A Treatise on Deckbuilding

[TheGildedGoose]

@TheAmericanSpirit Okay, that's fair. It's 100% a joke making fun of pretentious subtitles but I totally get how without context it could be read as mean spirited. I've already made edits reducing the snark to a more digestible amount, so I may as well get started on the right foot.

What's better verbage here? I'm partial to "annihilate" as it has the same number of syllables for maximum pomposity.

[tstorm823]

I don't think we can really talk about optimizing so much And I think that is kinda what rubs me the wrong way about this whole idea of deck building templates (which is how this ultimately sniffs to me). What makes a deck "good" is a question that needs to be answered with "good at what?"

Yeah! There's the philosophical uncertainty I was looking for! What makes a deck "good"? Is statistical analysis the best perspective to reach the desired deck state. When a deck comes into its own, does the player determine the ethos of the deck, or does the deck determine its own ethos and we can only choose to accept or reject it? Let's get epistemological! From where does truth come?

[DirkGently]

I mostly agree with this but it's bigger than winning. There is a lot of trends and fashion in commander and also a lot of like… how much salt things induce is meaningful too.

I was speaking more towards deck construction in MtG at large, but that is a good point in the context of commander.

Partly because of those considerations, and because the format still has some aversion to optimisation, not to mention the difficulties of optimising when everyone is playing on different budgets instead of the assumed unlimited budget of other formats, the wide range of commanders…it all creates an environment where most decks are pretty poorly optimised, and I think that's one of the format's greatest strengths. Every deck is a journey.

I really don't understand the appeal of formats where you can sit down and have a scientifically-optimised deck from day 1. What's even the point of a deck-building game if you aren't actively building it?

[TheGildedGoose]

From where does truth come?

Me.

Well, what does make a deck "good"? I'm all ears; this guide wasn't meant to be a shout into the void. This is a discussion forum. Let's actually discuss instead of rhetorically asking a question, shall we?

You'll note that I don't ever use "good" describe the decks I'm trying to inspire readers to craft precisely because it's a nebulous, ill-defined term (at least, I hope I didn't, but I don't have it all memorized). Is Attractive Women tribal "good"? What about Consultation Oracle.dec? It's a meaningless value-judgment half the time and an arbitrary quality-descriptor the other half, so I have no use for it. Instead, I would like to focus on the term well-made as I believe it to be what I am looking to guide intermediate players towards. I could be clearer with this thesis, for sure.

What constitutes a well-made deck? To me, it's one that has a cohesive game plan starting from your opening hand to the final stages of the game. A well-built deck will be relatively consistent, fairly resilient, and have a few different lines of play to either win the game or deal with a problem that is preventing you from winning. This could be better iterated upon, but I would like to work a solid definition into the post.

Is statistical analysis the best perspective to reach the desired deck state.

It's certainly a useful tool for reducing variance, which is the true enemy in deckbuilding.

When a deck comes into its own, does the player determine the ethos of the deck, or does the deck determine its own ethos and we can only choose to accept or reject it?

Now this is a good question.

I would say it's both to a degree, but in my experience it's usually the latter. On the quest of optimization, sometimes the end result isn't anything like you started out with, and thus we determine if it's a concept we think should be optimized or if we should settle for a lower level of optimization. Take my Daretti list. Is it the most effective overall Daretti list you can make? No. Is it an effective list for what I'm trying to do (reanimate robots)? Yes. It could be a little bit better with some money investment into better rocks and such, but within the confines that I set for myself I think it's pretty good.

I think that's an important thing to bring up, actually: "the confines you set for yourself." There are always confines if you're not playing true cEDH.

... it all creates an environment where most decks are pretty poorly optimised, and I think that's one of the format's greatest strengths. Every deck is a journey.

I disagree that it's a strength, and quite frankly, given your recent playgroup troubles, I'm surprised you would say this. But maybe we want different things from a game of EDH.

I find it extremely annoying to sit down and play against a very poorly constructed deck because it contributes to what makes a non-game for me. If I steamroll, or get steamrolled, I'm not going to have a good time, and if I'm playing a de-powered precon, Goat tribal, and SNC_draft_chaff.dec I'm statistically likely to steamroll them. Of course, this all highlights the value of a pregame discussion, but people are often bad at estimating the power level of their decks, so...

I really don't understand the appeal of formats where you can sit down and have a scientifically-optimised deck from day 1. What's even the point of a deck-building game if you aren't actively building it?

I agree. One of the things I like most about EDH is the wide open nature of brewing. Because there is no real "meta" outside of cEDH or a very specific playgroup, you're free to experiment and do things that normally don't work in competitive formats.

[Gentle Giant]

I think the questions from Pokken and tstorm823 are really helping this thread's discussion: looking at your responses to tstorm823's points, you lay out some important elements of how you perceive a deck's quality.

You mention well-made as a descriptor that side-steps using the word 'good' and with it, you share a perspective that isn't absolute, but definitely your own. Hence I agree that it's a good idea to add the definition to give your piece more context and nuance. To me, the things you mention when describing well-made inherently limit the possibilities within deckbuilding. A clear plan to win, consistency, resiliency, and several avenues to victory all place serious constraints on both deck space and consequently the room for self-expression. Additionally, they place constraints on one's gameplay experience/goal for the deck. Those things can tend to make deckbuilding a more clinical process, something I don't really subscribe to and what makes EDH appeal to me (as all other formats basically already demand the clinical eye: in my case cube and limited).
Your remark on variance being the enemy of deckbuilding similarly fits your definition of well-made, but it's again something which I wouldn't agree with. To me, variance is the spice of the play experience, and my deck is allowed to surprise me. tstorm823's remark of a deck's ethos neatly follows this too: some decks won't be 'tamed' by statistics and your idea of well-made, as they define success on wildly different axes. You would probably reject them, whereas others such as I would take that on willingly.

Lastly: optimalization can die in a fire (there, overly-unapologetic-and-unnuanced-statement: check)

All kidding aside though, I'm not trying to say what you're doing is wrong or anything, different strokes 'n all that. It's a good read and it's useful for people building from your perspective and desired play experience.

P.S. As the piece currently stands, it's definitely not epistemological in the slightest, I agree with tstorm823 there.

[TheGildedGoose]

You mention well-made as a descriptor that side-steps using the word 'good' and with it, you share a perspective that isn't absolute, but definitely your own. Hence I agree that it's a good idea to add the definition to give your piece more context and nuance. To me, the things you mention when describing well-made inherently limit the possibilities within deckbuilding. A clear plan to win, consistency, resiliency, and several avenues to victory all place serious constraints on both deck space and consequently the room for self-expression. Additionally, they place constraints on one's gameplay experience/goal for the deck. Those things can tend to make deckbuilding a more clinical process, something I don't really subscribe to and what makes EDH appeal to me (as all other formats basically already demand the clinical eye: in my case cube and limited).

Certainly, EDH, as a casual format, has lots of differing perspectives on what makes a given game of EDH enjoyable. From the cEDH "anything goes" crowd to the most casual "no attacks, removal, or counterspells before turn 12" groups, there's ultimately no accounting for taste. I do agree that this way of thinking ultimately limits the possibilities of deckbuilding, but I think it's a good thing. Most deck possibilities are bad. Real bad. "Cards with art that vaguely resemble Liam Neeson tribal" levels of bad. In my opinion, raising the power level of the format a little bit for casual players who want to more easily compete at their FLGS or on Spelltable is a Good Thing^TM for everyone involved, as players like me get more interesting games and newer players that lack deckbuilding know-how are better able to put a deck together. Unfortunately, this leaves some people out, but I would hope that those players are self-selected (cEDH, flavor-builders like yourself, etc).

Your remark on variance being the enemy of deckbuilding similarly fits your definition of well-made, but it's again something which I wouldn't agree with. To me, variance is the spice of the play experience, and my deck is allowed to surprise me. tstorm823's remark of a deck's ethos neatly follows this too: some decks won't be 'tamed' by statistics and your idea of well-made, as they define success on wildly different axes. You would probably reject them, whereas others such as I would take that on willingly.

There's an adage one of my old DMs used when I was playing D&D: "the dice are the enemy." Unless your DM is a sadist, anyway. If they're playing fair and doing their best to adjudicate things properly, really, it's the dice rolls that you have to watch out for, because one failed saving throw and suddenly your min/maxed barbarian is hacking away at your wizard friend. Similarly, in terms of deckbuilding, I find that variance is always what I'm trying to combat. Trying to find the right number of ramp spells, card draw spells, removal, win cons, etc. I thoroughly enjoy that process, but I also understand it's not for everyone.

I think ultimately, this guide just isn't for you or for people that build like you. Which is fine, really; different strokes, as you point out. But you sound like you know what you're doing well-enough as it is, especially if you Cube/play Limited.

All kidding aside though, I'm not trying to say what you're doing is wrong or anything, different strokes 'n all that. It's a good read and it's useful for people building from your perspective and desired play experience.

I don't have any data to back up my claim but from years of playing at various FLGSs over the years I would say it's probably the most common perspective, even if the players themselves don't know it yet. I win a disproportionate amount of the time in large part because I'm a decent player and a better deckbuilder, but also because I tend to take it more seriously than the typical FLGS goer. Many of the people I beat complain that they would've won if X had happened or they drew into Y, but the underlying concern is that casual or not they're playing to win and they would win more games if they tightened up their deckbuilding skills. I don't want to win at all costs, but I do like winning, as it feels nice to have a little reward for my deckbuilding and play skill.

P.S. As the piece currently stands, it's definitely not epistemological in the slightest, I agree with tstorm823 there.

I mean, thatsthejoke.jpg, but I guess if enough people are complaining about it I can come up with a similarly silly yet more accurate title. I'm intentionally trying to emulate continental philosophy text titles, so maybe something like "A Brief Treatise on Deckbuilding" or "On the Assemblage of Decks?"

I definitely want to contrast it with the subtitle, which I think is obviously written in a style trying to emulate Sun Tzu.

Also, while I'm here, I'm trying to think of a good commander to build an example deck for and having a hard time meeting the following criteria:

1) Non-green, so I can use mana rocks instead of mana dorks because the math is easier that way.
2) Midrange-oriented, non-combo, because almost all precons are built this way.
3) Not 4mv, as virtually every deck I build ends up using a 4mv commander and that makes the math too easy.
4) Wins through combat, but isn't necessarily creature-focused.

I'm kind of leaning towards Ghen, Arcanum Weaver, as it presents an obvious theme (enchantments) that will manifest very well in the Meat and Taters section.

[pokken]

For me a deck is good if it does what I want. What I want is to always be involved in the game, to always be doing its thing, and to usually be doing some kind of subversion of expectation.

It's very different than optimizing because a lot of time optimizing win rate creates higher variance play. Cedh decks are wildly variant in their hand quality and they often lose to themselves. This is because to win you need to go first and have a great hand or great draws so you while you try to reduce variance with tutors you have to play so much ramp and interaction that it's very easy to get wrong-halfed or to have to play gambles of hands (things that fold to a free counterspell is a big example).

So my decks usually are designed to reduce my bad experiences more than to create wins which means more lands and more redundancy and resiliency. If my goal is to not have a bad time it changes how things are done.

[DirkGently]

... it all creates an environment where most decks are pretty poorly optimised, and I think that's one of the format's greatest strengths. Every deck is a journey.

I disagree that it's a strength, and quite frankly, given your recent playgroup troubles, I'm surprised you would say this. But maybe we want different things from a game of EDH.

I envy my playgroup tbh. Starting from the bottom and working your way up is super fun imo. I remember discovering new cards on anycraze back in 2002 and going "whoa, Avatar of Woe is the most busted thing I've ever heard of! I want it so bad!" while brushing off fetchlands and $20 ABU duals. Though I don't think anyone gets to be THAT naive anymore...

But also more to the point, the issue with my playgroup is mostly play skill. Yes, John's deckbuilding skills leave a lot to be desired but they've all got precons and precons aren't that bad. The relatively weak decks just make it harder to ameliorate the larger issue of skill discrepancy.

This is also a pretty extreme case, I would argue. I'm extremely experienced with an unlimited budget, and they're extremely inexperienced and insular with low budgets (outside of John, and he doesn't know how to use it properly). That's not a significant knock against the situation in the format at large. Most of the time the power level spread isn't nearly this extreme.

I find it extremely annoying to sit down and play against a very poorly constructed deck because it contributes to what makes a non-game for me. If I steamroll, or get steamrolled, I'm not going to have a good time, and if I'm playing a de-powered precon, Goat tribal, and SNC_draft_chaff.dec I'm statistically likely to steamroll them. Of course, this all highlights the value of a pregame discussion, but people are often bad at estimating the power level of their decks, so...

Being multiplayer mitigates that significantly. One player having a weak deck doesn't mean the rest of the table gets steamrolled. And that player has a much better chance of winning in commander than in a 1v1 format with a similar power discrepancy. Yes, extreme imbalances can still result in poor games but on average I think it's easily worth it for the extreme variety. Looking at cEDH and other constructed formats makes it crystal clear what commander would look like if commander was properly optimised, and it's not a pretty picture.

I really don't understand the appeal of formats where you can sit down and have a scientifically-optimised deck from day 1. What's even the point of a deck-building game if you aren't actively building it?

I agree. One of the things I like most about EDH is the wide open nature of brewing. Because there is no real "meta" outside of cEDH or a very specific playgroup, you're free to experiment and do things that normally don't work in competitive formats.

Absolutely.

[3drinks]

I'm kind of leaning towards Ghen, Arcanum Weaver, as it presents an obvious theme (enchantments) that will manifest very well in the Meat and Taters section.

If you do Ghen, I'm interested to see that. Because my mind can't see that going anywhere but prison strats.

[TheGildedGoose]

Well, I updated the thread title and added this section before the rest of the information:

What Makes a Deck "Good," Anyway?

Before we get in too deep, I'd like to discuss the aims of this post. It's aimed at newer and intermediate deckbuilders who may find themselves struggling to build decks that perform to their liking. This guide is intended to help those deckbuilders understand deckbuilding fundamentals that will inform their selection process and give them a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of deck construction. It's most certainly not about building the best possible deck for competitive EDH without budget restrictions. Indeed, if you're not playing cEDH, there will always be some sort of confine you set for the deck you're building, be it budgetary, power level, or conceptual element, and it's important to keep that in mind.

As for what makes a deck "good," well, I prefer the term "well-made." A well-made deck will have a cohesive game plan starting with your opening hand through the late game. It will be somewhat consistent, fairly resilient, and have multiple options with which to win and deal with problems that prevent you from winning. Fundamentally, a well-made deck will be able to execute its designer's vision, be it a blue-based control deck or a Gruul theme deck.

Also, here's a quick decklist I put together for Ghen, focusing on reanimating or ramping into big, dumb enchantments:

Curses, Foiled Again

DecklistCMCManaPricesChartsDraw 7

Commander

1 Ghen, Arcanum Weaver

Land

1 Blightstep Pathway

1 Bojuka Bog

1 Brightclimb Pathway

1 Clifftop Retreat

1 Command Tower

1 Dragonskull Summit

1 Eiganjo, Seat of the Empire

1 Fetid Heath

1 Geier Reach Sanitarium

1 Graven Cairns

1 Hall of Heliod's Generosity

1 Haunted Ridge

1 Isolated Chapel

1 Luxury Suite

2 Mountain

1 Needleverge Pathway

1 Nomad Outpost

1 Path of Ancestry

10 Plains

1 Rugged Prairie

1 Shattered Sanctum

1 Spectator Seating

1 Sundown Pass

1 Swamp

1 Takenuma, Abandoned Mire

1 Vault of Champions

Some Enchantments I Guess: 22

1 Aegis of the Gods

1 Agent of Erebos

1 Assemble the Legion

1 Captive Audience

1 Cruel Reality

1 Curse of Exhaustion

1 Curse of Opulence

1 Curse of Silence

1 Curse of Stalked Prey

1 Eidolon of Obstruction

1 Eidolon of Rhetoric

1 Heliod, God of the Sun

1 Michiko's Reign of Truth // Portrait of Michiko

1 Noble Heritage

1 Overwhelming Splendor

1 Phyrexian Scriptures

1 Scion of Halaster

1 Sigil of the Empty Throne

1 Spirit-Sister's Call

1 Starfield of Nyx

1 The Birth of Meletis

1 The Eldest Reborn

Removal: 14

1 Anguished Unmaking

1 Blasphemous Act

1 Damn

1 Doomwake Giant

1 Generous Gift

1 Journey to Nowhere

1 Mythos of Snapdax

1 Oblivion Ring

1 Path to Exile

1 Seal of Cleansing

1 Seal of Doom

1 Swords to Plowshares

1 Terminate

1 Vandalblast

Ramp: 12

1 Arcane Signet

1 Boros Signet

1 Fellwar Stone

1 Liquimetal Torque

1 Mind Stone

1 Orzhov Signet

1 Rakdos Signet

1 Sol Ring

1 Talisman of Conviction

1 Talisman of Hierarchy

1 Talisman of Indulgence

1 Thought Vessel

Replenish: 3

1 Auramancer

1 Brilliant Restoration

1 Resurgent Belief

Tutor/Draw: 12

1 Big Score

1 Faithless Looting

1 Idyllic Tutor

1 Moon-Blessed Cleric

1 Oread of Mountain's Blaze

1 Pirate's Pillage

1 Seize the Spoils

1 Spirited Companion

1 Thrill of Possibility

1 Tormenting Voice

1 Treacherous Blessing

1 Unexpected Windfall

Approximate Total Cost:

With the exception of Starfield of Nyx, every card is under $10. It clocks in at just over $200, which is reasonable, I think.

@3drinks It's kind of a prison list, still, but with a broader game plan of "let's take a giant dump on the game and see what happens."

[Legend]

I appreciate the OP. I think of a "good" deck as one that's fun to play with and against and that is effective in that it does what I intend for it to do. Bonus if it does something cool that I didn't intend!
I used to have a monoblack poison deck that I only played occasionally because, while it was effective at winning via poison, it was only fun to play with and against once in a while.

[EonAon]

To add here a technique for when I "finish" a deck that works especially well for me is after we get the lets say 60 +or- of the main deck I lay out the cards by color. Works best with 2 color or 3 color. After 4 color your basically optimizing the best by what you have on hand and can afford overall to create a stable manabase.

For example:

All red here all black here all multicolor here any colorless cards here and pretty much ignored unless you have a very HIGH cc artifact

It helps breakdown the total amount of each color to see how many double triple of any color in the deck and you can see how much flex the multicolor is going to need so that they can factor in as well. The visual rep of each color not seen as a overall CC pile that many players can and do use allows you to visualize how many basics to fix to can I afford this utility land/s. When you lay out by CC you can lose the forest for the trees knowing you have to hit a overall goal of total lands and this method brings back to your vison of am I leaning red or black or ???

Also anyone that buys a precon should bin Temple of the False God. Freaking horrible card they put in EVERY precon.

[EonAon]

The board wont let me put spaces between all red and so on even WITH spacebar and refuses to let it be tabbed either joy. Should be a inch of space between the all red all back ect.

[pokken]

I appreciate the OP. I think of a "good" deck as one that's fun to play with and against and that is effective in that it does what I intend for it to do. Bonus if it does something cool that I didn't intend!
I used to have a monoblack poison deck that I only played occasionally because, while it was effective at winning via poison, it was only fun to play with and against once in a while.

I really appreciate people knowing that a deck can be fun in doses.

[DirkGently]

Also anyone that buys a precon should bin Temple of the False God. Freaking horrible card they put in EVERY precon.

It's not that bad. I mean, I definitely wouldn't put it into any old deck, but if you're land-ramping into a 6+ cost commander it can be a solid choice, especially if you're only in 1-2 colors.

Imo the most egregious inclusions are things like vivids and evolving wilds in 2c decks. There are so many guildgate-tier duals that are basically strictly better and cost nothing.

[pokken]

It's not that bad. I mean, I definitely wouldn't put it into any old deck, but if you're land-ramping into a 6+ cost commander it can be a solid choice, especially if you're only in 1-2 colors.

Imo the most egregious inclusions are things like vivids and evolving wilds in 2c decks. There are so many guildgate-tier duals that are basically strictly better and cost nothing.

Temple gets hated on because it's real bad in three color turn five combo decks with 15 signets. I'm convinced that is what your average internet denizen thinks is normal.

If you're playing cultivate in a two color deck temple is a fine budget card and even defensible if you're in exploration effects. I was never sorry to see it in gitrog casual back when.

I am getting so tired of the constant whining from new school ramp kiddies when they play all their signets miss two land drops then die to vandalblast. Then they make fun of the dude playing temple who is still playing:p

[TheGildedGoose]

new school ramp kiddies

No bias here.

when they play all their signets miss two land drops then die to vandalblast. Then they make fun of the dude playing temple who is still playing:p

I don't know, I never played Temple, but anecdotally I've seen more people lose because they play Temple and don't have the number of lands to support it than people getting their rocks blown out with Vandalblast.

[pokken]

Oh dude I wrote an article on it. It's no secret I hate the 2 cmc ramp revolution. It makes games shorter and higher variance and it's so tedious. And yes it is "better" but if I wanted to watch someone pull a slot machine I'd go to Vegas.

Ancient tomb talisman sol ring signet go. Ok shuffle up

Re temple

It's no surprise given how fast you play that you see more people punished by temple. It's not a great card and you can definitely lose to it. But if you're playing slower and have ways to find lands it can be decent. You'll note I don't play any because my metas are too fast.

[Legend]

I've seen more people lose because they play Temple and don't have the number of lands to support it than people getting their rocks blown out with Vandalblast.

I think of Temple of the False God and similar lands as rocks rather than lands.
For that matter, I consider all lands that can't produce mana on their own, as artifacts - i.e., in terms of mana, it does no good to count The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale as a land.

[3drinks]

Oh dude I wrote an article on it. It's no secret I hate the 2 cmc ramp revolution. It makes games shorter and higher variance and it's so tedious. And yes it is "better" but if I wanted to watch someone pull a slot machine I'd go to Vegas.

Ancient tomb talisman sol ring signet go. Ok shuffle up

Re temple

It's no surprise given how fast you play that you see more people punished by temple. It's not a great card and you can definitely lose to it. But if you're playing slower and have ways to find lands it can be decent. You'll note I don't play any because my metas are too fast.

Let them. These players are why I'm back on Titania's Song ..........

"Hey, I didn't play Null Rod, can't get mad......"

[pokken]

I am so so ready for white collector ouphe.

[3drinks]

I am so so ready for white collector ouphe.

It has a name y'know. Kataki, War's Wage

[DirkGently]

If you're playing cultivate in a two color deck temple is a fine budget card and even defensible if you're in exploration effects.

I don't think it's just a budget card. I've been surprised how many decks it fits into. Sure, Ancient Tomb is a lot more versatile, but I think most land-heavy 1-2 color decks get good use from it. There aren't many lands that accelerate your mana without requiring any mana investment. It does get worse if you're focusing on artifact ramp or if you like to play land-light decks, but I think people tend to go too land-light on average, personally. Unlike the vivids, I think it has a real place in the format.

[EonAon]

Eh every time I've gotten temple even in a 34-35 land deck has been too early and screwed me more than just chucking a basic in its spot. Temple of the false gods and I have never clicked.

[DirkGently]

even in a 34-35 land deck

uh...

I think people tend to go too land-light on average