[Article] Breaking Down Deckbuilding Based on the Legacy Metagame

[Di]

Linky

This article essentially stems from how I apply deckbuilding theory to Legacy and how it effects the ways I design decks (although I didn't label it as my own in the article). Doing things with this sort of mindset has been really beneficial to me, so I wanted to share this and see if others felt the same way.

It's fairly abstract, but I wrote this to explore the ways we come up with playing decks, why we play them, and how we approach what we put into them. I then pretty much take the concepts I introduce and provide what I believe is an ideal example on what this means. I'll admit there are actually a couple holes that I didn't end up covering in the article, but for the most part it's pretty thorough.

So have fun.

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

Linky

This article essentially stems from how I apply deckbuilding theory to Legacy and how it effects the ways I design decks (although I didn't label it as my own in the article). Doing things with this sort of mindset has been really beneficial to me, so I wanted to share this and see if others felt the same way.

It's fairly abstract, but I wrote this to explore the ways we come up with playing decks, why we play them, and how we approach what we put into them. I then pretty much take the concepts I introduce and provide what I believe is an ideal example on what this means. I'll admit there are actually a couple holes that I didn't end up covering in the article, but for the most part it's pretty thorough.

So have fun.

I love deckbuilding theory so I definitely enjoyed this one. I thought the theoretical explanations and considerations were well expressed, clear and effective. The different levels on which you can take the metagame into account (from deckchoice to tweaking) are a very important tool to understand for any deckbuilder and I thought you explained them well.
Taking a look at the different information sets you need to process to actually predict the metagame and the different options in how you can react to your conclusions are also a subject that is far to rarely discussed on this kind of fundamental level.

The part of the article I found a little disappointing was the "applied" part. The analysis of Adam Cai's Maverick list, while spot on, didn't do much to illustrate how the actual thinking processes start shaping the decklist while you're working on it.
Instead what we got was "he did this and this and this and that was a good idea for the metagame he was expecting". Or so it seemed to me.

Taking any deck - even simply a standard Maverick list - and walking us through the thought processes of switching cards around in detail (along the lines of "ok, I want to beat this. What cards are very good at that? X and Y - so how do I get them into the decklist? Which cards should be cut for them and why?") until you reach the finished product - Adam Cai's list you used, for example - would have been more fruitful in my opinion.

[Di]

I love deckbuilding theory so I definitely enjoyed this one. I thought the theoretical explanations and considerations were well expressed, clear and effective. The different levels on which you can take the metagame into account (from deckchoice to tweaking) are a very important tool to understand for any deckbuilder and I thought you explained them well.
Taking a look at the different information sets you need to process to actually predict the metagame and the different options in how you can react to your conclusions are also a subject that is far to rarely discussed on this kind of fundamental level.

The part of the article I found a little disappointing was the "applied" part. The analysis of Adam Kai's Maverick list, while spot on, didn't do much too illustrate how the actual thinking processes start shaping the decklist while you're working on it.
Instead what we got was "he did this and this and this and that was a good idea for the metagame he was expecting". Or so it seemed to me.

Taking any deck - even simply a standard Maverick list - and walking us through the thought processes of switching cards around in detail (along the lines of "ok, I want to beat this. What cards are very good at that? X and Y - so how do I get them into the decklist? Which cards should be cut for them and why?") until you reach the finished product - Adam Cai's list you used, for example - would have been more fruitful in my opinion.

Glad you enjoyed it. I too love these kinds of topics and wish they were more widely discussed and written about.

I agree that the "applied" part of the article was a little thin and completely understand your criticisms there. I intended to go a bit further in depth with this process and actually initially wrote it as such, but decided to back off and simply keep it at a high-level process and analysis so it was easy to understand for any generic example. That way it was simply "step 1 + step 2 + step 3 = finished product." My goal was really just to examine that part of the process as a whole, and not necessarily use it to scrutinize every individual detail for how we come to each slot. I did outline this facet when I discussed it and it is indeed a crucial part of the process, but I left that up for the reader to decide what they want to do. I simply got them to think about the idea in the first place.

Had I for instance taken a stock Maverick list, dissected it, and then evolved it into the Adam Cai list it would've indeed been a more detailed illustration of that process. However, I felt that could've possibly taken something away from someone reading this with a generic idea mind rather than driving in a specific example with my own interpretations as to why Adam cut or didn't cut something. Honestly if I wanted to do that, I could've written the entire article about it (maybe an idea for the future?). But I wanted to stay away from that type of example because I really wanted this to be as generic as possible and also applicable for any format and reader, so I had to gloss over the scrutinizing details in this regard.

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

I can see where you're coming from as far as the benefits of keeping it as widely applicable as possible are concerned, though I'm a big believer in illustrating theory by going through the process it applies to step by step after giving the abstract explanation. I find that it helps people grasp the concepts you're trying to teach better than a purely theoretical approach (not limited to Magic).
Admittedly doing that is likely the size of an article all of its own as you said, so just doing it in another one is probably a good solution. I know I constantly have trouble to stay within the expected word count, and my "wanna do it all at once" approach probably has something to do with that *g*

[xfxf]

Maybe another article which discusses an applicable example for a non-linear deck like Maverick or RUG :)?

[Blitzbold]

Thank you for an awesome article, Colin. It's great to read this kind of article from time to time (again) and am looking for similar stuff in the future. Actually ,I just looked for your other work you did previously for TCGplayer. Isn't this the successor of 'Brainburst' (from like a decade ago) by the way?

[Di]

Maybe another article which discusses an applicable example for a non-linear deck like Maverick or RUG :)?

Possibly in the future as I mentioned in my previous post, but it won't be for a while. I'll at least try to keep things fresh as far as topics go.

Thank you for an awesome article, Colin. It's great to read this kind of article from time to time (again) and am looking for similar stuff in the future. Actually ,I just looked for your other work you did previously for TCGplayer. Isn't this the successor of 'Brainburst' (from like a decade ago) by the way?

TCGPlayer is indeed the successor to Brainburst. I'm not entirely sure on their relationship in whether or not Brainburst was bought out or simply received a tremendous facelift, but anything on the web related to them redirects to TCGPlayer.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Very well said and I agree with the points you made, they are completely accurate. The one thing I wish you would have done other than what MGC said was to actually point out the changes that were made.

What your article and I feel most people gloss over is what cards a deck loses by adding in these neat tricks like Elesh + Retainers. You got so close to saying it, but all you said was "This is at the cost of five maindeck slots." Yes, 5 slots were used, but let's look at what cards we specifically lose by taking out those particular 5 slots. In our quest to make a continually better deck, could we have replaced 5 other cards than the ones we replaced? The same thing goes for the sideboard slots, if you want to add, say, 5 cards in to make a matchup better and you only have 3 slots right now, you really have to think not only about the cards that you don't get to have in your sideboard instead, you have to think about what cards to take out of your maindeck when putting them in.

For the first point, let's compare Adam's list and top placing maverick list, the second place finisher: Todd Anderson's Maverick. Those 5 cards came at the price of another Aven Mindcensor, Qasali Pridemage, Scavenging Ooze, Thalia, and Sylvan Library. Now we really need to look at what he lost by doing this. Aven Mindcensor is very good at shutting off GSZ in the mirror match as well as Stoneforge or any combo decks. Qasali is a catch-all, who in the mirror hits a Jitte (pretty huge). Ooze shores up some matchups like Dredge, but in the mirror isn't that impressive (unless it hits an Elesh?). Thalia is great against combo, bad in the mirror, and Sylvan is all-around great.

So really, Adam gave up 5 slots for a combo that shuts the mirror out, assuming that the mirror player doesn't have something like Ooze or Mindcensor to shut it down immediately. Maybe this is a great decision, but were those 5 cards the absolute best to take out or did Adam just grab a bunch of 1-ofs and hope that he wouldn't ever want to see multiple Pridemages or Oozes in any matchups. I would have loved to see a breakdown of the exact cards lost, as to me this is as important or more important than the cards he put in.

Then we should also think if making your lands easier to hate by having more duals is really worth a blue splash, when you could always be playing more hate bears or artifacts (or even Mindbreak Traps) to hate out combo without jeopardizing your manabase.

Secondly, what you touched on a little bit and probably just didn't have room for, is sideboard replacements. What a lot of people don't understand is that if you put in 10 graveyard hate cards against Dredge, chances are not necessarily better that you'll beat them. I've seen so many people fall into this trap, by bastardizing their deck and throwing in a bunch of hate cards they can't actually win the game. People with 5 graveyard hate cards in hand lose to Narcomoebas and Stinkweed Imps. On this line, I would have liked to see some discussion on how the sideboard cards for the mirror would have added and detracted from the deck. Are there 4 bad cards in his deck in the mirror that he would want Gut Shot and Lin Vala in for? If there are 4, are there 5? Could we be playing 3 Gut Shots? How often do we want to draw them in this matchup?

I know these are incredibly difficult aspects of deck building, some of which might not have definitive answers without the ability to have infinite games played. I think a lot of this should be looked at like a math problem by answering how many of X card do you want in your hand to start out with, how many do you want in the entire matchup, etc., but a lot of times it isn't as simple as that.

[Koby]

I agree with many points Phoenix makes, and want to stress that a tournament deck is comprised of 75 cards in totality. The fluidity between Game 1 and post-SB games makes the "Side"-board all the more important, with special attention of how the transition occurs.

In Phoenix's example, suppose you add 10 graveyard hate cards, but completely disassemble the core of the deck in the process, are you better off than you were before? Are you advancing your own game plan ahead of stopping your opponents? I think this part is just as important in deckbuilding and tuning.

[Di]

Very well said and I agree with the points you made, they are completely accurate. The one thing I wish you would have done other than what MGC said was to actually point out the changes that were made.

What your article and I feel most people gloss over is what cards a deck loses by adding in these neat tricks like Elesh + Retainers. You got so close to saying it, but all you said was "This is at the cost of five maindeck slots." Yes, 5 slots were used, but let's look at what cards we specifically lose by taking out those particular 5 slots. In our quest to make a continually better deck, could we have replaced 5 other cards than the ones we replaced? The same thing goes for the sideboard slots, if you want to add, say, 5 cards in to make a matchup better and you only have 3 slots right now, you really have to think not only about the cards that you don't get to have in your sideboard instead, you have to think about what cards to take out of your maindeck when putting them in.

For the first point, let's compare Adam's list and top placing maverick list, the second place finisher: Todd Anderson's Maverick. Those 5 cards came at the price of another Aven Mindcensor, Qasali Pridemage, Scavenging Ooze, Thalia, and Sylvan Library. Now we really need to look at what he lost by doing this. Aven Mindcensor is very good at shutting off GSZ in the mirror match as well as Stoneforge or any combo decks. Qasali is a catch-all, who in the mirror hits a Jitte (pretty huge). Ooze shores up some matchups like Dredge, but in the mirror isn't that impressive (unless it hits an Elesh?). Thalia is great against combo, bad in the mirror, and Sylvan is all-around great.

So really, Adam gave up 5 slots for a combo that shuts the mirror out, assuming that the mirror player doesn't have something like Ooze or Mindcensor to shut it down immediately. Maybe this is a great decision, but were those 5 cards the absolute best to take out or did Adam just grab a bunch of 1-ofs and hope that he wouldn't ever want to see multiple Pridemages or Oozes in any matchups. I would have loved to see a breakdown of the exact cards lost, as to me this is as important or more important than the cards he put in.

In actuality, the only reason I didn't do this was because I didn't know specifically what Adam Cai did to the deck. Without knowing exactly what he removed, I didn't want to speculate based on someone else's list. I agree that it's worth examining what a deck loses in comparison to what is gaining, as if a card is being replaced it had some decent value originally so it should be explored. However, if Adam chose five cards to cut from the maindeck to make room for the combo, I believe he knew exactly what cards were stronger for the purpose he was needing them from. Sure an additional Ooze, Mindcensor, and Pridemage is decent in the mirror. But are the necessarily better than a Fauna Shaman engine and matchup trump with Elesh Norn? He obviously thought so if that's what made it into the list. Also, the removal of an additional Ooze, Pridemage, and Mindcensor is mitaged by the addition of Fauna Shaman and tutoring ability. This allows him to shave down those slots to make room for the combo while still having access to them, and even then having a more reliable means of accessing them (Fauna Shaman v. Sylvan Library).

Then we should also think if making your lands easier to hate by having more duals is really worth a blue splash, when you could always be playing more hate bears or artifacts (or even Mindbreak Traps) to hate out combo without jeopardizing your manabase.

I think he made the right call here. For instance, Mindbreak Trap doesn't do anything under a Gaddock Teeg, and is useless against Show and Tell. Spell Pierce has far better applications across most matchups, and is a great complement to Gaddock Teeg and Thalia. The manabase is the biggest concern here, but it's a matter of weighing pros and cons, and he must've felt the slightly weakened manabase was worth the cards added given they were better than anything else he could've added for those matchups.

Secondly, what you touched on a little bit and probably just didn't have room for, is sideboard replacements. What a lot of people don't understand is that if you put in 10 graveyard hate cards against Dredge, chances are not necessarily better that you'll beat them. I've seen so many people fall into this trap, by bastardizing their deck and throwing in a bunch of hate cards they can't actually win the game. People with 5 graveyard hate cards in hand lose to Narcomoebas and Stinkweed Imps. On this line, I would have liked to see some discussion on how the sideboard cards for the mirror would have added and detracted from the deck. Are there 4 bad cards in his deck in the mirror that he would want Gut Shot and Lin Vala in for? If there are 4, are there 5? Could we be playing 3 Gut Shots? How often do we want to draw them in this matchup?

I didn't end up going all out on sideboard replacement issues, but that's because that kind of discussion takes the article in a completely different direction. That's really an entirely different article all together. I only focused on the actual process of building the deck, not playing and managing it. I did outline that trap of people overloading sideboarding with my 43 Lands example, stating how that potentially ruins the deck post-board. But again that was really to warn them of making sideboards that can do that and avoid it in the first place. The in-depth sideboard replacement stuff is a great topic for discussion and something I can consider to write about if it's any consolation, but for this piece I think going any further with that would've likely derailed the article.