In Development – Decisive Deck Design
Posted by Alexander Shearer
May 11, 2010 |
If you've played me sometime in the last year or so at a real-world event, you might have encountered a board like this one:
Let's focus in on those three dudes on the right who clearly didn't come from Renton, Washington:
Those particularly surly examples of Saprolings were originally Citadel Combat Cards, a Games Workshop product that took pictures from their Warhammer miniatures game lines, stuck some numbers on them, and gave rudimentary instructions for games you could play with them.
I used to be a big-time Games Workshop gamer, playing Warhammer 40,000, Space Hulk, and, far more avidly, their Epic-scale line of games. I used to read every issue of Game Workshop's Magazine, White Dwarf, which was sort of the "Daily MTG” of Games Workshop game lines back in the day.
One article in particular was a real game-changer for me, and it guides today's discussion of Magic deck design. Although it was written for games involving little plastic and metal tanks and infantry, the core message applies quite generally:
Be decisive.
You may have heard some variation of the expression "A good plan aggressively executed today is better than a perfect plan carried out tomorrow.” This is an excellent point when we consider Magic game play, but I'm not going to address that right now. I think some of the best lessons on making the choice to carry out the "good” plan now can be found in LSV's game play videos, where you can watch him make the decisive choice that entails some risk, but is fundamentally correct.
Instead, I'm going to take a stab at looking at decisiveness in deck design.
Uncertainty is scary
We are tuned to be excited about new things but afraid of investing ourselves into those new things. This makes some amount of evolutionary sense – it's good for us to be very attentive to our environment, but it's also good if we don't eat any old random poisoned plant we find on the ground the first time we wander into a new valley. It's probably better to see if the local animals eat the plants, or just wait until someone else takes the plunge and either dies or doesn't.
In Magic, this maps onto the paradoxical mix of our excitement about each new set and our reticence to actually push into new design spaces once that set arrives.
Any time – and I do mean any time – an author presents a deck list that differs significantly from the general category of decks that have gone before, they get the expected "What are you doing? You're ruining it!” responses – along with a welcome discussion of the wisdom of the approach, specific card choices, and so forth. I attribute that first set of responses, the immediate denial, to our intrinsic risk aversion. We look at the design, it's different from what we expect, and millions of years of evolution are rapidly misapplied to tell us "Don't play this one at FNM. The plant is poisoned, and you're gonna die.”
Take a look at this list:
Brilliant Tentacles (by Alex Viksnins)
Would you play this list? Ever? I'd bet real money that this would have garnered a host of negative responses if anyone at ChannelFireball put it up two weeks ago, and some of you may still be shaking your heads at this ‘terrible' deck.
But it top eighted a 5K in Boston.
Then take a look at this one:
Geopede Jund (by John Pham and Josh Utter-Leyton)
This is a lovely aggro Jund list, and it took John Pham to first place in the most recent Bay Area PTQ, as well as putting Josh Utter-Leyton into the top eight.
It clearly has some unexpected choices – choices that weren't showing up in articles discussing Jund ahead of this past weekend. Be honest with yourself and ask "What would I have thought of this idea last week?” It's a Jund deck with four copies of Evolving Wilds, four Plated Geopedes, and a dearth of removal spells. It has a wacky sideboard plan of swapping in an Island and four copies of Sedraxis Specter.
I think it's brilliant, but I also think a lot of people would auto-deny it as a concept, and try to call Josh and John out for ‘ruining' Jund.
Okay, so I've put up two winning lists that I think a lot of players would have just passed on without a second thought. What's the take home message here?
Why be decisive?
Before going into why, let's clarify the ‘what' here. What does it mean to be decisive in deck design?
Essentially, decisiveness in deck design means being willing to actually test a new concept, then, if it works out reasonably well, pushing it a little harder than you might intuitively like and actually playing it.
Consider John and Josh's Jund list. We don't know exactly how they came to the idea of Plated Geopedes and Evolving Wilds – it could have come from the Geopede direction, or perhaps from a desire to have a manabase that can to some extent protect itself from Spreading Seas and opposing Goblin Ruinblasters. Once they had the idea, however, they really ran with it, putting in one Tarn and a full four Evolving Wilds, as well as the Sedraxis sideboard plan.
At the same time, they also ran with the idea that their deck was, indeed, an aggro deck. It has less than the full Lightning Bolt count in the main deck, and is nowhere near as kill-happy as many midrange or controlling Jund variants post-sideboarding.
Both areas represent opportunities to lose decisiveness and stumble. We might be unable to get past the idea that Lightning Bolt must be a four-of in the main deck, and compromise the deck's aggro frame to accommodate that. Or maybe we feel uncomfortable running a ‘bad card' like Evolving Wilds in a deck we're bringing to a PTQ, so we cut back on those"¦losing the effectiveness of our Geopedes and the Sedraxis sideboard plan.
That White Dwarf Magazine article on decisiveness was specifically about committing decisively to an attack. Our risk aversion makes us want to take baby steps, whether that means moving just one detachment of Space Marines into a forward position or trying to run our Geopedes without Evolving Wilds. The typical outcome here is that we lose those Space Marines and gain nothing, and that our Geopedes end up being mediocre rather than deadly.
If you're going to go with a deck design, it's helpful to push that design as far as it can go, identify its essential structure, and then do your best to not let your natural risk aversion induce you to compromise that essential structure.
This is a major deck design concern for me, as it's often my inclination to add in "just a few more answers,” in an effort to feel like my deck can handle anything. Naturally, the usual outcome is instead to dilute my game plan and hinder the deck's performance.
Incidentally, this is one standout reason that playing and working with Legacy decks is such a helpful tool for your overall deck design skills. Many Legacy builds, especially dedicated combo decks, are so fine-tuned that their performance suffers or even changes entirely if you deviate just a little bit from their essential structure. Even if you don't normally play Legacy, I think it's helpful to proxy up some of the decks, play for a while, and then start making the changes that you intuitively want to make to solve problems in certain matchups. The results may surprise you.
How to be decisive
As I mentioned above, my natural inclination is to dilute the essential structure of a deck to try and add in more solutions to specific situations. To counter this tendency, I have a three-step process I (try to) make myself follow when I'm pondering new or updated deck designs.
Step one: Actually test the idea
It sounds silly, but this is the main chokepoint where risk aversion needlessly kills innovation. I look at a card, think of the role it might play in a deck – or the deck that might be built around it – then think "Ah, but that probably won't work.” And then I don't even check it out.
But aren't five- and six-mana planeswalkers unplayable?
This is a good time for some cognitive-behavioral checking in with yourself. You can, for example, ask yourself:
"Why won't this work? Be specific.”
Sure, you may come up with a legitimate answer and decide that you really aren't going to test the idea – after all, we do know enough about the game to rule out some card choices or ideas just by working through them in our heads. Often, though, you'll come up with something fuzzy like, "It feels too slow” or the even fuzzier, "I don't know, I just think it won't.”
If you can't really pin down a factual basis for your funny feeling"¦well, it might just be risk-aversion messing with you. It's worth taking some time out to actually playtest the idea, and see if it works or not.
Step two: Push the plan
Were you thinking of trying some Geopedes and extra fetches in your Jund list?
Cool. Go ahead and add in four or five extra fetches. Just do that right now, rather than working up to it.
The second place our risk aversion rears its head is when we actually go to execute our plan. We self edit and just sort of ease the plan out there, putting parts of it into action"¦and losing our detachment of Space Marines in the process. If you really are going to Brilliant Ultimatum your way into Emrakul, then just run all four copies of Brilliant Ultimatum. Maybe you'll learn that you don't need them in testing, but if you don't test the idea in its pure form, you're likely to skew your results toward what your risk aversion is already telling you:
"This doesn't work.”
Self-editing is, in essence, idea sabotage. Self-editing in deck design is the same as when you introduce your concept in a meeting at work with, "This probably isn't a good idea, but"¦”
It's testing. Just run the idea in its pure form and see if it works or not. The testing will let us know – the voice of doubt inside our heads hasn't tested the deck for us. It doesn't know anything.
Step three: Maintain the plan
My own major issue is diluting my deck's frame out of a desire to make it able to handle any problem. If I don't check myself, I'll chip away at cards that are really required to make the deck work as I add in solutions instead.
Maintaining the plan means running a sort of OODA loop for deck design. When you make a change, reevaluate the entire deck. Did you clip out part of its core frame? Is the benefit from this change worth its cost?
For example, in updating my deck list from last week, I found myself adding in more removal options.
The benefit of the increase in removal options was clear. I could handle a greater quantity and variety of opposing threats.
However, the cost only showed itself after additional testing. By removing threats in favor of answers, I was reducing my ability to win the game in a timely fashion. This, in turn, meant I was exposed to more of my opponent's cards than before. In other words, by adding in more removal, I'd actually exposed myself to a net increase in threats. By being less decisively committed to my game plan, I ended up setting myself up for fewer wins overall.
Decisive planeswalking
In the past week, I've made some significant changes to the planeswalker control build I highlighted in last week, and I've tried to follow my own guidelines.
As a consequence, I tested a number of ideas that didn't make it into the final build. As two notable examples, I tried both Violent Ultimatum and Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker as big-ticket finishers in the deck. Violent Ultimatum ultimately (hah) fell by the wayside as a consequence of being devastating, but not finishing – you can't Violent Ultimatum someone to death, and you often can't harm them enough by killing just three permanents. The Ultimatum also has the downside of requiring not just seven lands, but also the correct combination of colored mana, meaning that your Drones don't help and a single Spreading Seas can ruin your day.
Boglob the Eldrazi Drone reminds you that he can't ramp into Violent Ultimatum.
Nicol Bolas seemed too expensive – which is self-editing again, so I tested him anyway. As it happened, the expense wasn't an issue, but the tendency to lose him to Oblivion Rings and Celestial Purges in the U/W matchup was. Eight mana to kill a permanent and suck up a removal spell is even worse than the Violent Ultimatum problem, and leaves poor Nicol back, yet again, in Alara Block Constructed.
Here's the current build:
BRG Planeswalker Control
|
I went ahead and changed the name – even if this is going to be colloquially considered "Jund” by many, the expectations associated with that label just confuse an evaluation of the deck.
Although this article isn't about this deck list, I'll comment on some of the wackier card choices that came out of sticking to the decisive design and testing plan.
Vampire Hexmage – Olin Gallet made this suggestion last week as an alternative planeswalker solution, and it has worked out tremendously well. Unlike Pithing Needle, Hexmage is a body to serve as an early speedbump – and it's better than a traditional speedbump, as it can block infinite x/2 attackers until your opponent wastes a removal spell on it. Hexmage can't turn off creature duals, but the deck has other cards for that role, and Hexmage is really working out quite well.
Drana, Kalstria Bloodchief – Jim Storrie suggested Drana last week, and despite my training that a five-mana 4/4 is going to be "bad,” I ran with the plan and tested her out. As it happens, Drana can completely lock the game down after you've burned through your initial wave of removal"¦and she is a tremendous finisher, letting you convert your available mana into massive damage to your opponent. Testing has shown that you don't want more than about two copies, but the ability to drop a late-game Drana is surprisingly powerful. Specifically against Mythic, Drana can lock them out of the game, with the added bonus that if they Mind Control her, she's a bland 4/4 with abilities they can't activate.
Apparently, she likes to hang out with vampires.
Bituminous Blast – Now that looks like a Jund card! The Bit Blasts made it into the sideboard for the Aggro Jund matchup, where you want the opportunity to cascade into more removal or board presence. Bit Blast is particularly nice as it can cascade into Consuming Vapors for a tremendous beating.
Garruk Wildspeaker – Garruk did not make it through the week. I mention his absence because it may seem surprising, but the essential structure of the deck does not benefit from his presence. So, even though it was a little uncomfortable, he's gone.
I don't know if this will be my PTQ choice yet as we're still about a month out, but it is a solid and fun control deck, and one that I would absolutely recommend taking to your next FNM if you want to do something different that still works.
The take home
We're risk-averse. It's natural.
It also gets in the way of our ability to successfully innovate. I handle this by the three-step method I described today. That may or may not work for you, but either way, I suggest giving serious consideration to how you approach deck design with an eye toward making sure you give new ideas serious consideration"¦because you just might find something that really works.
About This Author
Alexander Shearer
An avid deck designer and analyst, Alexander can always be counted on to thoroughly explain all the choices he makes in deck design. His strong background in research can be seen in the Magic Effectiveness Project, an ongoing attempt to classify what makes people good at Magic! ...
Office Hours
-
Monday-Friday: 10:00am - 6:00pm
Saturday - Sunday: Closed
Copyright
