UL's "Right Card, Right Deck" Theory

I don't know what it means,
but it's my greeting now.

Ruby Tuesdays, Zoners.

It's a nice to return to our regularly scheduled programming, but let's housekeep a little.

Big apologies for the lateness today and Sunday. Our schedule, as you've seen, has been a little off the past few weeks, and that's my bad.

We're making some changes to the blog, and I seem to be forgetting fundamentals. Like getting stuff published around the lunch hour.

But I'm back, and hopefully after this, I'll be able to get myself on track.

The topic today is something I like to talk about a lot. "Right Card, Right Deck" is a theory and a thesis I've been developing for some time now. Although I think it works mostly for Commander because of the breadth and depth of the card pool, it might work for some of the other formats I don't play or talk about.

"Right Card, Right Deck" is the underlying secret to my approach to deckbuilding, and I'd like to let you in on it with the hopes that it'll help you on your way to reaching the ultimate goal in EDH, which is hopefully to be "The Better Deckbuilder."

WHAT IS RIGHT CARD, RIGHT DECK?

At its core, "RC,RD" is the concept of finding cards by both filling a deck's needs and filling your own.

RC, RD involves leveraging your own economic efficiencies and inefficiencies as a player with the strength and strategy of a deck to create balanced, smooth, cohesive, and effective play.

Under RC,RD, card choices are not dictated by "what's optimal" or "stuff you want to play," but by a a little bit of both, resulting in a "more unique" design that works for you.

Much of this theory is based off of my two areas of coursework during my undergrad: Creative Writing and Business Management.

In writing, I learned that the best parts of us put on the page were the ones that came from our "white-hot center," also known as the unconscious. This is the place from which we make "gut feelings" and have "emotions." It is our "soul," for lack of a better phrase, and when we learn to tune into this connection, we understand how to do a lot more than just make good card cuts or choose a Commander.

The other half seeks to strike balance with our emotions. In Business, and as part of the education for Business school, we learn about economics. This is the part of the decision-making I think many Standard and Spike-influenced players like GG use to make their decisions.

Milton Friedman. Still Everywhere.

 As Economics is the study of trade-offs, behavior, and scarcity, it's a prime area of social science that can be applied to a lot of what we do as Magic players, and leads to the development of creating a deck's inherent competitive advantage.

This sounds a lot more complicated than it really is, so let me demonstrate some of my theory in specific example.

EXAMPLE

The Curious Case of Ulamog's Crusher

Much of the theory of RC,RD is the difference between my approach and Grandpa Growth's style, so we're coming out of the gate quickly with a big bomb of a case.

I'm not going to deny that playing Ulamog's Crusher in Pauper is, on the margin, a solid play. In fact, I'm not arguing on any points Grandpa has previously made about Crusher from Paupularity Contest #1 or in any of the discussions we've had about this card. I agree with them.

Still, it doesn't mean that I have to play this card, and it doesn't mean that I'm making an intentional choice not to play the better cards in the format either.

I'm doing something different entirely.

Objectification is much different in Commander than it appears.

THE RULE OF TWO OR MORE

I have a "Rule of Two" when it comes to card choices. If you can come up with two great arguments for or against playing a card, this justifies a decision. The more you can come up with, the better the case.

This is obviously subjective, and I'm sure GG would argue this can be somewhat self-serving if you don't maintain your own objectivity, but let's look at my Crusher arguments.

For starters, Simic Guildmage is a very reactive, tempo-style aggro-control deck. It relies on incremental spells and open mana to use and abuse the cards on the table and the spells in your hand.

Therefore, the traditional tapping out for Crusher on Turn 8 isn't great. By then, the deck will have probably established a decent board by controlling combat and keeping your opponent scared. Like every other deck, options and multiple lines of play are great to have, and often will force your opponent to overthink what's on the table and forget what's in your hand.

I know this because of experience. I've played Crusher in the deck, and found him in my hand with no real reason to tap out and play him. So I cut him.

Also, Pauper as a format still has consistent removal in most of the better decks, and Crusher, to me, just isn't worth tapping out for when most players are more than happy to spend their first piece of removal on him.

This is true of most threats, I know. I guess that makes Crusher still somewhat viable.

Then there's synergy. And when we apply the RC, RD philosophy, the deck's needs are a lot clearer, a competitive advantage is born, and something a little more special happens. The deck becomes more than just a bunch of cards you're playing. 

Since every Pauper deck still needs big dudes, and Simic Guildmage, in this case, is no different. Fundamentals are always key, and Simic G gets no preferential treatment.

Rather than look at some of the more obvious spells, let's stick with the deck's sole competitive advantage. Simic G plays with Auras and +1/+1 counters, and the best thing it does is make your opponent's turn a nightmare to navigate. Having to process my side of the board and pick out what spells to play is rough. And I always need to have responses. The Back Door is what makes this deck work well.

Using this knowledge, it's pretty easy to see what not to play. Which is how a very unfamous OG like Cytospawn Shambler can find his way on a list over something like Crusher.

I know he's not as good as Crusher on the aggregate, and that's great. "Staples," and cards people are more familiar with tend to draw a lot more attention turn in and turn out. Though Timmy creatures always get a chunk of attention, Shambler probably is disproportionately less likely to be answered than Crusher.

This is particularly great for us, because in Simic G, he's actually MORE of a threat if you let me untap. Multiple graft counters and the option to get damage through is actually more important than just attacking and trying to rack up card advantage every turn with the obligatory Crusher.

Cytospawn Shambler also gives a back door. Whereas tapping out for Crusher is high-risk when I have board state, Shambler with a couple mana to spare ensures I'm going to get something, even if it's just a single +1/+1 counter. That doesn't sound like much, but against a good player, this can be a big game.

GOALS AND CRITICISMS OF RIGHT CARD, RIGHT DECK

As it stands, I think my example demonstrates a strong rationale for trading out threats in deck. But I'm sure you could ask, why can't Ulamog replace another card?

You can do things however you want. Everyone will have different ratios and playstyles, but I think the point is pretty clear on how much value is created by actually not playing Crusher within this context.

The point of Right Card, Right Deck is to find not just "good" cards, but the "right" ones, in every version of this word as you understand it. I find a lot of success in using underplayed cards like Glacial Chasm as I do in playing Cultivate. Being able to get value out of cards within context is the best way to improve a deck.

Right Card Right Deck is a way to structure your deck to play with a fluidity and a consistency that you're happy with. In this philosophy, we are able to facilitate and "optimize without optimizing" a deck the way a competitive player might think while ultimately making it stronger.

RC, RD isn't about being a TryHard. It's about Trying Smart. 

It is important to understand the difference between RC, RD and what we Commander players call the "GoodStuffs" deck, which relies on the individual strength of cards, and doesn't necessarily apply a competitive advantage or a strong sense of synergy across the whole deck.

There is also the other end of the spectrum- the "Jank Funsies" deck. Playing too many things that you just "like" cause you want to play them. It's important to know that good deck design inhibits winning too.

Finding the balance between these two things is not easy. If it were, everyone would be doing it. It takes time to figure out your own idiosyncrasies in play style, and what kinds of cards you're good at playing versus others.

Well, I've gone and talked quite a bit. If you have questions, or want to talk shop a little more, I'm always available to help out if you comment below or email me at UncleLanddrops@gmail.com.

On Thor's Day, JC's back with an informative Card Corner on the Lady in Red, Chandra.

Until then, here's an informative clip on the first Red P-Dubs, and a quick little secret about how a booster pack is made.

-UL