Large Deck Theory - The State of the Art

[jlbjork]

Hello again - it has been some time since my last strategy post on SE forums, as most of my posts of late have been on my RS Guild forums. Shameless Plug: The Rising Sun is the Best guild around, visit the link (therisingsun.freeforums.net) and click "how to join us" for application instructions.

At any rate, more than a year or 2 ago, I posted a series of theories on Large Deck Construction, which received much ridicule from the "40 cards is always ideal" crowd. Undeterred I continued my research into this concept, as have many others I have noticed, with good success. We have all seen the highly rated tower decks pop up for Moonstalker, Garth, Boris, Praxis, Skervox, and more recently Vic, but these have been labeled by the crowds "aberrations" or "troll decks". Truth be told, after years of research the following truths have become clear:

1) It is easier to build a 40 card deck that works well than a large deck that works well
2) 40 card decks that work well will ALWAYS have a few (and some more than a few) nearly unwinnable match-ups. This is the price of consistency.
3) Tower decks are less consistent - but can be designed to give an answer to a larger variety of opponents
4) Somewhere in between is the All Purpose Deck that offers a significant advantage against most opponents if played properly, but is still small enough to give something close to the consistency that small deckers crave so much.

These statements are not made lightly, and are the result of a great deal of trial and error. The thing is, at 40 cards, there are a number of heroes that work well vs most opponents, and others that are considered Tier 3 or 4 heroes. However, given a few more cards, these heroes can become dominant. Case in point, the Shadow Man style Garth decks that are popping up everywhere now that it is no longer possible to deny their effectiveness. In this case, loading up on item destruction amplified his ability to keep the board clear to such a degree that he can turn the tables on many 40 card opponent heroes rather easily as he counters all of their key cards and then cleans up the mess when he is done.

This concept works well for many heroes. I am currently running 300+ with my second successful 50+ card Majiya deck. This one entitiled, "Majiya's Tantrum", combines item destruction with burn, fire attacks, and flameforged gauntlets (thanks for the latest changes which make them ideal for her).

I have tested this all purpose theory with several other designs using the extra 8-15 cards to fill holes, address weaknesses, and amplify strengths of the selected hero.

Examples:

I have had similar success with a Jerry Templars build at 52 cards that combines the typical Jericho Embers build with enough Templar allies to win matches against solo opponents.

Also went over 300 with a 65 card Elementalis build that amplified the standard arachnid / hulk combos with flyer / cobra demons, fills the stealth vulnerability with nocturnal advantage, and a viscous finisher combo with soulbound + energy extraction.

My version of Garth tower which takes 80 cards to combine ally disabling cards, item destruction cards, and direct damage cards to make a good all purpose competitive tower (won 3 of 4 games with it so far in WC quals).

A surprisingly effective COF based Elad deck that has very few direct damage cards.

My version of a 70 card Zhanna tower that gets better and better as the game goes on using a flood of allies to recover quickly after board clears and uses banish to remove pesky fatties after I have board control.

The point is, the game is actually more balanced than you might think. A "bad hero" might just need more cards to be competitive with enough opposing heroes to make him or her usable. Think about this: how many fantastic tournament players are in WC quals right now with sub-par records because they keep getting bad match-ups? Limiting the deck to 40 cards does not remove the element of chance as people think it does - it just moves the element of chance from the game play to the matchup selection. So, you can have an amazing 40 card Moonstalker deck, but if you draw a mage opponent you are basically done. Likewise, you can have a great 40 card Majiya burn deck, but if you draw an Elementalis or Baduru opponent, you may well be wasting your time completely. With my 53 card Majiya's Tantrum, I will still win 9 out of 10 games against Moonstalker (down from 10 out of 10 using a 40 card Majiya), but I have a decent chance to beat Aramia rush, elementalis, or Zaladar discard with her too. Yes, I could get a bad draw and lose, but in my opinion, that is better than getting a bad matchup and being helpless.

I will post one of my all purpose decks here to demonstrate my point, although I reserve most of them for the RS forums (again, JOIN RS).

Majiya's Tantrum
3x Ironhide Karash
2x Rapacious Vermin
3x Cinderborn Familiar
4x Infernal Gargoyle
4x Rampant Krygon
2x Grimghast
4x Phoenix Urigon
2x Shriek of Vengence
1x Sac Lamb
2x Bad Santa
4x Fireball
4x Lightning Strike
4x Transmogrification Curse
4x Super Nova
2x LLN
2x TOK
1x Amulet of Conjuring
4x Flamforged Gauntlets
(vermin card sleves, and playmat with the chick with the big scyth)

53 cards

This post is not about this particular deck, but rather the concept of an all purpose deck in general. I will address some feedback I have gotten in the past on it.

Amulet of Conjuring. No longer a good card? In general, true, but when played on a turn where you have 4 SE to spend, you can expend your SE using your ability and activate your amulet, refilling your hand with 4 cards and then automatically get rid of the amulet to avoid its se draining effects.

Why not go with 4 vermin rather than 2 vermin and 2 shrieks? Many people have made it a point not to play more than 2 items/abilities at a time to avoid the vermin threat. Skriek still works in those cases. Once you have your transmo curses played however, you can use your vermin to remove attachments, etc. Also, sac lamb to remove a deployed vermin or a disabled pheonix is a good move.

Again, this post is not about this particular deck, but the concept of an all purpose build - with card counts ranging from 48-80 depending on the hero and the toolbox they have to play with.

Thoughts?

[Xander Spitfire]

What has changed is the huge amount of draw engine and removal that are systematicaly added to each faction/class after each set. Back in the days large decks would have to rely on Bazaar and even then there wasn't enough removal available. In the end there isn't much variance in NYM or DFA but that's now 8 potential removal. Same for Rogue with Stop! Thief and Arnarchic Loothing. It's hard to go with a control deck with just 40 cards now because of that. When matched vs a fat deck he will exhaust all you threat eventualy. Add new cards like General of Unaxio who can deck search and they will become even more consistent.

At this point i'm wondering if it would have been better to develop the game horizontally (add new factions and new class) rather than vertically (add more of the same to each existing faction/class)

[Shadows R Us]

This is an excellent write up. Lots of food for thought.

I'd really like to see those other decks. I'm not joining RS zoo see them though.

[jlbjork]

You know that we would love to have you!

[Ganjamus]

What about for solo decks? Are bigger decks better suited to them?

[jlbjork]

Not a big solo guy- though Troll Nish is a solo deck (it has squires but those are not played as allies). sjervox, Dark Claw, Baduru, Gwen, and of course moonstalker can be played at a high level as a solo deck with 60+ cards however.

[Lightning Fury]

Great write up Jlbjork, it's nice to see some analysis on meta trends like Monster decks and their viability with the current card pool. Though personally a fan of the 40 cards limit, I agree bigger decks can deal with a lot more matchups than smaller but consistent decks.

The key is finding the correct proportion of ID/ally removal, allies themselves and support cards. Which becomes ideal for QM where every opponent comes with a different playstyle and mindset. In tournaments however, smaller focused decks will always have the advantage imo. The meta is much more specific there. So it becomes a question if you can run Monsters with a reliable chance at a decent win rate outside of QM.

[bobrossw]

I think a broad point that is missing is the reason that many big decks work - they work because they do not need a specific card to be good enough in most situations. IMO Garth is the best example of this, there are many excellent ways to start a game with garth - he does not require a specific combo like kristoffer, puwen, aldon. Certainly some cards will be better suited to some matches, but many will be serviceable in many matches. What I'm hinting at is the reason that the 40 card devotees stick to that line is that they build decks around specific cards. When you get into larger decks you can't count on specific cards any more, instead you need to think in terms of ratios of card types. Are there enough item removal cards? Are there enough draw cards? Are there enough 2cc allies? etc. When you can think in those terms and still have an effective opening hand, then you're in good shape to build a competitive oversized deck.

This rule will change with the seek mechanic. If people can seek the cards that they need for their combo, then the size of the deck becomes less important even when including specific combos. In that case, not only will oversized decks still be acceptable for decks that can easily substitute one card for the next; they'll also be possible for decks that require a specific card, provided that they have enough of that card+ cards that seek it, to have a good chance of getting it into the game at the right time.

[maskee]

I was one of those who don´t like that 40 cards rule since CotC. Yes in those times we don´t have enough good cards, but since SF large decks will be common and I am glad to this bcs there will be less stall/mill decks than...

[Kylt]

1) It is easier to build a 40 card deck that works well than a large deck that works well
2) 40 card decks that work well will ALWAYS have a few (and some more than a few) nearly unwinnable match-ups. This is the price of consistency.
3) Tower decks are less consistent - but can be designed to give an answer to a larger variety of opponents
4) Somewhere in between is the All Purpose Deck that offers a significant advantage against most opponents if played properly, but is still small enough to give something close to the consistency that small deckers crave so much.

Good summary.

If I were to add to these,

5) Shadow Era has no sideboard system, so large deck is optimal time to time. If we do have sideboard matches, 39+1 would still be the optimal choice for better chance of drawing sided in cards.