that often anymore, but generally I'll have a theme or particular card combo that inspires the deck. Then I go through a large swath of my cards looking for cards that play into the theme or combo. At this point I then narrow the field down by putting in the cards that have to be in there either because they are the best, or because they are the whole basis of the theme/combo. Which is actually a running joke among the deck building advice that I give to friends, which is to take out whatever spells they have and replace them with counterspells, replace all your lands with Islands, and all your creatures with Morphlings. Back to the deck process, after seeing how much room I have left, I'll often then get rid of a bunch of cards that I know aren't going to be put in the deck. At this point there are probably about 5-7 more potential cards then there are spots. So then I make the hard decisions. Although because I don't make decks that often I generally give weight to cards I haven't used before.

I actually play lite on answers, this is for a couple reasons, one it is less fun during the building process, takes up room that could be used for other cards. Two, answers are problematic especially if you're playing against a large variety of decks, you can have the wrong answers, too many answers, ineffective answers. Better just to have more threats. Finally, I generally play a lot of search or deck manipulation, that allows me to get to the smaller number of answers.

 

[Oversoul]

I haven't built a deck in a long time. And I'm mostly focusing on combo decks anyway. But I used to build regular decks. I did it in two different ways. Usually, any deck I built the second way was built AFTER my experience with the first way, but there may have been a few exceptions...

Formula 1:

Step 1: Decide what type of deck I'm interested in. Is it a generic aggro deck? Is there a particular card I want to build the deck around? I try to narrow down as much as possible the details I do want to include.

Step 2: Go through my entire collection looking for relevant cards. Usually I already have a color or combination of colors worked out, but if I don't, I go through everything. Pull anything I might want to use and either throw it all into one pile or categorize it by color or creature/noncreature or whatever I think will be most useful.

Step 3: Trim down the monstrous pile of cards until I have something more streamlined. Usually, I'd build a "yes" pile, a "maybe" pile, and a "no" pile.

Step 4: Add lands. This varied depending on the type of deck. Usually, I'd go with 24-25 lands if the deck was more than two colors, and 22-24 lands if it was two colors. Then 20-22 lands if the deck was only one color. But there were definitely exceptions. My Academy deck certainly didn't have 20 lands. I think it had 13.

Step 5: Modify the deck to based on mana curves, potential weaknesses, etc.

Step 6: Shuffle the cards and play the new deck against nothing to get an idea of how smoothly it runs, how fast it is, and whether any changes need to be made. This was done 2-5 times and usually didn't result in any deck-editing.

Step 7: Playtest the deck against some of my own existing decks. I played both sides of the field. I played Magic against myself A LOT back in the day. I think this more than makes up for not playing it now.

Step 8: Modify the deck based on playtesting results. Sometimes it was already as good as I could make it. Other times I was able to make some changes I'd missed before.

Step 9: Play the deck against other players in real games.

Formula 2:

Step 1: Decide what type of deck I wanted to build. Consider the cards that might usually go into such a deck and recall whether I had such cards. 90% of ideas were scrapped at this step because I was missing some rares or something.

Step 2: Type up a list of cards that might go well in this deck.

Step 3: Ask Nick (my friend) for suggestions.

Step 4: While looking on the web for card ideas, stumble across a decklist that is exactly like mine, only strictly superior. Meet it halfway and make something that was better than my deck, but still worse than the netdeck.

Step 5: Playtest the new deck filling in cards I don't have with proxies.

Step 6: Buy the missing cards.

Step 7: Play the deck against other players in real games.

Don't do what I did. I am the worst deckbuilder ever.

 

[Spiderman]

So is Mooseman or Oversoul the worst deckbuilder?

 

[Melkor]

As man is flawed, so shall all he creates be also flawed, therefore the more effort you put in, the more flawed the deck. Randomness is probably the best bet.

 

[Oversoul]

So is Mooseman or Oversoul the worst deckbuilder?

He THINKS he is the worst deckbuilder ON THIS SITE. I AM the worst deckbuilder EVER.

The answer is clear.

 

[Killer Joe]

Mooseman may build decks ten minutes before he leaves to go play magic but he's no deck building slacker. He's quite good!

His formula starts something like this: "Honey!? Where are my Islands?"