[Discussion] Deck Construction, Testing, & Balancing for Aggro, Control, & Combo.

[Complete_Jank]

I have 8 hours to waste sitting here on a secure installation all by myself, and it is just after midnight, so I've decided to type something that might help others and would be a good topic to have a discussion on.

While this will have some useful information, it is impossible to detail every situation that could ever arise in constructing a new deck or making a deck stronger.

Deck Construction
When constructing a deck to be competitive, you will always be weighing the costs and advantages of every card you put into the deck.
-Aggro decks look for the most efficient damage for the cost and resiliency against control.
-Control decks look for the cheapest card to control what they plan on playing the game around.
-Combo decks look for the fastest way to win with as much possible defense against disruption.

Card Choices
Card choices for each type are always decided on which is best usually by the following means:
Effect - What it does
Cost - How much does it cost.
Effect vs Cost - Does its cost out weight its effectiveness
Multiple uses - A card that may not be a dead card against most any deck.
Cantrip - Does it replace itself.
Card advantage - Does it yield more than one card gain over the opponent.
Synergy - Does it work well with other card choices.

The cheaper the cost, the less effect a card will usually have, unless it has an alternate casting cost, additional casting cost, or multiple colors in the casting cost.

Aggro usually bases its card choices mainly off the following: Cost, Effect vs Cost, Cantrip, and Synergy. These decks look to win quickly before control can establish control, or combo can win.

Control usually bases its card choices mainly off the following: Effect, Effect vs Cost, Multiple uses, Card advantage, and Synergy. These decks look to delay other decks from performing there designed task until they can control the game and let it run as they wish.

Combo usually bases its card choices mainly off the following: Effect, Cost, Cantrip, Card advantage, and Synergy. These decks look to win before other decks carry out there designed purpose.


One note on Synergy that I would like to mention. Many people like to recommend running a whole bunch of cards when you choose to run one card, just because they have synergy with one card you are using.

Synergy in a deck is great, but sooner or later you have to win. A deck can only have so much synergy and still be effective.


Also, when designing a deck it is possible to design your deck to have an auto loss game one against certain decks, but only if your sideboard can make the next two games above 75% in your favor. This will make the complete match 50/50 if you can win game 2. I know plenty of decks that concede game one after a few turns only to rock them after sideboard. This is usually done to strengthen other match-ups that aren't as easily corrected by sideboard cards, but I will explain this more in the Balancing the deck section.


Testing
I find that testing to be the key to success for any deck. Being able to play quickly and knowing what the proper choice is for the deck you are playing is helpful. You will play against individuals that are not familiar with their decks in tournament, which will create slow play and possibly play errors on their part. If you are also slow, you may draw games that would instead be wins, and this could change your finish from a top 8 to a top 32, especially if it happens early in the tourney. Being able to play fast, and then continue to ask your opponent when he is playing slow if he is done or if he has anything during each phase is a distraction. When you call a judge over and ask him to watch over your match for slow play it tends to put your opponent on edge. Having your opponent on edge will have him thinking of more than just what he is going to play, and can force play errors.

Now, how to test a deck.
There are different ways in which you can test a deck. Personally, living in San Diego is a great place to build decks. We can play test our decks vs Goblins, Threshold, Solidarity, and other main stream decks on our own time, as we have all those decks constructed, and are very familiar with them. Then we play them against the field at the local tourney every Friday which yields better results against random decks, unexpected cards, older tier 1 decks, and up-and-coming new decks. We also usually see one of the top 3 tier 1 decks in one of the rounds in the tourney as well. This allows us to correct weaknesses that are often unseen when you play against just the top tier decks.

I recommend taking the top 3 decks and playing 10 matches of 3 games each with sideboard. Play all 3 games no matter if it is 3-0. Then take the top 3 decks other than them in your local Meta and test against them the same. Keep track of preboard wins and post board wins. Note which cards you got sick of seeing, why you would loose games, and what you felt you wanted to see more of. After that is done try performing a mock tourney and see how you do. I recommend against online playing unless you know the other player and feel that it will provide productive results. After all is said and done, make small changes and reproach the testing until match %'s are maxed out at the best they can be.


Balancing a Deck against Aggro, Control, & Combo
Before sideboard most match-ups are as follows.
Aggro's match-up is usually good against Control but poor against Combo.
Control's match-up is usually good against Combo but poor against Aggro.
Combo's match-up is usually good against Aggro but poor against Control.

In each of these there are usually two methods to make your match-ups stronger. You either weaken your favorable match-up so that you have a better chance against you unfavorable match-up; or accept that you will loose against your unfavorable match-up game one, and play the sideboarded games as your two wins.

There are pros and cons to each, and I will discuss these.

Method 1, Equalizing your Match-ups:
Pros:
-You have a chance to win every game played.
-You have cards that will be useful in any match-up.
Cons:
-You put more emphasis on winning game one.
-You will have dead cards against some match-ups.
-You have to play tighter and better magic to win game one.
-Luck/Draw is more of a factor.

Method 2, Dominating your Match-ups:
Pros:
-Match-ups are usually more in your favor.
-In the games that matter you will have less dead cards, if any at all.
Cons:
-You practically give your unfavorable Match-ups an auto game win.
-Luck is less of a factor, but more of an effect on the outcome.
-You have to win 2 games straight.
-Playing the wrong choice of deck in this style can put you on having to win games 2 and 3 all day, if your choice was the wrong decision for the Metagame.


Which Method you choose should depend on your play skill and your play style. If you are very confident with your deck and how to play magic I recommend Method 2 as you can handle the fact that you can afford no mistakes. Method 1 is a little more forgiving.

[Silverdragon]

Well written but there's one thing I think that should be recognized. You're right that pure aggro decks have usually a bad matchup against combo decks and a good matchup against control decks however it should be noted that especially in Legacy there is no competitive aggro deck without some elements of control because Combo is just faster, and because Combo was for a long time missing from the meta decks like MWC or Rifter could emerge that were control decks that almost never lost to Aggro but couldn't win against Combo either.
Anyway thanks for some good info :)