How To Build Better Decks

Login (/login?
returnUrl=%252orums%252fthe-game%252fstandard-type-2%252fcompetitive%252f128633-how-to-build-better-decks)
Help (http://support.curse.com/)
Get an Epic Experience with Premium (http://www.curse.com/premium)
Don't have an account? Register (/register)
Follow Us (https://twitter.com/mtgsalvation)
Like Us (https://www.facebook.com/mtgsalvation)
(http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/5259/2808289/0/1199/AdId=2657847;BnId=3;itime=30092473;key=lang%3Den;
nodecode=yes;link=http://www.curse.com/premium/plan)
Forums (/forums)
Cards (/cards)
Khans of Tarkir (93/269) (/spoilers/144-khans-of-tarkir)

Trading Post (/trading-post/)
MTG Salvation Forums (/forums/)
Blogs (/userblogs)
Commander 2014 (/spoilers/145-commander-2014)

Wiki (http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/)
The Game (/forums/the-game)
Chat (/irc)
New Posts (/new-content)

Radar (/radar)
Standard (Type 2) (/forums/the-game/standard-type-2)
Competitive (/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/competitive)
[Ocial]] How to Build Better Decks (/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/competitive/128633-how-to-build-better-decks)
[Ocial] -
How to Build Better Decks
Search
(/forums/search)
Tools
()
2 (/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/competitive/128633-how-to-build-better-decks?page=2)
Next (/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/competitive/128633-how-to-build-better-decks?page=2)
#1 (http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/competitive/128633-how-to-build-better-decks?comment=1)
metamorph (/members
/33829-metamorph)
Immortal One
Objective
This is intended as a summary guide laying out fundamental principles of good deck building. This is
not intended to be comprehensive nor is it intended to introduce cutting edge concepts, just
summarize established wisdom. A player reading this ought to be able to learn the established best
(/members
/33829-metamorph)
Posts: 7,212
Join Date: 09/21/2006
Location:
(/comments/rating32
modal/15-3421621)
Login (/login) to like this.
practices of deck building.

Who is this for?
This is for players with some magic experience who are looking to take their deck building skills to a
higher level.
This will probably be a good read for true novices also but there is an assumption of familiarity with
core game concepts (like Tempo and Card Advantage and Mana Curve) that a true beginner might not
have. This might be a good read for experienced players also, but it will not teach you anything you
don't already know. You may enjoy reading it anyway because sometimes seeing something written in
somebody else's words makes it easier to think about.
The real target audience for this guide are players who are familiar with the the game but have not
mastered deck building. My assumption is that a player who wants to build a better deck wants to
build a deck that wins more and is more competitively viable. If that is not your goal then this guide is
not for you.
Who am I?
I'm Metamorph. No I will not tell you my real name or DCI number. Thats for my real life friends only.
I'm an experienced magic player with almost 17 years under my belt. When I started playing the core
set was Revised Edition and the two expansions you could buy in stores were The Dark and Fallen
Empires. The rst box of cards I ever bought was Ice Age, and I bought it because I coveted the
awesome new artwork on Icy Manipulator (/cards/duel-decks-ajani-vs-nicol-bolas/18933icy-manipulator) in that set.
I rst started playing competitively when Mirage/Tempest was the Standard environment and I've
played competitively o and on ever since. I've had some mixed success but I'm certainly not a pro.
I've Top 8e'd PTQS twice, a $5K open event once, and back when I was a kid the Junior Super Series
multiple times. I've top 16ed more than 20 PTQ/$5K level events though so I'm quite familiar with
what competitive play is like and how to produce a winning record, though I'm not quite good enough
to play at the highest level.
I play lots of dierent types of Magic and I play on a budget most of the time so I absolutely do
understand casual play and budget issues. But I won't be talking about that here. Or anywhere really. I
stick to pure strategy. Thats what this guide is.
A Note on Format
This is intended for Standard Constructed Magic. Format provides context and context is the
framework of meaning. Most of what I will say here is not at all true of formats besides Standard. If
you are interested in learning how to build decks for Legacy, Vintage, Commander or any other format
then this post will be of only minimal usefulness. Finally, the orientation of this post is for Standard in
Feedback
its modern form (meaning eectively Standard since about Invasion block onwards). Standard from
the bad old days was very dierent and should not be used as a context for this discussion.
Summary
1. Good Decks Play With Good Cards
2. Good Decks Have Good Plans
3. Good Decks Have Good Mana Bases
4. Good Decks Respect Their Opponents
5. Good Decks Have 75 Cards
6. Sometimes Even Good Decks Are Bad Choices
7. Sometimes Your 'Good Deck' Isn't
Good Decks Play With Good Cards

The concept is simple but the idea itself has many wrinkles to it. The power level of a deck is directly
related to the power level of the individual cards that the deck is composed of. Synergy enhances this
further, but at the most fundamental level the standalone power of each card in the deck is extremely
important. While it is possible to build decks where the Synergy of card interactions allows for
otherwise weak cards to become powerful this is an exceptional case and must be justied
independently. The most common case is that independently powerful cards are the best choice for
building a deck.
This raises the crucial question: how can I tell when a card is independently powerful?
Thats a deep question in its own right and there is no easy answer when it comes to card evaluation.
However, there are some very useful and well established guideline principles we can use to get it
right most of the time. Not always though. Sometimes things aren't as they seem for one reason or
another, but if we make our usual assumptions and consider the card in a typical Standard
environment.
Eciency
Eciency is a rough measure of how much bang you get for your buck. How much eect does a card
provide given the resources you spend on it. Every card requires resource expenditure, there are no
exceptions. Even if a card costs zero mana and zero alternative costs it still costs the card itself. This is
something that is frequently overlooked by inexperienced deck builders. Always remember that at
minimum a card costs the card itself and there are many cards whose eects simply don't justify that
cost.
How do we measure eciency? There's not standard method. Its very contextual. A card is ecient if
it produces more then other similar cards in the metagame. Sometimes we get "strictly better"
scenarios where it is obvious that Runeclaw Bear (/cards/magic-2015/23058-runeclaw-bear) has a
better body for its mana cost then Goblin Piker (/cards/magic-2012/18745-goblin-piker). But how do
we know that neither one of them is ecient enough for constructed? No easy answer. Generally its
because the 2/2 body itself is not particularly worth spending a whole card on. This is a very good
example of why considering the card cost is so crucial. We are readily willing to play other 2/2 for 2
mana cards if they provide an additional eect. Grand Abolisher (/cards/magic-2012/18749-grandabolisher) or Leonin Arbiter (/cards/scars-of-mirrodin/17743-leonin-arbiter) or Kalastria Highborn
(/cards/worldwake/16690-kalastria-highborn) or Goblin Wardriver (/cards/mirrodin-besieged/17953goblin-wardriver) are all readily playable for the same converted mana cost. The additional eect on
these creatures is arguably the more valuable part. Would you play that eect if it was just on an
enchantment with no body? Probably not. So really its the value we're looking at. We want to have it
all. We want the additional eect AND the body.
I realize its not exactly useful to tell people they shouldn't play Runeclaw Bears (/cards?ltersearch=Runeclaw Bears). Lets extrapolate from the example and try to form a general principle: when
evaluating a card for eciency consider how much value the card provides. If a card provides just a
body, could you instead play something with an eect AND a body? If a card provides just an eect,
could you instead play something with an eect AND a body? This value maximizing notion of
eciency is a good guideline. We prefer to play with cards that are almost like built in 2-for-1s. If you
can get a body and an eect at the same time the card is almost doing as much work as 2 cards.
The other notion of eciency thats important to consider is raw mana eciency. This is not a hard
concept to measure. Lightning Bolt (/cards/premium-deck-series-re-and-lightning/17897lightning-bolt) is the king of mana eciency for burn spells. Nothing is better. Creatures like
Leatherback Baloth (/cards/worldwake/16697-leatherback-baloth) are the kings of mana eciency for
creature body size. Mana eciency comparisons are straightforward. Just look at the numbers.
There's not much more to say except to emphasize that often it is incorrect to favor mana eciency
over card eciency. In standard it is frequently the case that card eciency is the more useful
measure. Simple Example: Squadron Hawk (/cards/magic-2011/17495-squadron-hawk)s is a 2 mana
1/1 (very mana inecient) but is a 4 for 1 in terms of cards. Its one of the best creatures in the format.
Consistency
The other measure of card power that is useful to consider is consistency. Consistency refers to how
likely a card is to be able to perform as desired under normal play circumstances. A card like
Phyrexian Obliterator (/cards/new-phyrexia/18254-phyrexian-obliterator) has very high mana
eciency but its restrictive mana cost makes it extremely inconsistently castable except in almost
mono-black decks. Mana consistency is always related to what your mana base is capable of, so keep
this in mind when including cards. You must be able to cast them consistently or they will be useless.
Mana cost consistency is not the only form. Some cards have functional dependencies that raise
Feedback
consistency issues. Any aura or equipment or creature enhancing eect (like Honor of the Pure (/cards
/magic-2012/18760-honor-of-the-pure)) is functionally dependent on there being one or more
creatures in play on your side of the table. This is a pretty soft consistency requirement (you usually
do have creatures) but it still must be considered. A common mistake is to underestimate even soft
requirements. If you are playing an equipment, could you have played another creature instead? That
would add more power to the board without being functionally dependent on another creature. Does
the equipment provide a powerful enough eect to justify using it instead of another creature? It
probably has to be about as powerful as a Sword of Feast and Famine (/cards/mirrodin-besieged
/18046-sword-of-feast-and-famine) to be worth it. Thats a high bar to clear. Most creature enhancing
eects are not worth it for this reason. I don't want to get caught up on this one example. There are
many strategies that utilize synergy to make creature enhancement truly worth it (Tempered Steel
(/cards/scars-of-mirrodin/17846-tempered-steel) decks, for example) but you should be aware that
these synergy based strategies suer from consistency issues because of the nature of the strategy.
Its sometimes worth it anyway though.
There are other forms of functional dependency too. Any card that relies on you having draw another
card rst has a functional dependency. Be very wary when playing cards like this. Only the softest
functional dependencies are consistent enough to be worthwhile. Very hard dependencies require
ENORMOUS support to achieve consistency. If you're going to be running a hard dependency be
prepared to build a dedicated combo deck, otherwise its probably not worth it.
To clarify the terminology: a soft dependency would be between categories. Equipment + Creature,
Ramp Cards + Bombs, etc. A hard dependency would be between specic cards such as Joraga
Treespeaker (/cards/rise-of-the-eldrazi/16952-joraga-treespeaker) + Myr Superion (/cards
/new-phyrexia/18242-myr-superion).
Niche Cases and Role Players
There are times when it is not possible to only use the most ecient and consistent cards in the
format. Maybe your colors simply can't do something eciently. Maybe the format card pool simply
doesn't have any consistent options. There are too many exceptions to list so my purpose with this
brief section is just to make it clear that there are good exceptions to the general guidelines.
Sometimes you just need a certain job done and have to work with the tools you have, even though by
historical standards they are inecient or inconsistent. We do what we must. However, if you nd that
your deck is including a large number of inecient or inconsistent role players (cards that serve a
highly specic purpose) then you might want to seriously question whether or not its worth it. If your
strategy requires too many inecient/inconsistent cards its probably not good enough. It might have
worked in past environments but is not well supported in the current card pool. It might just not be a
good idea, period.
Good Decks Have Good Plans

Magic is a strategy game. Strategy is about planning as well as about execution. If your plan is bad
then you are at a huge disadvantage. Make sure you have a good plan before you show up to the
ght. The classic way of dening your plan is by strategic archetype. Most players have heard of these
before, we throw the terms around all the time without having a clear idea about what they really
mean and the permutations of them are: Aggro, Control, Combo.
Mission Statement
A Mission statement is one or two sentences that describe in the most concise terms how your deck
plans to win a game of magic. Every deck should have its own mission statement that is based on its
archetype. Here are the general purpose archetypal mission statements, and a few examples of deck
specic versions of them.
General Aggro Archetype: "play too many threats too quickly for my opponent to deal with them all before
his life total has been reduced to zero."
specic example: "Deal as much damage as possible with my 1 and 2 mana red creatures. Finish the game
with a second wave of red creatures or direct damage spells."
General Control Archetype: "prevent my opponent from executing his game plan. Then, when my opponent
cannot defeat me anymore play a threat that my opponent cannot answer and win with it."
specic example: "utilize countermagic and creature removal to deal with early game threats. use card
drawing spells to make sure I have more answers than my opponent has threats. then, when my opponent is
exhausted play a Grave Titan (/cards/magic-2012/18750-grave-titan) and kill him with it in 2 turns."
General Combo Archetype: "assemble a combination of two specic cards as quickly as possible. the two
cards, in combination, will produce an eect so overwhelmingly powerful that my opponent will lose to it."
specic example: "utilize cheap blue cantrips and card drawing eects to get Deceiver Exarch and Splinter
Twin into my hand. Then, cast these two spells in combination to produce innite Exarch tokens with haste
and attack for the win."
Mission statements are very important. If you cannot produce a succinct mission statement for your
deck then you probably don't have a good enough plan. How can you expect to win a game of Magic if
you don't even know how you're going to win it?
There's more to archetypes and strategic plans then just what I've covered here. It could be a whole
article series discussing the various hybrid archetypes (aggro-control, mid-range, ramp, aggro-combo,
combo-control, multi-combo, etc.) but for the sake of preventing this already sprawling article from
getting out of control i'll leave that discussion for another day.
Feedback
Have a Plan B
No plan survives rst contact with the enemy fully intact. Sometimes things just don't work out
according to plan. Maybe your opponent had all the right answers for your attackers. Maybe your
deck's own internal consistency issues screwed you and you just didn't draw what you needed in time.
A good deck should be able to win even when things go a little wrong. If things go alot wrong even the
best deck will probably lose, but having a fallback plan to cover some hiccups in your main plan is a
very good idea.
What constitutes a good Plan B? Totally specic to each deck. No general way to characterize this.
What makes a good plan B? Its not vulnerable to the same things Plan A is. If your Plan A is to attack
with creatures then your Plan B should not also be vulnerable to creature removal. If your Plan A is to
assemble a combo then your Plan B should not be vulnerable to the same things that disrupt your
Plan A combo. Plan B doesn't need to be complicated or independently viable. Simple things will
suce. Maybe you'll just use Burn spells to nish the job. Totally valid plan B. Maybe you'll just get 20
points in with Manlands. totally valid plan B. maybe you've got a second, weaker combo in your deck
to supplement the rst. Totally valid plan B. Doesn't really matter what it is or even that its particularly
good. What does matter is that you have a backup plan that still works even when your primary plan
has failed.
Good Decks Have Good Mana Bases

This section can be short and sweet. The topic itself is deep and interesting but fortunately can be
summarized in a few simple words.
On Mana Curve and Land Count
Mana screw will kill you every time. So will color screw. You can't play spells that your mana base
cannot support. The single most common error I see from any deckbuilder is playing insucient land.
It is absolutely imperative that you play enough land for your deck, based on what the deck's mana
curve is.
In general we can think of there being three typical mana curves: low, medium, and high. In practice
there's a huge amount of variation but at minimum we can categorize any mana curve into these
ranges.
Example of a low mana curve:
CMC 1: 8-12
CMC 2: 8-12
CMC 3: 4-6
CMC 4: 2-4
CMC 5+: probably none, maybe 1-3
Example of a medium mana curve:
CMC 1: 0-4
CMC 2: 8-12
CMC 3: 6-8
CMC 4: 4-6
CMC 5 or 6: 4-6
CMC 7+: probably none, maybe 1 or 2
Example of a high mana curve:
CMC 1: 0-4
CMC
CMC
CMC
CMC
CMC
CMC
2: 6-10
3: 4-6
4: 4-6
5: 3-5
6 or 7: 3-5
8+: probably none
most aggro decks have low mana curves, most control decks have high mana curves, most ramp
decks have high mana curves. alot of decks end up with medium mana curves just because its fairly
consistent. some decks are called midrange for no reason other then they have a medium mana
curve.
here's a very basic rule of thumb for assigning land count to your deck. 24 lands is the default number
for medium mana curve decks. if your deck has a low mana curve you can justify playing fewer then
24 lands. 22 works for most aggro decks. a very slim one (with lots of 1 drops) can get away with 20 or
21. if your deck plays fewer then 20 lands it has to have a curve that is lower than low. lots of free
spells, maybe a mana cheating mechanic. if your deck has a high mana curve you denitely need more
then 24 lands. 26 is the most typical number for control decks. ramp decks often play as many as 27.
On Colored Mana Balance
additionally we must ensure that colored mana costs are covered. it is usually correct to play as many
quality dual lands as exist in the format that can t into your mana base. some of the best decks of all
time were good in no small part due to their mana base being composed almost entirely of dual lands.
UB Faeries (a previous standard boogeyman, one of the best standard decks of all time) played 16-20
dual lands in its mana base. the advantages of this are profound. many have tried to come up with a
mathematical formula for computing color ratio but there's usually some aw with whatever formula
you might come up with. here's a potentially useful, though awed formula that you can use if you
take care to make manual adjustments afterwards.
Feedback
For each color in your deck count up every colored mana symbol in a spell's mana cost. Take the total
number and divide by 2, round up. That is the minimum number of lands capable of producing that
color of mana that your deck will require to cast its colored spells consistently.
What's wrong with this formula? It doesn't take into account turn priority. Maybe you have only a few
green mana spells in your deck but they are very time sensitive and must be cast on turn 1 or 2 to be
maximally useful (Birds of Paradise (/cards/magic-2012/18664-birds-of-paradise), for example). In
order to account for this you must increase your green mana producers above and beyond what is
strictly needed based on color symbol count. What else is wrong with this formula? it doesn't make
any statements about lands that enter the battleeld tapped. some decks can support many EtB
tapped lands and can play many more non-basic lands than usual because of it. control decks often
have this advantage. Some decks have a much greater need to play their cards on the curve (meaning
a 2 drop on turn 2, a 3 drop on turn 3, etc.) and cannot support many EtB tapped lands and must use
basic lands instead or limit themselves to duallands that have a mechanism of entering play
untapped. The above formula can be used to get a good baseline but it must be adjusted manually to
account for the eects mentioned.
Other Concerns
Many decks include non-land mana sources, cantrips, card drawing spells, or other eects that assist
with mana development in one way or another. This topic can get very complicated and sophisticated
and further discussion is beyond the scope of this article. Just be aware that the rabbit hole is deep on
this one and there are many exceptions to the rules of thumb given above. Each exception can be
justied with good reasons though. If you don't have a good reason, you shouldn't break the rule of
thumb.
If you're ever in doubt and feeling tempted to cut a land, don't do it. If anything you should add one
more land then you think you need. You always lose when you get mana screwed but sometimes you
win anyway if you get mana ooded. More is better. Don't shave lands just to t extra cool spells in.
You'll regret it.
Good decks respect their opponents

Magic is a 2 player game. Your opponent is not a goldsh. A common mistake is to assume that your
opponent is less capable than he really is. This is inviting disaster. It is better to assume your
opponent is MORE capable than he really is and to build for the most hostile environment you can
think of. If your deck remains functional even in the face of considerable hostility then it is probably a
good deck. If your deck crumples to enemy resistance then it probably wasn't good to begin with.
There are two main principles we can use to think about how a deck fairs against its opponent:
Interactivity and Resilience.
Interactivity
Interactivity is a measure of a deck's defensive strength. When we "interact" with our opponent, what
we mean really is that we're trying to screw up his plans by countering his spells, discarding his hand,
killing his creatures, and otherwise just being a pain in his butt.
Why should you interact with your opponent? Isn't it better to just focus on the kill? Sometimes it is.
There are some aggro decks and some combo decks that are at their best when they try to just kill as
fast as possible and let the opponent do whatever they want. How often is that the best plan? Rarely.
Sometimes even just a small amount of interactivity is enough to secure a win. A single crucial removal
spell or counterspell is the dierence between winning and losing a huge amount of the time.
Interactivity is so important that its possible to base an entire archetype (control) around it.
The reason we should almost always attempt to interact with our opponent is because of variance. We
cannot guarantee that we always get our best draws that will denitely win faster than our opponent.
Interacting with the opponent smooths out this variance. If we can't win as soon as possible we must
instead make sure our opponent does not win rst. All we have to do is win before he does, not win
before some arbitrary turn has elapsed in game.
There's a pitfall here though. Some players get into the habit of playing "answers for answers". they
see that their opponent has some card that is particularly eective against their deck (a hoser
basically) and think they can overcome it by playing a spell that defeats the hoser. Example:
Dismember (/cards/new-phyrexia/18182-dismember) as answer to Kor Firewalker (/cards/worldwake
/16695-kor-rewalker). This is not optimal strategy. An answer for an answer only works if you're
holding it rst. Its very time sensitive. If you draw your answer for answer too late it was ineective
and the damage was already done. Further, there's the risk of it being redundant. If you draw your
answer for answer but your opponent does not draw his hoser then your draw was dead. A better
strategy is to reinforce your game plan with resilience.
Resilience
Resilience is the compliment of interactivity. It is a measure of how dicult your deck is to eectively
interact with. An eective interaction is one where the answer was ecient (in terms of mana AND
cards spent) and timely (played in a relevant time frame). Resilient threats are hard to eectively
interact with. Your opponent's ability to answer them is limited.
A good case study in Resilience is the issue of creatures vs. removal spells. This is a very common
theme on the forums here and many players make the mistake of playing creatures that have no
resilience against the most eective forms of removal. The fact is that most removal costs little mana
(just 1 or 2) or if it costs more mana it is very card ecient (a sweeper, for example). For a creature to
be resilient against this eective removal one or more of the following must be true
Feedback
1) the creature must be cheap and individually unimportant. it is just one threat among many and
there is another one right behind it.
OR
2) the creature must provide value regardless of whether or not it is immediately removed.
OR
3) the creature must itself be unusually dicult to remove. the most common eective removal spells
must be of limited (or nil) eectiveness against it.
if a creature fails to meet at least one of those conditions it is not resilient against removal and is
probably not a good choice, since most standard formats are lled with eective removal spells. These
resilience concerns are the reason why Titans outrank just about any other large creature you might
play in Standard. they are also the reason why aggro decks based on lots of small creatures are far
more eective then aggro decks based on a smaller number of large creatures. there are always
exceptions of course, but in general thats what we observe.
This is just one case study, the case of creatures vs. removal. similar analysis could be done for any
complimentary pair of threat + answer. the best threats are usually the most resilient ones. it is often
more important to be resilient then it is to be ecient. as mentioned previously, you only have to win
before your opponent does, not before some arbitrary turn has passed.
Good Decks Have 75 Cards

For competitive play, one cannot ignore the sideboard. The sideboard is relevant in more games than
not, at minimum half all tournament games include sideboarding, and realistically its closer to 60%
(since more matches are 3 games than 2). The maindeck has to be good but if your sideboard isn't
good then you're not really ready for competitive match play.
Specic sideboard analysis is the most valuable kind and it requires specic decklists and metagames
to do, which is beyond the scope of this article. I'm going to focus on general principles and pitfall
avoidance in this section so you can get the right idea and go from there.
Here's the basic, fundamental idea of correct sideboard building: you cannot board a card IN without
also boarding a card OUT, so you must build your sideboard with this in mind. Often it is more
important what you board out than what you board in. You might not have a dedicated hoser for a
matchup but you're incredibly likely to have at least a couple of maindeck cards that are subpar in the
matchup. If the only thing you use your sideboard for is replacing subpar cards with something with
better performance then you're using your sideboard eectively.
Pitfall #1 - using too many hosers
A common pitfall is to jam your sideboard full of hosers against what you think the best decks are but
you don't really have a plan for how to use them. Hosers are just hate cards and sometimes they
work, but often they aren't even good enough because they don't mesh with your plan. If you took out
cards that were useful and synergistic with your strategy and replaced them with cards that do
nothing in particular for you other then make your opponent's life miserable, then you are not
optimally using your sideboard. The goal is to win the game, not to grief your opponent. When
choosing cards for your sideboard keep in mind that its more important that the card makes sense
with your strategy than it is that the card is harmful to a specic opponent. You can't guarantee what
opponent you'll face, but if you have cards that are good in your deck in general you can always use
your sideboard to tune up the deck between games and make it slightly better than it was game 1,
based on what your opponent is playing.
There are exceptions of course. Sometimes a deck is very dominant in the metagame and the best bet
is to just hose it. This is rare though. It usually requires a kinda degenerate deck with an unusual
strategy, usually combo decks of some kind (graveyard combo decks like Dredge or Reanimator are
notorious).
A pretty good way to build a well integrated sideboard is to sketch out multiple alternative maindeck
congurations that you'd be happy with. Each conguration might dier by 4-6 card choices. Let the
overow live in the sideboard and swap between congurations between games, based on which
conguration you think will be best. If you build a sideboard like this you'll avoid having narrow cards
that don't mesh well with your deck. Every card in the sideboard will be independently useful so you'll
always be able to board at least a few cards in. This is better expected value then sometimes boarding
in a really nasty hoser, but often just having nothing to board in.
Pitfall #2 - ghting the last war
There's another pitfall thats really important to avoid. Always remember that you are boarding against
your opponent's game 2 deck, not his game 1 deck. You never face his main deck with your sideboard.
you always face his maindeck + sideboard with your maindeck + sideboard. This pitfall is best
illustrated with an example. Here's one I see people make ALOT.
Example: You are playing UW Control vs. opponent playing RDW
In game 1 you managed to stabilize the board around turn 5 by resolving a Day of Judgment to sweep
his creatures. You were at 6 life when this happened. Unsurprisingly your opponent won the game by
burning you out with a Bolt and Incinerate he had been saving in his hand.
Feedback
Here's the mistake: you're playing Leyline of Sanctity (/cards/magic-2011/17418-leyline-of-sanctity) in

your sideboard and you want to board it in for game 2 because you lost to direct damage game 1 and
gure you would have won if only your opponent couldn't have nished you o with burn.
This is a mistake because you're ghting the last war. What did your opponent do with his sideboard?
He boarded out his burn for haste creatures. From his perspective the game looked like this: I was
beating my opponent down something erce but the DoJ landed just in time. I lucked out on that one
and had the burn, but thats kinda loose. A Hero of Oxid Ridge (/cards/mirrodin-besieged/17960hero-of-oxid-ridge) would have been perfect though. Incinerate (/cards/magic-2012/18763-incinerate)
out, Hero in. This is good strategy from the red player.
From his perspective the burn spells are mostly used to remove blockers so his men can connect for
damage. They can also be useful to damage players but a persistent threat like a creature is even
better, its worth more damage for the card and is far preferable against a control player who might be
running countermagic or lifegain which would completely invalidate the burn. Furthermore, the
control player has few blockers anyway so the burn just sits around in his hand. Why did he have 2
burn spells waiting? because there was nothing to use it on before anyway.
Your Leyline whis. Your opponent boarded out the thing the Leyline protects from. The Leyline
doesn't do anything to help win the game and produces no value, its just a narrow hoser, and now
you're caught short because your opponent went the other way on you. He boarded out the burn and
brought in haste creatures. You know what you should have boarded in? Creatures that can block. He
boarded out cards that can remove blockers and boarded in more cards that are stopped by blockers.
Furthermore, creatures wouldn't just be narrow hosers, they'd be useful no matter what your
opponent draws. What you should have boarded in was something like Kor Firewalker (/cards
/worldwake/16695-kor-rewalker), or Timely Reinforcements (/cards/magic-2012/18871-timelyreinforcements), or Wall of Omens (/cards/duel-decks-sorin-vs-tibalt/20968-wall-of-omens) or
Spellskite (/cards/new-phyrexia/18289-spellskite) or whatever.
I hope the example illustrates the point. If you use independently useful cards in your sideboard, and
keep in mind that you are facing your opponents game 2 deck (not his game 1 deck) then you will have
an eective sideboard.
Sometimes Good Decks Are Bad Choices

Its important to recognize that all decks have limitations and no deck can do everything. The best you
can hope for is to have a deck that is powerful and consistent. It can execute a game winning plan that
is dicult for the opponent to disrupt, while interacting enough with the opponent to make sure your
plan wins before your opponent's plan does. Thats all you have to do to win in magic. You don't have
to handle every situation, you just have to execute your plan before your opponent executes his plan.
What if its still not good enough? What if your plan doesn't win even when you execute it successfully
before your opponent executes his? Yes. this is entirely possible. You can seriously just get trumped
outright by a deck that has a strategy that utterly defeats yours. In well balanced metagames it doesn't
happen very often but there are some classic historical examples. Here's one:
You are playing a mono-green Elves deck and your opponent is playing RDW. Your elves deck is pretty
good in its own right. Its fast, its consistent, you've steamrolled multiple opponents and tend to do
particularly well against certain types of control decks that can't keep up with your rapid board
development. However, you've got a bad matchup. I mean a truly terrible awful shamefully bad
matchup against Red. You lose this matchup like 80% of the time. The red player burns up our elves
and attacks with his guys. Your early board development is completely thwarted and your normally
awesome Overruns are deadweight in your hand, you don't have enough mana to cast them (because
your mana guys got burnt) and you don't have enough creatures on the board anyway (again, burnt).
You're getting bashed for 4 or 5 points a turn and don't have anything big enough to block. What do
you do?
You might think you should try to address this terrible matchup by changing your deck. The elves are
too puny and too vulnerable to burn so clearly you need to add bigger guys to the deck to ght back
with, right? No. Wrong. Your manabase can't support bigger guys because you've tuned your deck to
run on just 20 lands (and about 12 mana elves). Your deck is designed to swarm with 1 and 2 mana
creatures and then cast Overrun (/cards/planechase-2012-edition/19932-overrun) for the win. The
whole plan is supposed to execute between turns 1 and 5. What are you gonna do with 4 or 5 mana
creatures? Even if you draw enough land to cast them (you won't, but lets just assume) what are you
gonna do with them on turn 5 anyway? Nothing. Its already over by then. Too little too late. And now
that awesome matchup you had against control sucks too because Control can easily deal with the big
mopey 4 mana creature. You managed to ruin your good matchup without xing your bad matchup.
There are many similar examples. The moral of the story is that a deck can only do what its strategic
design and mana base allow it to do. You can't do everything and shouldn't try. The most important
thing is to maintain strategic focus and let your deck be good at what it does. You'll be rewarded when
your opponents are not able to deal with your strategy. However, opponents can easily deal with a
weak version of any strategy just by overpowering you with their superior eciency, consistency, and
strategic focus. Don't sacrice these fundamentals to cover your weaknesses. Stay focused and you'll
win when you ought to. The point of deck building is to maximize strategic advantages to produce
game wins. Focus. Keep your advantage maximized. Focus.
If the metagame is incredibly hostile to the strategy of an otherwise good deck then the correct choice
is usually to just play a dierent deck. There's no shame in that. Good decks are still good even when
they aren't the right choice. If you want to win though you need to make the right choice. Choose the
Feedback
best good deck for the metagame to maximize your wins.
Sometimes Your Good Deck Isn't

This section will act as a kind of punctuation mark on this article. There's one more thing I have to say
about deck building, and I think its the most valuable advice I can give. I hope you take this to heart:
most ideas don't pan out. The failure rate of deck ideas is exceptionally high. I throw away close to
90% of my skeched out decklists. I throw out most of them before even sleeving them up for
playtesting. Of the decks I do get around to actually playtesting I still throw out most of them. There
are times when I throw out ALL of the deck ideas I have and just play an established deck because its
the right choice.
How do you know a deck idea is a failure? Start with the theoretical analysis.
Go through the deck and ask yourself "are these cards good enough? are there any weak cards in here
that shouldn't be? are too many of the cards weak?" thats a stopping point right there. if the deck is
full of weak cards its probably not gonna work. Remember that eciency is not the only measure of
power. Consistency is probably an even more important measure. Many decks have incredibly
powerful best case scenarios but are on average extremely weak because they are inconsistent. Keep
consistency at the front of your mind when evaluating how powerful your decklist looks.
Go through the deck and ask yourself "is it obvious how this deck wins?" If not, scrap it. A random pile
of cards (even good cards) with no plan is not a good deck. Remember that many good plans are
pretty simple. But you have to be realistic. If your plan is unrealistic the deck is probably a failure.
Go through the deck and ask yourself "does the mana work?" If not, you just can't play it. Sorry. Mana
base is the most important constraining factor on deck construction. If you can't cast your spells,
nothing else even matters.
Go through the deck and ask yourself "will this deck be able to actually win 2 out of 3 games in a
match?" Some decks might do very well in game 1 but not actually be viable for competitive play
because they are SUPER vulnerable to commonly played sideboard cards. You get nowhere winning
every game 1 and losing every game 2 and 3. If a deck has a distinctive game 2 vulnerability, is its
game 1 advantage HUGE to make up for it? If its not the deck is probably a failure.
And nally, ask yourself "does this deck work in the expected metagame?" As mentioned in the
previous section, even decks that are good on all the fundamentals are often bad choices because the
metagame is lled with bad matchups for them.
Remember that there's no shame in abandoning an idea. Its a skill in itself to know when something
isn't working out and when your time would be better spent doing something else. Most ideas are
awed and its important to go and look for the aws. Don't get caught up in the initial enthusiasm
when you think of something cool. Let it simmer. Sleep on it. Take a look at it again tomorrow with a
more critical eye.
Last edited by metamorph (/members/33829-metamorph): August 13, 2011 (08/13/2011 3:00 AM)
RealOG47 (/members
/77227-realog47)
Brewmaster
(/members
Very nicely done. I've been waiting patiently for this. I will look forward to it being stickied.
The information is very useful for people who don't understand some of the basic deck building ideas
like consistency and making sure that you have the mana to make plays.
Last edited by RealOG47 (/members/77227-realog47): August 11, 2011 (08/11/2011 12:51 AM)
/77227-realog47)
Posts: 1,074
Join Date: 11/19/2010
Login (/login) to like

this.
ThaPhantom07
(/members/58540thaphantom07)
I gotta give you kudos for this. Very detailed and infomative. Good job. A lot of work must have gone
into this.
Archmage Overlord
(/members
/58540-thaphantom07)
Posts: 1,013
Join Date: 01/13/2013

this.
Mshnik (/members
/68322-mshnik)
Archmage
It's reading articles like this one that gives me hope for the magic community as a whole. While some
people are aming and writing stupid comments, you take time out of your busy day to write this
amazingly constructive article. I applaud you, good sir :smileup:.
Modern
Feedback
(/members
/68322-mshnik)
Posts: 1,014
Join Date: 11/12/2012

this.
Storm (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/blog.php?b=6119)
Sunnyside Up (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com
/blog.php?b=6466)
Death+Taxes
7->0:60 Discard
EDH
Vig (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/blog.php?b=4567)
Zedruu (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/blog.php?b=5753)
Olivia (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/blog.php?b=6429)
Play Magic online free with GCCG!
Download it here (http://gccg.sourceforge.net/) -- (My Username is ShinkyP)
Trade Thread: Here! (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=419685)
(/members
ryansolid
/68342-ryansolid)
Resident Planeswalker
Posts: 3,533
Join Date: 05/07/2010
Location: Vancouver

this.
Good work so far. I especially like your resilience section, for illustrating the old dies to Terror issue.
The rst point "1) the creature must be cheap and individually unimportant. it is just one threat among
many and there is another one right behind it." is often missed. More so than just cheap it has to be
ecient/consistent (basically your rst section) and one of many. This redundancy argument is often
lost and people focus on the latter 2. This argument takes a more specic look at the format and it's
why a deck of hasty 2/2's can win at a certain threshold.
Any time we go back and look at eciency and consistency on why a card is good requires that look at
the format which I'm glad you preface to your points in the rst section. Basically look at what you'd
expect in a typical Standard Environment as a starting point. Every time of card evaluation always
comes back to this so this type of discerning of the card pool might be the greatest skill that comes
with experience from deck builder's perspective.
Current Decks:
RUG Monsters (http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/competitive/proven-standard/colossalgruul/546908-rug-devotion-exploring-a-blue-splash?comment=60) Standard
Melira Pod Modern
Tempo Legacy
Berserk Stompy Legacy
Cobra Gush Vintage
Articer Andy (/members

/56530-articer-andy)
Archmage Overlord
Very good thread, great read. The one thing I feel that should be added to your section on whether or
not a creature is playable is whether that creature can simply win the game on it's own in a timely
fashion if it's not immediately removed. Creatures like these generally force your opponent to spend
all of their resources dealing with that threat and prevent them from executing their game plan for a
(/members
Posts: 2,750
turn or two in order to nd a removal spell, and if they can't, they will die to it or the impact it left on
the game will be enough to end it. Creatures that t into this category that don't t into your other
categories include Hero of Bladehold (/cards/mirrodin-besieged/17959-hero-of-bladehold), Steel
Overseer (/cards/duel-decks-elspeth-vs-tezzeret/17615-steel-overseer), Fauna Shaman (/cards/magic2011/17362-fauna-shaman), etc.
Join Date: 07/10/2009

Location:
(/comments/rating1
modal/15-3421630)
Login (/login) to like this.
Quote from mikedh1 (/comments/3249535)

You don't go by WORST CASE SCENARIOS, or BEST CASE SCENARIOS, you go by what will PROBABLY happen MOST of the time
statiscally probability odds wise most of the time over the very long term
TheHosecloth (/members
/77289-thehosecloth)
Fantastic read as usual, Metamorph. I'm looking forward to it's completion.
State Alchemist
(/members
Quote from wie2323 (/comments/3282448)

Where is TheHosecloth when you need him?
/77289-thehosecloth)
Posts: 1,525
Join Date: 12/29/2010

this.
Halecta (/members
/50488-halecta)
Might also want to include Ramp and Mid-range decks, those work very dierently then the 3 types
listed.
Archmage Overlord
Posts: 1,180
Join Date: 04/21/2009
Location:

this.
yarpus (/members
/80544-yarpus)
Archmage Overlord
I know that I am building a lot of decks you would consider BAD (I remember you banishing any
possibilities of playing Mono Blue Control), still I like your article a lot. I'd only say you could write
something more about philosophy of gaining card-advantage, many people don't understand this
Feedback
concept.
(/members
/80544-yarpus)
Posts: 1,576
Join Date: 01/27/2013

this.
Redbaron225 (/members
/73995-redbaron225)
Very helpful
Experienced Mage
(/members
Spoiler (click to show)
/73995-redbaron225)
Posts: 104
Join Date: 09/08/2010
Location: philadelphia

this.
Articer Andy (/members

Archmage Overlord
(/members
Quote from yarpus (/comments/3421672)

I know that I am building a lot of decks you would consider BAD (I remember you banishing any
possibilities of playing Mono Blue Control), still I like your article a lot. I'd only say you could write
something more about philosophy of gaining card-advantage, many people don't understand this
concept.
Posts: 2,750
Join Date: 07/10/2009
Location:

this.
Not to change the subject, but please tell me what you gain from playing Mono Blue Control in
Standard at the moment as opposed to Blue/White or Blue/Black or even Blue/Red?
Quote from mikedh1 (/comments/3249535)

You don't go by WORST CASE SCENARIOS, or BEST CASE SCENARIOS, you go by what will PROBABLY happen MOST of the time
statiscally probability odds wise most of the time over the very long term
(/members
Tanion
/63109-tanion)
I really like your Mana-Curve section. It helps out a lot to someone who just runs 21-22 lands for every
deck. Aggro, Control, Jank whatever... now I kinda understand how it works.
Archmage Overlord
To the people that say that a card needs to be a higher rarity because of Limited... I hate you guys so much. I present to you with this.
(/members
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY8h2vp5Xis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY8h2vp5Xis)
/63109-tanion)
Posts: 2,099
Join Date: 01/21/2010

this.
xOPtimUsZErOx
(/members/91606xoptimuszerox)
This is exacly what i have been looking for!
Just Getting Started

Posts: 21
Join Date: 08/03/2011
Location:

this.
ryansolid (/members
/68342-ryansolid)
Posts: 3,533
Feedback
Join Date: 05/07/2010
Quote from Articer Andy (/comments/3421630)
Location: Vancouver

this.
Very good thread, great read. The one thing I feel that should be added to your section on
whether or not a creature is playable is whether that creature can simply win the game on it's
own in a timely fashion if it's not immediately removed. Creatures like these generally force your
opponent to spend all of their resources dealing with that threat and prevent them from
executing their game plan for a turn or two in order to nd a removal spell, and if they can't, they
will die to it or the impact it left on the game will be enough to end it. Creatures that t into this
category that don't t into your other categories include Hero of Bladehold (/cards/mirrodinbesieged/17959-hero-of-bladehold), Steel Overseer (/cards/duel-decks-elspeth-vs-tezzeret/17615steel-overseer), Fauna Shaman (/cards/magic-2011/17362-fauna-shaman), etc.
This is actually a good point. Fauna Shaman is the standout in that list. Steel Overseer and lord eects
in general require redundancy usually as well. Tempered Steel has it's namesake, Overseer, and Signal
Pest.
Hero of Bladehold is sort of in the middle. As it requires other bodies and redundant pressure to be
able to do anything other than die to the rst removal spell. Some people would consider Hero only
borderline playable.
Lotus Cobra is a creature that can provide zero value if removed immediately but represents and
impending threat. I suppose though it has redundancy in ramp spells and other ramp creatures.
Fauna Shaman though works ne without redundancy and is very threatening. It's goodness seems to
be directly proportional to the speed of the format, the power of creatures worth fetching, and the
average CMC of removal spells that see play that can remove it being 2 or greater (or 1 and provide
card advantage). It's a lot more like Jace or Birthing Pod in that it is a CA lter.
I think what's missing is an adaption of the 2nd rule.
It should read something like:
2) The creature must provide value for it's time in play that exceeds the tempo loss of it's removal.
Like if you untap with certain cards they are devastating. But then look at Consecrated Sphinx. It's sort
of middle ground. Does nothing if it is removed immediately does something if it survives to your
opponents main phase. It doesn't really t into 1 or 3. Denitely it's value is it's ETB even if it doesn't
have an ETB exactly. It continues to provide even greater value the longer it lives. Fauna Shaman is like
this as well but it takes longer to see value. This is the key dierence between a creature like this and
Primordial Hydra or even Hero of Bladehold as a removal spell largely sets back the value even a turn
or so later.. you are only gaining value o the opponents life total or if they attack into it and their
creature dies (bladehold does leave some soldiers around assuming you are attacking). I still think is
factor when looking at these creatures as there is some value there even if it is signicantly less
(probably below the threshold).
Last edited by ryansolid (/members/68342-ryansolid): August 11, 2011 (08/11/2011 1:23 AM)
Current Decks:
RUG Monsters (http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/competitive/proven-standard/colossalgruul/546908-rug-devotion-exploring-a-blue-splash?comment=60) Standard
Melira Pod Modern
Tempo Legacy
Berserk Stompy Legacy
Cobra Gush Vintage
Zelderex (/members
/76545-zelderex)
Title should read:

[Primer] Any deck in Type 2 Constructed
(/members
Kudos
/76545-zelderex)
Posts: 3,923
Join Date: 10/31/2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ, U.S.A.

this.
0
Join the Poetry Running Contest! (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=421297)
Quote from BlippyTheSlug (/comments/7326577)
RedXenos (/members
/92133-redxenos)
I Would like to give you kudos on this amazing guide!
Just Getting Started

Posts: 2
Join Date: 08/10/2011
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/PsiXenos/108381265930164 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/PsiXenos

/108381265930164)
Feedback
Location:

this.
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/PsiandXenos?feature=mhee (http://www.youtube.com/user/PsiandXenos?feature=mhee)
(/members
Kingcobrex
/7047-kingcobrex)
\m/ >.< \m/
Can we have time table for the full completion of the guide? It was a good read, but the parts I was
most interested in you had not gotten too.
(/members
/7047-kingcobrex)
Don't mind my posts, they are probably just a product of gang violence
Posts: 1,052
Join Date: 01/13/2005
Quote from Jobie

Also, Octopus has one S.
Location: In the past

this.
metamorph (/members
/33829-metamorph)
Immortal One
thanks for the compliments everyone.

i just added the section on sideboarding, so i hope you'll go back and read the new stu.
(/members
eta on the rest of it is near future, possibly tonight.
/33829-metamorph)
Posts: 7,212
Join Date: 09/21/2006
Location:

this.
(/members
Toasty!
/64080-toasty)
The one thing I really enjoyed about your post, above all over things, is that you worke hard to
demonstrate a point in each section, WITHOUT bein conceding or smugish in your typing. Very good
Ascended Mage
work, and I hope others will read.
Posts: 152
Join Date: 11/28/2012

this.
(/members
nukeme1
/60805-nukeme1)
Ascended Mage
Fantastically done. people really forget that Magic is a 2 player game. Interaction in essential in order
for a strategy to be successful. You also don't mention land destruction, which is another form of
interaction, punishing decks with greedy manabases as well as rewarding decks for being heavy basic.
However, these basic manabases lack manlands and other utility lands which impacts the resilence of
Posts: 317
Join Date: 11/27/2009

this.
the deck.
EDH Commander
Sharuum the Hegemon
Riku of the Two Reections
Clan Limited
Omnei (/members/62405omnei)
Archmage Overlord
Amazing read, even though I consider myself a pretty good deckbuilder. The sideboarding section is
INCREDIBLY helpful. I look forward to its completion.
Looking for trades (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=213825)?
(/members
/62405-omnei)
Posts: 1,431
Join Date: 01/08/2010
Location: Evanston, IL

this.
dryan (/members/90014dryan)
Excellent article.
Ascended Mage
Posts: 249
Join Date: 07/09/2011
Location:

this.
0
Feedback
keiichiman (/members
/91559-keiichiman)
Ascended Mage
Great article. Best thing about this article is that it made me want to immediately go out and build a
deck just to try out your advice!
(/members
/91559-keiichiman)
Sig by Rivenor (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=329663)

Decks (All Budget)
Modern
Soul Sisters
Shamans
Posts: 305
Join Date: 08/03/2011
Location:

this.
metamorph (/members
/33829-metamorph)
Immortal One
posted section "Sometimes Even Good Decks Are Bad Choices". probably will write the last section
tomorrow. link this article to your friends! i'm glad people are nding it helpful. help me get more
readers for it.
(/members
/33829-metamorph)
Posts: 7,212
Join Date: 09/21/2006
Location:

this.
Coma White (/members

/61315-coma-white)
Archmage Overlord
Honestly, I feel as though this should receive a sticky from the Moderators. I've played in PTQs, but I'm
by no means a "pro" Magic player. I don't really build decks. I put together what I feel is the best deck
out there and then tweak it to whatever sort of meta I expect to face. I stay away from trying to
innovate myself because I don't think I really have the experience or know-how to really build a
(/members
competitive deck from the ground-up and make it work. Consequently, I feel as though I understand
less about Magic than I otherwise might by exploring real, intense deck-building.
So, thank you for this post. Really valuable information for me.
/61315-coma-white)
Posts: 1,240
Join Date: 12/10/2009
Location: Stensia

this.
Standard:
:symu::symb::symw:Solar Flare (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7518461&postcount=15):symw::symb::symu:
Commander:
:symb::symw:Ghost Council of Orzhova (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=327682) :symw::symb:
Linger on death's door and risk being invited in.
To post a comment, please login (/login?returnUrl=%2orums%2fthe-game%2fstandard-type-2%2fcompetitive%2f128633-how-to-buildbetter-decks) or register (/register) a new account.
Next (/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/competitive/128633-how-to-build-better-decks?page=2)
MTG Salvation Forums

(/forums/)
Jump to Forum (/forums/jump)

The Ga
Standard (Type
Competiti
(/forums/the-game
(/forums/the-game/standard-type-2
(/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/com
Back To Competitive
Feedback
Back to Top
Featured Sites
MORE
Guild Wars 2 Guru

The latest and greatest on
Tyria.
Enjoy the game
Not a Member?
(http://www.guildwars2guru.com)
Get your Free Account!
LoL Pro
Sign up for Free! (http://www.curse.com
Dominate with Pro LoL

guides.
(http://www.lolpro.com)
Browse
Core ()
(http://www.youtube.com/curseentertainment)
(http://www.twitter.com/#!/cursenetwork)
(http://www.curse.com/news.rss)
(http://www.facebook.com/CurseNetwork)
Community ()
Database ()
Wiki ()
Curse (http://www.curse.com/)
MMO-Champion (http://www.mmo-champion.com/)
CurseForge (http://www.curseforge
WowAce (http://www.wowace.com/)
SkyrimForge (http://www.skyrimforge.com/)
SC2Mapster (http://www.sc2mapste
LoLPro (http://www.lolpro.com/)
ExilePro (http://www.exilepro.com)
Feedback
ABOUT US (HTTP://WWW.CURSE.COM/ABOUT)
ADVERTISING (HTTP://WWW.CURSE.COM/ADVERTISING/OVERVIEW)
TERMS OF SERVICE (HTTP://WWW.CURSE.COM/TERMS)
PRIVACY POLICY (HTTP://WWW.CURSE.COM/PRIVACY)
PREMIUM TERMS OF SERVICE (HTTP://WWW.CURSE.COM/PREMIUMTERMS)
CURSE NEWSLETTER (HTTP://WWW.CURSE.COM/NEWSLETTER)
JOBS AT CURSE (HTTP://WWW.CURSE.COM/JOBS)
Feedback

How To Build Better Decks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How To Build Better Decks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Login (/login?

Khans of Tarkir (93/269) (/spoilers/144-khans-of-tarkir)

MTG Salvation Forums (/forums/)

Commander 2014 (/spoilers/145-commander-2014)

The Game (/forums/the-game)

New Posts (/new-content)

Standard (Type 2) (/forums/the-game/standard-type-2)

How to Build Better Decks

practices of deck building.

Good Decks Play With Good Cards

Good Decks Have Good Plans

Good Decks Have Good Mana Bases

Good decks respect their opponents

Good Decks Have 75 Cards

Here's the mistake: you're playing Leyline of Sanctity (/cards/magic-2011/17418-leyline-of-sanctity) in

Sometimes Good Decks Are Bad Choices

best good deck for the metagame to maximize your wins.

Sometimes Your Good Deck Isn't

Login (/login) to like

Login (/login) to like

Login (/login) to like

Login (/login) to like

Articer Andy (/members

Join Date: 07/10/2009

Quote from mikedh1 (/comments/3249535)

Fantastic read as usual, Metamorph. I'm looking forward to it's completion.

Quote from wie2323 (/comments/3282448)

Login (/login) to like

Login (/login) to like

Login (/login) to like

Spoiler (click to show)

Login (/login) to like

Articer Andy (/members

Quote from yarpus (/comments/3421672)

Login (/login) to like

Quote from mikedh1 (/comments/3249535)

Login (/login) to like

This is exacly what i have been looking for!

Just Getting Started

Login (/login) to like

Join Date: 05/07/2010

Quote from Articer Andy (/comments/3421630)

Login (/login) to like

Title should read:

Login (/login) to like

Quote from BlippyTheSlug (/comments/7326577)

I Would like to give you kudos on this amazing guide!

Just Getting Started

Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/PsiXenos/108381265930164 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/PsiXenos

Login (/login) to like

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/PsiandXenos?feature=mhee (http://www.youtube.com/user/PsiandXenos?feature=mhee)

Quote from Jobie

Location: In the past

Login (/login) to like

thanks for the compliments everyone.

eta on the rest of it is near future, possibly tonight.

Login (/login) to like

work, and I hope others will read.

Login (/login) to like

Login (/login) to like

Login (/login) to like

Login (/login) to like