[Deck Building] Deck Size: What is the best?

[mana]

i was just looking at it in a diffrent way. i was talking about getting a card when you dont have it after your initial draw... why is my math wrong 0.o? and drawing keycards for your deck is necassary when you have an agressive one. when you want to answer your enemys strategy then you dont have certain keycards in your deck. in every game with the same deck you have diffrent keycards.. and thats the point where tutors get strong because you can pick out your keycards which counter the enemy AFTER your starthand because you cant know the enemys strategy there. so you dont care about having certain keycards early on. you just stall the enemy (or whatever) and then when the time is right you get out your win conditions. works fine for me but you im just stating my opinion here and everyone has to decide for himself. long story short: in agressive decks dont use tutors in defensive ones try it out.

ps: my example was with heirloom... but look at QS. you increase the chances of getting every single card u need (but its slower than heirloom)

[Tuism]

well every deck uses tutors IF THEY CAN. Black and blue 1 cost tutors are insanely strong as both gold producers early game AND getting the right agent at the right time late game. The black tutor can even remove threats.

But again, if you NEED a tutor, and you have a bigger than 50 deck then your chance of drawing the tutor is 1/50 instead of 1/30, if you put 20 more cards in your deck.

Defensive decks and offensive decks are the same - they both rely on some cards that are needed more than others. Whether you can decide which cards are key and which cards aren't key and reduce your deck to 50 cards will determine how CONSISTENT your deck is.

If you don't want tutors in your opening hand, instead of watering your deck down and going over 50 cards, why don't you just have less than 5 tutors?

[crazygambit]

Jan 20, 2012 9:57:25 GMT -5 mana said:

i was just looking at it in a diffrent way. i was talking about getting a card when you dont have it after your initial draw... why is my math wrong 0.o? and drawing keycards for your deck is necassary when you have an agressive one. when you want to answer your enemys strategy then you dont have certain keycards in your deck. in every game with the same deck you have diffrent keycards.. and thats the point where tutors get strong because you can pick out your keycards which counter the enemy AFTER your starthand because you cant know the enemys strategy there. so you dont care about having certain keycards early on. you just stall the enemy (or whatever) and then when the time is right you get out your win conditions. works fine for me but you im just stating my opinion here and everyone has to decide for himself. long story short: in agressive decks dont use tutors in defensive ones try it out.

ps: my example was with heirloom... but look at QS. you increase the chances of getting every single card u need (but its slower than heirloom)

I sort of agree with your point. Adding tutors certainly helps the consistency of your deck. However QS is really slow. You need to spend resources to cast it and then wait half a day for it to resolve (plus the time it takes you to find your card in the carrousel). So it's not really the same as drawing the actual card you need. I'd say for this reason tutoring is weaker in ACR than in something like Magic.

Your math is wrong because you don't just get to decide that you don't get any heirlooms or reboots in your opening hand. Also the 2/44 probability is only true for the next draw after your starting hand. Then it's 2/43 if you didn't get it, 2/42 and so on. That's called an hypergeometric distribution.

You see the problem with your approach is that you can get too many tutors and reboots in your starting hand, when you don't need them. While at the same time you're lowering your chances of drawing the rest of the stuff in your deck. So like everything in deck building it's a balancing act. However 53 is close enough to 50 so that the effect will be very small anyway. When you start to get to 60 card decks or more it becomes more significant.

[mana]

now i totally agree with you crazy didnt i say i ll give an example? ofc i know the probability to get a certain card when your deck gets smaller increases (thats why i said "card you need/decksize" or sth like that before giving the example).
.

[ericluah]

my opinion is play to suit your preference.

will a 50 card deck always beat one above 60?

play the deck that gives u the most enjoyment and satisfaction.

[rav950]

Jan 20, 2012 10:30:33 GMT -5 crazygambit said:

You see the problem with your approach is that you can get too many tutors and reboots in your starting hand, when you don't need them.

With Quick Study and Family Heirloom, I'd agree in most cases unless I'm pulling a fast trick. With the black/blue agent fetch tutors, I'd love to have 2 or 3 of these in my opening hand since it gets my economy going efficiently and sets me up with a nice set of agents to start putting threats on the table.

[crazygambit]

Jan 26, 2012 14:41:35 GMT -5 rav950 said:

Jan 20, 2012 10:30:33 GMT -5 crazygambit said:

You see the problem with your approach is that you can get too many tutors and reboots in your starting hand, when you don't need them.

With Quick Study and Family Heirloom, I'd agree in most cases unless I'm pulling a fast trick. With the black/blue agent fetch tutors, I'd love to have 2 or 3 of these in my opening hand since it gets my economy going efficiently and sets me up with a nice set of agents to start putting threats on the table.

I agree on the black/blue tutors. However you have to keep in mind that you give your opponents more chances to counter you with the tutors. For example Faux Pas counters the tutors, but not the agents. Particularly annoying early game. Late game a Scientific Espionage gives a green deck a chance to stop you from getting the Agent you need that he otherwise couldn't have countered. I've made that play many times for the win. If my opponent had drawn the Cesare instead I would have lost.

So yes, they're mostly advantageous (when I run them I run 5, always), but don't forget they also have drawbacks however minor they might be.

[rav950]

A Faux Pas would hit Dante Moro, and I have tutored for him as both a protection measure and further early game acceleration. Faux Pas is run, but never in large quantities. If you get nailed by it, you shrug, because otherwise they would have just nailed you with it later since it wouldn't work on any of your other cards.

I'd much rather have a tutor countered than anything else I might bring to bear, since it costs me very little to cast. And if I was lucky, I'd have drawn the card I needed without the tutor... so I consider it hedging my bet rather than taking up space I'd use for another card.

[thedude808]

Jan 26, 2012 13:30:14 GMT -5 ericluah said:

my opinion is play to suit your preference.

will a 50 card deck always beat one above 60?

play the deck that gives u the most enjoyment and satisfaction.

I definitely agree with your first and third statement. This is a game, and games are supposed to be fun. I am sure that I will try building a deck, at some point, that has 100 or 200 cards in it. I think it might be fun.

To answer your rhetorical question, though. No, the 50 card deck will not always win vs a larger one, but I will argue that a well made 50 card deck will be more consistent in achieving its desired goal and more consistent at winning. The smaller your deck, the more likely you are to draw the cards you need.

I'm sure there may be some exception to this but not many. Maybe, if the meta becomes rife with decks that try to deck their opponent. I don't know.

Definitely, play to have fun, though.

[drxfeelgood]

I've had moderate success with library kill decks.