Deck Size

Arrisashsir

New Member
Ok, so I know that the minimum number of cards in a deck is 40, and that there is no limit past that. For some reason, most of the decks that I build usually have 50+ cards. But, most of the decks that I see posted here are around the 40 card area. Am I missing a technique to deck building? Is it really that bad to have more than 40 cards?

I have a spellcaster deck that I'm planning on posting for review and ideas and it has......70 cards...
 
People generally tend to make decks smaller to increase the chances/probability of drawing the right card when you need it. This is especially the case if the deck being used is combo based. It is about probability. Say you need a Jinzo and you have 40 cards left in your deck then you have a 1/40 chance to get it. Whereas, in a deck with 70 cards left you only have a 1/70 chance to get the Jinzo.
 
Well, the flock of posts that are going to succeed mine are all going to directly contradict what I'm about to say. But let's address it anyway.

The fact is, most people's decks, I'd say more then 99% them, are dependant on a certain combo(s). There's only going to be a few cards to grant you your win condition, and the more cards you have in your deck, the more turns it's going to take you to reach them. So limiting you deck to the bare minimum will get you to that win condition that much faster. It's the reason you'll see people run cards like Gather Your Mind or Toon Table of Contents in a non-Toon Deck. The cards search out each other and thin the deck out making your combo that much easier to get to.

With that said, here comes the part that people have a hard time dealing with. Thinning your deck out, keeping your cards to the bare minimum is, like everything else, a strategy. Not a rule. I've beat 40 card decks with my 60 card deck plenty of times. And the reason why, is strategy.

Not everyone builds or plays the same way. When you build a deck, you shouldn't just throw in cards together because they look like the have a good effect. What you want is a combination of cards that have solid structure; cards that have synergy with each other. For most people, that means keeping the deck thin and manageable. But for some people, like me, that means that my structure may depend more on card interaction, then on card count.

Now, the following posters will, no doubt, just reiterate what I said in my initial paragraph, and contradict what I've said in my later ones. But it won't change the personal experience I've had with card count. From personal experience, I've found that higher card counts, with a view towards structure, worked better for me then the strict thin deck. Some of my decks are 40, simply because that's the interaction I want. But some are 50 or 60 because the interaction is something far more complex then the average deck. It's all in what you want to do.

Just remember, throwing a bunch of cards in a deck because you like the effect will do poorly in most situations. Most newer players do this with no regard for whether they have a strategy in mind or not. That's why a lot of vets don't understand the concept of the higher card count strategy. They started out with a giant size deck, and of course, didn't do well because of their inexperience. This has turned them off the concept of high card count altogether. But what's important is not so much the card count, as it is the strategy, structure and synergy of what your trying to do. If it works, and works well, then card count is not going to matter.
 
Ok, I see now. I guess that is what I was wondering. I knew about the concept of probability of getting cards and all that - I like math and have done several research projects on the idea of probability (even though I might not be spelling it right...). But I guess I actually NEVER built my decks that way. I usually built my decks based off of a type of card - not a combo of cards. Like I said - I have a spellcaster deck that I'm working on as my main deck. I guess you could say that it has a Dark Magician combo appeal, but I don't think I ever wanted to design it around one card. To me, that seems like limiting your options for winning. I admit - I haven't had that much opportunity to duel, so I can't say for sure how my deck stradegy matches up.

I'll be sure to check over my deck to make sure I didn't just through cards in there b/c I like there effects. But I still don't think I can make myself design a deck around one or two cards - too me that seems way to limiting - for both wining options and overall counter and attack ability. I could be wrong, and in all actuality, I probably am, but that's where I stand now. I'll get that spellcaster's deck up ASAP for people to look at, but I think I'm going to do some personal revisions first.

Thanks!
 
Arrisashsir said:
Ok, I see now. I guess that is what I was wondering. I knew about the concept of probability of getting cards and all that - I like math and have done several research projects on the idea of probability (even though I might not be spelling it right...). But I guess I actually NEVER built my decks that way. I usually built my decks based off of a type of card - not a combo of cards. Like I said - I have a spellcaster deck that I'm working on as my main deck. I guess you could say that it has a Dark Magician combo appeal, but I don't think I ever wanted to design it around one card. To me, that seems like limiting your options for winning. I admit - I haven't had that much opportunity to duel, so I can't say for sure how my deck stradegy matches up.

I'll be sure to check over my deck to make sure I didn't just through cards in there b/c I like there effects. But I still don't think I can make myself design a deck around one or two cards - too me that seems way to limiting - for both wining options and overall counter and attack ability. I could be wrong, and in all actuality, I probably am, but that's where I stand now. I'll get that spellcaster's deck up ASAP for people to look at, but I think I'm going to do some personal revisions first.

Thanks!
I'm in pretty much the same boat there. I wouldn't like using just one or two cards, and having the rest of the Deck focussed on retrieving/protecting those cards.

When I build a theme Deck (WIND monsters, for example), I look through Deck Studio and throw all the likely-looking WIND monsters together. Then I take out the ones I think could be done without. Somehow I narrow my Deck down, ideally (for me) to 40-50.

I do see some cards and think, "That's good good potential in the right Deck", but I don't then make a Deck specifically for it. For example, before I built my aforementioned WIND Deck I had noticed Rallis the Star Bird and decided all it needed was a bit more ATK. But my WIND Deck contains Bladefly, Harpie Ladys, Inferno Reckless Summon, as well as some other good WIND monsters (like Ancient Lamp, Gyroid, and Swift Birdman Joe). So it's not based around Rallis the Star Bird specifically, but around WIND monsters (with a slight lean towards weenie rush).

I think I did throw in a few cards simply because I like their effects, though. And so what? I like those cards; I'm using them. Unless I see a good reason to take them out, there's every reason to leave them in.
 
just to give you another train of thought....most decks @ 40 are there for a reason - usually speed- to get to their power cards/win condition more reliably/quicker - and in doing so must do without other things
often, it's what you don't see in your opponents deck are what can give you clues to their weakness', provided, of course, you can deal with what they can do, until you can gain some advantage

a crude example of 40 vs 50 would be something like,
your opening hand (6 cards) has 2 release restraint and gearfried the swordmaster, so 1/2 your hand is unuseable - you effectively have a 3 card hand, if you can set 1 and 1 , you now have 1 useable card in hand....you need gearfried the iron knight to get up and running -if your deck is @ 40 - there are 34 remaining cards, you have 3 gearfrieds and 2 reinforcement of the army , that's 5 of 34 or about 1 in 7 chance of drawing (next turn) what you need to successfully put the swordmaster on the field ....and only 1 useable card in hand to carry you through..(ouch)
if you have a 50 card deck - you are at about 1 in 9 -worse off/less likely....
you begin to see why synergetic & high utility cards are important

actually - all i've really done is demonstrate why gearfried the swordmaster dosen't get much play... :D
 
cuzwbd said:
just to give you another train of thought....most decks @ 40 are there for a reason - usually speed- to get to their power cards/win condition more reliably/quicker - and in doing so must do without other things
often, it's what you don't see in your opponents deck are what can give you clues to their weakness', provided, of course, you can deal with what they can do, until you can gain some advantage

a crude example of 40 vs 50 would be something like,
your opening hand (6 cards) has 2 release restraints and gearfried the swordmaster, so 1/2 your hand is unuseable - you effectively have a 3 card hand, if you can set 1 and 1 , you now have 1 useable card in hand....you need gearfried the iron knight to get up and running -if your deck is @ 40 - there are 34 remaining cards, you have 3 gearfrieds and 2 reinforcement of the army , that's 5 of 34 or about 1 in 7 chance of drawing (next turn) what you need to successfully put the swordmaster on the field ....and only 1 useable card in hand to carry you through..(ouch)
if you have a 50 card deck - you are at about 1 in 9 -worse off/less likely....
you begin to see why synergetic & high utility cards are important
Yea I see what you're saying. I guess I was never really fully aware of the need for specific cards - my mind never thinks that way, so I never built my decks as such. To me, that seems like "putting all your eggs in one basket" Unless you have a multitude of other cards to keep this other one powerful card of ours alive, wouldn't you run higher risks of losing your winning stradegy in just one move? I can see where a deck based off Exodia would be much more practical - seeing as if you get all 5 cards in your hand, you win. But building an entire deck around brinning one card out seems like a bit of a stretch for me.

But I get it - like I said. I just never understood why everyone wanted 40 card decks. I thought I was doing something wrong, but for now, I like the way I'm approaching the subject, and unless I find that my deck building is a complete faliure, I'll see what I can come up with.
 
i dont mean to say only go 40 - at all - just depends on what you are doing/trying to accomplish....i have an advanced ritual art deck - it needs to be as thin as possible because it has some very specific combos that it needs to win, on the other hand i have a six samurai deck that is a bit fat @ 43 - just so i have a few extra tools in the box - so to speak, and gadget decks are often @ 45 to keep ratios/synergy at optimum. some old deck mills were fat as well ... synergy/utility are what is important - if it works - the deck will be whatever functions best/suits you just be aware of what adding/subtracting does to overall functionality- dont fill your dek with things you cant use...proper side decking can give you the options you need
you dont want to loose with a fist full of cards without knowing why, could'nt get win condition? bad matchup? misplayed?
knowing how you tend to play helps make decisions as well...myself - i tend to overextend, run myself out of options, so for me draw power is essential -i have a machine deck with 3x dekoichi, 3x cyber phoenix, and a morphing jar - thats a possible 7 chances to put more options in my hand - i never get them all , mind you- but the potential alone will force an opponent to deal with / use resources to prevent me drawing...
recruiters are another thing - pulling from deck to field without taking resources from hand...anything that allows more cards to be used by you tends to be a good thing if put to good use...
one way to critique your own deck is to go through card by card and think - if its late game and life & resources are low - if i topdeck this will it help or hurt?what are some things i can accomplish with it...
 
Back
Top