Printable View
The fundamental question is this: Is there a 41 card deck that has a higher win percentage than a 39 card deck? The exact percentage difference doesn't matter. Even small percentages grow over multiple games.
I'm still skeptical such a deck exists, largely because I'm having a hard time picturing a deck where there's nothing you can take out.
Your question cannot be answered by looking at the deck size alone. Other attributes such as the player skills and the opponent skills will make a difference to the win percentage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringel
Or to be more specific, deck size along is not the only consideration for the success of a deck.
There's always cards that you can take out... but always at a cost to the associated goal. I think a better question should be "Does SOME 39 card deck become better/worse with the insertion of 2 cards?"
Um... stating the obvious here. Is there any 41 card deck in the hands of the most skilled player will win more often than a 39 card deck in the hands of the same player facing the same opponents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomzed
Some 39 card decks become better by the insertion of 2 cards. But can they be made better still by the removal of 2 more cards? That is the question.Quote:
There's always cards that you can take out... but always at a cost to the associated goal. I think a better question should be "Does SOME 39 card deck become better/worse with the insertion of 2 cards?"
Associated goal?
Your deck should only have one goal. To win. Period. Every card in your deck should let you win before your opponent, either by slowing them down or speeding yourself up. There are cards for each purpose that are strictly better than others. So there are always cards that you can afford to remove which will improve the overall win %.
If its same opponent (i.e. you spar with a particular player using the same deck), then a 39 deck will consistently be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringel
But if its same population (i.e. same group of ppl, playing different decks with differing strategy), then i say that a 41 deck, being more adaptable, may bring you more consistent success in the population.
It's a decision that only the player can answer. But removal of cards will mean that you lose the cards required for the particular goal, example less cards for item destruction, making your deck a little weaker against weapon/armour heavy decks. Example you originally have 4x smashing blow. Removal of 2x smashing blow means you draw your smashing blow later, and if draw it on starting hand, you cannot afford to sac it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringel
All roads lead to Rome, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dndfreak
Again, i referring to the Rule of Six by Cruxx (cruxx, i giving you free publicity!) Each deck has different considerations. Removing of cards from 1 area reduces the chances of meeting those considerations. See example i gave Ringel above.
I emphasise again that the article was NOT MEANT TO be a generalisation. I'm arguing that some decks are better off with a slightly higher deck size, but that doesnt equate to all decks being better off with a higher deck size.
My view is in contrast with DNDFreak and Ringel (i think) opinion that ALL decks are better off with the min deck size.
I can create a fictional deck which could be improved (based on earlier examples)
You have a 39 card deck where every card is equally valuable. You are perfectly happy to draw any one of those 39 cards. However there is another card out there: The "Kill Logan" card which if you have in your deck and you face Logan means you win. No matter where that card is. However that card is totally worthless against any other hero.
If you include that deck you have 40 cards. Against most heroes it is slightly less powerful than the original 39 card deck. Against Logan it is much more powerful that your 39 card deck. No one else notices the Kill Logan card so you face a high percentage of Logans. Now your 40 card deck is more powerful.
Okay, could you improve your deck by removing a card? I would contend no-- since all your 39 cards are equally valuable, removing any one wont improve your draw any, and in fact will make the draw of the dead card more likely against non Logan heroes.
However, I run into this problem with the example (aside from the "Kill Logan" card which no one notices). In a 39 card deck, is it really possible to have 39 equally valuable cards? I contend that such a deck doesn't exist. There are always slightly weaker cards you can remove.
I'm not contending the first, but the second. Of course it is possible to build a deck that is smaller and better vs. a particular foe. I think there is always a 39 card deck that is better against enough opponents so that it will have a higher win rate than a 41 card deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomzed
Right, but is there some combination of cards you can remove. If you are depending on too many 4-ofs, is there an 8-of you can reduce to a 7-of?Quote:
It's a decision that only the player can answer. But removal of cards will mean that you lose the cards required for the particular goal, example less cards for item destruction, making your deck a little weaker against weapon/armour heavy decks. Example you originally have 4x smashing blow. Removal of 2x smashing blow means you draw your smashing blow later, and if draw it on starting hand, you cannot afford to sac it.
I'm keeping an open mind. But yes, at the moment, I think all decks are better off with the min deck size-- or rather all competitive decks are better off with the minimum decks size. That is, there is no deck you can't improve by reducing it to the min. deck size.Quote:
I emphasise again that the article was NOT MEANT TO be a generalisation. I'm arguing that some decks are better off with a slightly higher deck size, but that doesnt equate to all decks being better off with a higher deck size.
My view is in contrast with DNDFreak and Ringel (i think) opinion that ALL decks are better off with the min deck size.
There are always cards that can be removed, yes. Do you call them weaker cards? I probably call them cards that is of lower priority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringel
And do you agree that removing that cards reducing the effectiveness of the associated goal?
Example, a 39 card deck which has a good combi for
1) weenies
2) heavy arty
3) board control
4 item destruction
5) card draw
You have worked out a good proportion of cards in this tuned deck. Won't subtracting cards from weenie, makes you less effective in weenie? And that will mean that the 5 goals outlined above, 1 of them will no longer have as many cards in that area.
I said before, the cards may not be for 1 situation or 1 match-up only.
What you just described is the EXACT complaint that I had about what people will take from that RoS article. You have ONE goal, one consideration. You also have ONE way to win, often in 1-2 parts. That could be cheap allies and burn, fatties and weapons, fogs and wbt, you get the idea. Whatever the case is, you only NEED one thing, your way to win. If a deck exists with a faster way to win, or a way that directly interferes with it (such as DC), then you need to find room to hate that out, yes. But if one deck is the only deck that beats you naturally, then that's the ONLY deck you need disruption for. If you're playing a deck that naturally loses to multiple popular heroes/strategies, stop adding cards and go play a better deck. Do you see what I'm saying? The typical list runs 24-32 slots dedicated to winning the game. The rest is hate and draw engines. Cards like CB, retreat, shriek, acid jet, all of them are best suited for specific decks. Your own deck should already be well suited to face specific decks, so you don't need to have disruption against them and can easily afford the cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomzed
@Atomzd:
Do the top Logan, etc decks really have carefully balanced 5 goals? I don't think so, but I don't have the decklists.