Going Large, but not TOO large - An all purpose deck for the recovering Tower Player

[jlbjork]

Many tower players play towers just for variety. Others, like me, while enjoying the variety, are seriously studying different algorithms for truly successful large deck construction. One of my early theories, was based on a ratio of allies, direct damage, and defense cards that was very successful at the lower levels, but was exposed as ineffective against truly competitive competition decks at the higher levels.

After running a few smaller (40-45 card) decks of my own design, and then experimenting with some "pre-fab" 40 card competition decks whose builds are readily available in the forums, I began to see a pattern. Properly played, these good 40 card competition decks worked very well and did what they did, every time. The problem is that they all had their weaknesses, and when matched up against those weaknesses, they were incapable of making adjustments because the cards just simply were not there. After being frustrated by a number of encounters with Zaladar rush, i read a thread by Jacqui about the death race strategy to use vs Zaladar. Kill him before he kills you. While that strategy assumes a very fast developing deck, it does give you a fighting change against the dreaded Zaladar Rush.

Learning from this concept, I decided to experiment again with a large deck somewhere between 40 cards (which I consider by its nature limiting) and the monstrosity 185 card 7-2-1 deck I had been working with before. To do so, I stayed with my favorite large deck hero, Majiya. Feeding on the offense first strategy, I decided to design a deck that would do enough damage in the first 20 cards to kill most opponents, but still be large enough to resist a mill opponent like Praxis or Moonstalker, and have enough cards to allow multiple strategies - an ability to adapt and overcome as it were. For example, when testing 7-2-1, I noticed that Jericho Ember decks were opponents that nearly always beat me. This is because the 7-2-1 system had 70% allies, and played to that deck's strength. This new deck, would have to be able to give you a fighting chance against any opponent. We will call it, Majiya All Purpose.

After significant testing, the deck I came up with was as follows:

4 x Death Mage Thaddeus
2 x Shadow Knight
4 x Fireball
1 x Poison Gas
4 x Lightning Strike
1 x Engulfing Flames
4 x Tome of Knowledge
4 x Supernova
2 x Bazaar
1 x Sever Ties
2 x Ley Line Nexus
4 x Snow Sapphire
2 x Consuming Fear
4 x Sun Blighted One
2 X Undying Bond
3 x Harbinger of the Lost
4 x Rampant Krygon
2 x Incendiary Curse
2 x Transmogrification Curse
3 x Phoenix Urigon
4 x Living Armor

This was a very effective deck to play, and I have played it the vast majority of the current season. I did still run into problems with Zaladar Rush, so I made the adjustment of removing the 2 Undying Bonds and replacing them with Voltar's Rings. This allowed me a 40-60 chance against Zaladar Rush, and did not significantly change my effectiveness against other higher level decks. Now, having laid out the 60 card deck, let me explain the theory and the math of how it works.

First, the math:
There are a total of 86 points of direct damage points in the 60 card deck. I define direct damage points as damage to the opposing hero resulting on the same turn the card is played. I have figured the Rampant Krygons as 2 at 2 damage, and 2 at 3 damage, assuming that 2 of them are played in a situation where they cannot pump themselves for whatever reason on their first turn. This means, that on average, each card played will do 1.43 damage to the opposing hero. The damage therefore done by the first 20 cards, will be 28.66 - which is enough to kill most opponents. This includes Warriors because they usually do damage to themselves using Blood Frenzy.

This offense assumes that every ally played is killed by the enemy on the first turn and therefore never get to make a second attack. Since this is rarely the case, I am understating the damage done by the first 20 cards. In addition, Voltar's Ring (if playing the version optimized for Zaladar) adds 1 point of damage per lightning strike, and the Undying Bonds will add additional damage overall by allowing Sun Blighted Ones or Death Mage Thaddeus to be played again, doing additional damage.

Now the Theory
The extra 20 cards allows versatility given a large number of games, the win rate will be higher if properly played than a comparable 40 card deck. You can run this deck different ways against different opponents. It can be played as a burn deck against Jericho one game, then as a swarm deck against Dark Claw or Amber the next, or any combination in between for the run of the mill priest, elemental, rogue, or hunter. Zaladar Rush is a special case, and still has an advantage over Majiya All Purpose, though I would argue Zaladar Rush has an advantage over nearly every opponent, with the exception of Banebow.

The effects have been very interesting. At the time of this writing, I am ranked 18th for the season. The winning streaks I saw with 7-2-1 (maxing out at 9) are smaller. Most commonly, in a session I will win 4 or 5, lose 1 or 2, then win 4 or 5 again. However, the losing streaks have also disappeared, with a 3 game losing streak becoming very, very rare. As for upper level competition decks? Well, it is performing well against them. I have played this deck in one tournament, winning the first round, and losing the second round 2-1-1 to a player that I understand is very, very good (AP Black Angel) - if you are interested he played Loest Rush. We split the first 2 games, drew on the third, and he won the fourth. I am looking forward to entering more tournaments with this deck, but it has tested well against some of my hopefully soon to be guild mates at A1.

While I would not consider All Purpose Majiya a tower deck, it is certainly a large deck - particularly for its proven effectiveness, and I am interested to see how high I can end the season in the rankings with it. I have not given up on a true tower theory, but this "mini-tower" if we can call it that has a lot of potential.

[Xander Spitfire]

Again, thumbs up for the hard work. Its very interesting to read.

[oggtheman]

Wait, I thought size mattered to you? This is a small deck! My deck is Waaaaaay larger

Anyway, good work! Keep it up!

"Because size matters"
"THATS NOT WHAT MY MOTHER TOLD ME!"

[bobrossw]

I can't argue with success, but your 60 card concept goes against standard approaches, so I'd like to explore it more. I'm curious, on average, how many cards do you typically end games with when losing / winning? I learned this lesson in track and field that if you often end a race with energy to spare, you aren't running fast enough.

I imagine a similar principle can be applied to cards. For example, your 2 voltars rings - lets say you often end games with 30 cards to spare, what are the odds that both of those rings are in those 30 cards (i.e. you never drew them)? Forgive me if my probability estimations are off, but .5 probability of drawing each means there is a .25 probability of not drawing either. But if you went through 30 cards in a 40 card deck with 1 copy of voltar's ring, you'd also have a .25 probability of not drawing it. -You wouldn't have a .25 probability of drawing 2 Voltar's rings, as you would in that first example, but I'm not sure that's an advantage. So I guess my question is, assuming you don't routinely get through most of your deck, what good are those extra cards doing for you? I think your point about versatility is a good one, but couldn't that versatility be achieved by simply including fewer copies of cards in a smaller deck? What would happen if you cut this deck in half (half the copies of each card - maybe retain the sever ties) and then filled in those remaining 10 cards with extra copies of your most used cards? Would it get better/worse/stay the same?

I'm actually thinking that this approach - build an oversized deck, play it a bunch, then cut it in half as I suggested may be a good strategy to building and workshopping an optimal but also flexible deck. Thoughts?

[oggtheman]

I can't argue with success, but your 60 card concept goes against standard approaches, so I'd like to explore it more. I'm curious, on average, how many cards do you typically end games with when losing / winning? I learned this lesson in track and field that if you often end a race with energy to spare, you aren't running fast enough.

I imagine a similar principle can be applied to cards. For example, your 2 voltars rings - lets say you often end games with 30 cards to spare, what are the odds that both of those rings are in those 30 cards (i.e. you never drew them)? Forgive me if my probability estimations are off, but .5 probability of drawing each means there is a .25 probability of not drawing either. But if you went through 30 cards in a 40 card deck with 1 copy of voltar's ring, you'd also have a .25 probability of not drawing it. -You wouldn't have a .25 probability of drawing 2 Voltar's rings, as you would in that first example, but I'm not sure that's an advantage. So I guess my question is, assuming you don't routinely get through most of your deck, what good are those extra cards doing for you? I think your point about versatility is a good one, but couldn't that versatility be achieved by simply including fewer copies of cards in a smaller deck? What would happen if you cut this deck in half (half the copies of each card - maybe retain the sever ties) and then filled in those remaining 10 cards with extra copies of your most used cards? Would it get better/worse/stay the same?

I'm actually thinking that this approach - build an oversized deck, play it a bunch, then cut it in half as I suggested may be a good strategy to building and workshopping an optimal but also flexible deck. Thoughts?

Interesting idea. It would be difficult to trim, but "hard choices had to be made" (did I really just quote that)
Ill give a shot

[Ganjamus]

I'm not sure 4 ToK and 2 Bazaar are enough draw for this deck even with Majiya's ability. I suppose Undying Bond and Shadow Knight can serve as pseudo-draw but they can also be sorta useless at times.

[jlbjork]

I had the same reservations, but surprisingly, draw is rarely an issue. It is true that undying bond is a frequent discard, but on the other hand, late in the game it can be helpful. Also, when the opponent plays the armor that protects vs ability damage, undying bond allows your dmt cards to be useful for on turn. I will say that I am seriously considering replacing them with the looters baton. Combined with hero ability or burn cards, this might allow for more draw, and a way to kill that anti ability armor when played. Something to consider. For the anti Zaladar version though, voltages ring does give you a fighting chance.

[streetsahead]

Very interesting. Props for investigating something beside a×b beats c.

[JUSTICAR]

Suggestion on posting decklist:

Sort by
Allies,
Abilities,
Items,
Armor
and Weapon

... it would be easier to see the deck composition.

[BetrayalFender]

i have randomly played this guy a bunch. His theory and math on the topic is actually really interesting. Hope it keeps going well for you. i'll be keeping tabs to see the math on your theories.