The pseudo-art form known as “teching” involves the inclusion of cards in your deck—as a counter measure to a specific strategy (or strategies)—that would otherwise have no place there. Some of the more successful players I’ve spoken to consider this technique very important to their success as competitive duelists. They believe the method is one of the very few ways to increase your win percentage against a diverse playing field.

Is this based on truth? Is it necessary to include cards that do not synergize with your deck strategy in order to win over a spread of deck archetypes in a tournament setting? That is a very tough question to answer, or even quantify. It is based on experience and some personal bias, because there are a million and one ways to win in this game. Before you write this off as mere theory, let’s take a closer look at the method famous to all trading card games.

Metagame Diversity and Teching

The main drive behind the tech movement is the possibility of losing a match due to your deck’s inability to deal with an unknown archetype or strategy. Cards that match up well against a wide array of builds and themes are valued for their versatility. Preferably, they should be able to fit into most deck archetypes. Kycoo the Ghost Destroyer is a fantastic example. He can be placed into nearly any deck except for Zombies or stall/burn, and his graveyard manipulation and use-prevention abilities hold a lot of value in the game today.

Large-scale competitions like Shonen Jump Championships and National Championships are known for their diversity. Many players find it difficult to predict what decks will appear at the event (I think it’s largely a waste of time, though it is fun to speculate). Due to the overwhelming number of players per event, it is difficult for a deck to carry too much weight and completely dominate the competition. You can be defeated by any number of builds through no fault of your own. This is where tech gains its strength and popularity: the fear of loss against an unfamiliar deck.

A friend of mine once said that the players who do the best in big tournaments are the ones who tech the most effectively against the available metagame. A statement like this usually begs the question, “Is that based on fact or personal opinion?” Considering the power behind a typical Perfect Circle Monarch, it’s almost too easy to label it as fact. Let’s put aside the fact that Perfect Circle Monarch decks are extremely fast. That is a major advantage. Instead, focus on the relative power and versatility of the cards it uses.

Raiza the Storm Monarch is a catch-all type of Monarch. He doesn’t discriminate between monster, spell, or trap. The spin effect is a rare and powerful one. Most decks can’t handle drawing the same card twice after it was committed to play. One spin can result in lost momentum and control of the game. On top of all this, Raiza the Storm Monarch has a high ATK rating relative to the standard monsters used in any metagame. Destiny Hero - Malicious is one the speediest tribute solutions in the game—not a continuous threat like Treeborn Frog, but providing the Perfect Circle Monarch user with the ability to grab the momentum of the game and “throw it out the window” so to speak. Most of the cards in this deck are built to handle a wide variety of situations while maintaining the minimum standard of synergy: just enough to stay flexible and keep the deck running like a well-oiled tournament-winning machine.

To Tech or Not to Tech?

One of the most obvious situations where teching doesn’t work involves decks built on a high amount of synergy. The Zombies deck is a prime example. It deliberately screams, “I depend on very specific cards to function effectively.” Most of the Zombie-type monsters are not stand-alone wonders like Raiza the Storm Monarch.

Teching is most effective when it can be included into your deck without disrupting the strategic flow too much. This is why decks built on versatility and utility rather than focused synergy and defined strategies are more difficult to pick apart. A centralized strategy does not exist: it covers all angles and is thus regarded as a more effective deck type. As Sun Tzu said, “If you defend from all sides, then from all sides you are weak.” The first type of deck generally executes its strategy without a hitch, regardless of hand strength or metagame diversity. The second type is near impossible to stop once the “engine” starts running. You receive a greater reward for taking a greater amount of risk.

How to Do Dumb Things with Tech

Some players think it’s a good idea to play cards that have nothing to do with their deck strategy in order to combat a certain deck archetype. This idea has some validity, but it can easily go wrong. If you’re playing Zombies, for example, and your metagame is Zombies, then you should not be playing Kycoo the Ghost Destroyer or D. D. Assailant in your main deck. Some players out there think it is a good idea to play Hydrogeddon in a deck that cannot support it. Due to its relatively weak ATK, Hydrogeddon should not be played without a healthy mix of spell and trap removal coupled with defensive spells and traps to secure your offensive strikes. Cards like Shrink, Enemy Controller, Sakuretsu Armor, Widespread Ruin, and Dust Tornado come to mind.

The lesson here is to keep cards out of your deck that won’t help you overall. Sure it’s nice to have Hydrogeddon as a counter to Mystic Tomato, Treeborn Frog, and Destiny Hero - Disk Commander, but it requires a good amount of support. One of the worst ideas I’ve seen in action was Hydrogeddon mixed in with Monarchs. The flavor of the month was speedy, yet woefully ineffective.

I’ve made errors like this more often than I should have. I like to experiment with different ideas in different decks. I’m a tinkerer at heart and I like to tweak decks I build. Unfortunately, I have a tendency to think these tweaks were good enough to play in large-scale tournaments. Predictably, I lose in the most embarrassing ways. Because of this, I’ve learned to dislike deck inconsistencies with a vengeance. Sometimes good enough is good enough I admit, but I don’t like losing game 1 due to a few unfortunate draw phases. Maybe that’s because I prefer focused strategies to utility-based builds. Focused strategies are more prone to drawing issues when things go awry and it’s just something you have to deal with. I’ve found that concentrating too much on ironing these out can lead to insanity.

If there is anyone else out there who has made (or still makes) more deck design mistakes than I do, I’d be surprised. Being an expert in the Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG has nothing to do with talent at all. Your skill and your success, in a big way, are proportionate to the amount of mistakes you make and learn from. I read a quote once that went like this:

“An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.”

—Niels Bohr, Danish physicist and Nobel Prize winner

Thanks for reading. Talk to you next week.

—Bryan Camareno