Picking cards for your deck is an easy task nowadays. The internet is full of free decklists that you can copy and modify for yourself. However, to become a better player in this game, you’ve got to learn a new way of thinking about your card choices. It’s definitely not about what’s popular or what makes a “good card.” There are lots of good cards, but not all of them are right for your deck.

Every player has his or her own style, finesse, and way of thinking. No two decks should be the same—people just have different preferences. Despite these preferences, there are certain principles that you can think about when selecting cards for your deck:

1)     Look at your deck from a macro approach.

2)     Look at your deck from a micro approach.

3)     Analyze your deck’s flow (slow, reactive, or fast).

4)     Ditch card rating systems.

I won’t bore you with the details of what cards are good or bad for certain decks. There are plenty of articles out there on that topic. This week’s article is more about how you think about deckbuilding in the traditional sense, and putting a little twist on it.

The Macro Approach

The “macro” approach to deck building is synonymous with evaluating the overall strategy of your deck. The central question it asks is, “What does this deck do?” What is your deck good at? You and you alone have the answer. However, if you’re just trying to get started with a deck, ask yourself, “What do I want my deck to do?” Don’t just say you want your deck to win. (Every player wants his or her deck to win, right?) Really give your strategy some thought. Think about how fast you want your deck to be. How quickly will your strategy start to pay off? How many monsters do you want to draw in your opening hand? What kind of cards do you want to have in your opening turns? Do you want a lot of draw power? Do you want hand disruption?

The first thing you should think about in this context is what the deck will be good at. Figure that out first before you do anything else.

The next step is to find cards for your deck that will work with that strategy. If you want hand disruption, you’ll obviously want to draw cards that disrupt your opponent’s hand before he or she gets to use any important cards—your disruption is useless if the opponent has already played the cards you wanted to stop him or her from using. On the flip side, you’ll want to make sure you don’t overdo it. Do you really need to draw hand disruption cards when your opponent doesn’t have any cards left? Of course not!

Thus, taking the macro approach, you must think about how your cards interact with the rest of the deck. Macro thinking is basically looking at the big picture.

Going back to the previous example, that big picture view becomes very important. You want to include cards that will work well against your opponent when he or she has very few cards in hand. You could think of them as cards that your opponent will have a hard time dealing with because he or she has very few options. Vampire Lord has always been a good example of that. Airknight Parshath is another great example, since it takes advantage of a desperate opponent by granting you more options.

The Micro Approach

Looking at a deck from a “micro” perspective involves the little details more than the big picture. What small card combinations may make a certain situation more advantageous for you? For example, if you’re going for a hand disruption approach in the early game, Trap Dustshoot and Mind Crush make a great combination. You get information about your opponent’s hand and stay true to your strategy: disrupting the opponent’s options before he or she gets to use them.

Another example of micro thinking is considering which monsters will fit well with your copies of Mystic Tomato. It would be great if you had a copy of Sangan or even Don Zaloog to fetch when your Mystic Tomato takes one for the team in battle. Having those monsters to search for helps you mount your counterattack.

Though the micro approach is detail-oriented, remember to think about the big picture of your deck before you think about small combinations and specific situations. Most people do this in reverse and that makes your deckbuilding effort a lot more challenging than it needs to be.

Analyzing your Deck’s Flow

Another critical factor in card evaluation is your deck’s flow. You’ve heard the terms “control” and “aggro” used to describe specific decks. Those terms are very vague, don’t you think? I like to think of decks as “slow,” “fast,” or “reactive.” They get you to think in terms of deck speed instead of deck style. Let’s do a quick overview:

• “Slow” decks start the game off slowly while building a store of cards and options. They mostly focus on favorable card exchanges to get a lead in card presence going into the mid-game. You can also think of slow decks like a freight-train just pulling out of the station with a heavy cargo. Slow to start, but once momentum kicks in, it’s hard to stop.
• “Fast” decks start the game by getting rid of as many cards as possible—not in a card disruption sense, but mainly through battle and destructive effects. Card-for-card exchanges are a favorite with this approach, because once the battlefield is whittled down to two or three cards per player, then the game is in your favor. You have bigger monsters, more firepower, and better draws.
• “Reactive” decks are often a mix of fast and slow. They have their own pace, but they mainly aim to prevent and counter the opponent’s moves. Some players think of them as “control” decks: they wait for the opponent’s actions. They focus on prevention, meaning that they aim to disable the opponent’s threats before they become dangerous. At the same time, these decks work to counter most or all of the opponent’s plays in a methodical fashion. Every threat must have a counter: that is the guiding philosophy.

These “speeds” aren’t set in stone. They’re more like guidelines. Some decks will take these approaches and mix them, but the classifications aim to put things into perspective. The next time you play, try to observe your deck’s flow. Does it embody any of these characteristics I explained? Do you, as a player, find yourself leaning towards a particular flow? Do you play a certain way that matches any of these?

Ditch the Card Rating Systems

I know this one should be taboo for me to talk about since I’ve done some card rating articles in my day, but there’s one misconception about them that needs to be addressed. Players should never take those card ratings solely on face value. As a card review writer, I’ll tell you that we write those reviews based on the merit of the card itself and its place in the current metagame. Also, it has a bit of our personal opinion in it. Thus, it’s not necessarily an objective point of view.

The only true determinant of any card’s worth is how well it works for you and your deck. The next time you think about a card that may seem too crazy to try, give it a shot anyway. You’ll never know unless you play it in your deck for a few games and see what it does for you. I personally wouldn’t take too much counsel from what others say about a card you find success with. If it works for you, that’s good. As the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Summarizing

To make my point clear, you have to use independent thinking when you build your decks. Form your opinions based on your results. If you don’t like those results, then you can change them by changing the deck around a bit.

Don’t focus too much on how not to lose. Focus on what works and what will help you win more games. You’ll find that when you apply these little principles to deckbuilding, it will be a more enjoyable experience than people make it out to be.