PDA

View Full Version : Small deck VS big deck



paulcoyotle
06-03-2013, 11:32 AM
Is small deck with rare and unique cards + nice gear better than big deck with all kind of cards in HEX? Or big deck with several unique cards is better? :cool:

I've played MS Magic the Gathering for several years, and HEX seems to be a similar game. In MtG I tried many times to build small efficient deck with rare cards.

Erebus
06-03-2013, 11:33 AM
It's probability. So the smaller and more efficient the deck the better it will be. This game doesn't use cards as a life total representative so there is no reason to run a large deck (except for fun).

Black_Omega
06-03-2013, 11:33 AM
I think it is a little early to make this judgement without seeing the majority of the cards.

Bigger the deck though, the less chance of you getting cards you want even with the 4 max per card. Depends on what type of deck you build, etc... So many factors to take into account.

We need more information though for sure.

MasterN64
06-03-2013, 11:35 AM
Generally as said here already a smaller deck will function better especially if it is a combo reliant deck. If you need one of each of 3 cards out for a combo if you have 60 cards in a deck youll get them out much more reliably than if you had 120

nearlysober
06-03-2013, 11:35 AM
With all TCGs it's best to have a small, optimized deck. Increases your odds of pulling the cards you need.

Tyrfang
06-03-2013, 11:37 AM
Smaller decks decrease variance and perform more consistently than massive decks, unless you have some weird focus in your deck to find the cards you want.

Punk
06-03-2013, 11:40 AM
Sometimes there are reasons to play bigger decks. Jon Finkel going 3-0 at the Onslaught Invitational with his Battle of Wits deck, for example:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/mi02/stdecks

Kalius
06-03-2013, 11:43 AM
With all TCGs it's best to have a small, optimized deck. Increases your odds of pulling the cards you need.

not all TCGs. some TCGs, your deck is your life total, so when you take damage, you mill cards. but size was limited by what faction you play. However, one faction allowed like 40 more cards in your deck xD


But yes, in games where your deck isn't your life total, smaller is better in 99% of the cases(battle of wits comes to mind for that 1%)

DeusPhasmatis
06-03-2013, 11:44 AM
Smaller decks work better because you don't get more cards in your hand for having a large deck. Decking is fairly uncommon, except against specialized opponents, and very few cards benefit from the size of your deck. Therefor it is in your best interest to maximize the quality of the cards you draw by focusing your deck on the best options (i.e. not diluting your card pool with a large deck).

Tyrfang
06-03-2013, 11:48 AM
Sometimes there are reasons to play bigger decks. Jon Finkel going 3-0 at the Onslaught Invitational with his Battle of Wits deck, for example:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/mi02/stdecks

Nothing says KILL ME NOW like tutoring with a 200+ card library.

Turtlewing
06-03-2013, 11:48 AM
Smaller decks play more consistently. This means a better chance of getting your combos off. This strategy is usually favored by competitive players.

A larger deck will be a lot less consistent. This makes synergies harder to implement and usually makes the deck less powerful overall. However it also makes the deck harder to counter as it will play a little bit differently each game. This strategy isn't usually taken seriously by competitive players but I've seen it have some decent success (I had a fried who ran a 200+ card entirely singleton magic deck that was pretty good in casual play, and about average in tournament play, mostly because it was impossible to sideboard against).

Like most things there's a trade-off, but expect most competitive decks to be small focused decks, and casual decks to run the gambit between hyper-focused "one trick ponies" and decks that are are basicly a pile of random cards with resources thrown in.

DeusPhasmatis
06-03-2013, 11:52 AM
and decks that are are basicly a pile of random cards with resources thrown in.

My Grizzly Bears and Shock deck will totally dominate my local play group!

Kalius
06-03-2013, 11:56 AM
My Grizzly Bears and Shock deck will totally dominate my local play group!

I had a shockbears deck once!..... in a draft xD

paulcoyotle
06-03-2013, 12:09 PM
Sometimes there are reasons to play bigger decks. Jon Finkel going 3-0 at the Onslaught Invitational with his Battle of Wits deck, for example:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/mi02/stdecks

WOW - 241 cards in Jon Finkel's deck. Such deck is too big for me.

Kalius
06-03-2013, 12:11 PM
WOW - 241 cards in Jon Finkel's deck. Its too big deck for me.

it was battle of wits, you pretty much HAVE to build a deck in the 230-250 card range, and load it with tutors, draw, shuffles, and just overall good cards.

Battle of Wits- 3UU enchantment, beginning of your upkeep, you win if you have 200+ cards in your deck.

Tyrfang
06-03-2013, 12:12 PM
WOW - Its too big deck for me.

That's what she said...(she has an accent.) That was too easy, sorry, it had to be said.

If you look, half his cards are draw effects or control spells so he can get more draws, until he gets to his battle of wits (alt win conidtion.)

paulcoyotle
06-03-2013, 12:44 PM
Smaller decks play more consistently. This means a better chance of getting your combos off. This strategy is usually favored by competitive players.

A larger deck will be a lot less consistent. This makes synergies harder to implement and usually makes the deck less powerful overall. However it also makes the deck harder to counter as it will play a little bit differently each game. This strategy isn't usually taken seriously by competitive players but I've seen it have some decent success (I had a fried who ran a 200+ card entirely singleton magic deck that was pretty good in casual play, and about average in tournament play, mostly because it was impossible to sideboard against).

Like most things there's a trade-off, but expect most competitive decks to be small focused decks, and casual decks to run the gambit between hyper-focused "one trick ponies" and decks that are are basicly a pile of random cards with resources thrown in.

I do agree that large decks are good for tournament play. But in PvE game you have very small chance to use your rare and unique cards playing with such deck.

Moondancer
06-03-2013, 01:39 PM
60 cards no more often people swear by 61 or 62 card decks but really you just need to cut the margin cards and make your deck stronger.

BlackRoger
06-03-2013, 02:11 PM
Well, taking into consideration there are so many cards (especialy in blood) that attack cards in your enemies library, there is some merit to having a large deck to not draw the subotaged cards, and they said something about the dragon deck being a mill deck too.

Ofc, most likely this won't change the fact most people will make 60 cards decks.

TheWrathofShane
06-03-2013, 02:32 PM
Smaller the better because its more efficient.

Moondancer
06-03-2013, 02:39 PM
Smaller the better because its more efficient.

Yep i am even wary about the power level of cards that make copies and put them back in my deck diluting it to much. Its an interesting mechanic but one that may prove to be at a very low level of power.

Miwa
06-03-2013, 03:47 PM
Smaller is better, which is why when I used to play MtG with friends, we required 90 card minimum decks for fun play. Unless we were tournament practicing, and then it was all 40 card decks that would be worth thousands these days (which didn't cost us much at the time :P) And you can tell that was a while ago, because I said 40 cards...

Hexmage
06-03-2013, 04:06 PM
The only reason to play more than 60 cards is when you don't know which card is correct to cut to get down from 61 cards. This has happened to at least 1 magic pro that found a good deck but didn't have enough time to properly test which of the 61 cards was the weakest. So he played 61 cards just because of the risk of cutting the wrong card.

Punk
06-03-2013, 04:14 PM
That's what she said...

haha, I was waiting for the right time to say this as soon as this thread started..

Betrayed
06-03-2013, 04:23 PM
To answer the title question, most advice for any card game. Yugioh,Magic etc. They say smaller is always a better choice. Though not exactly correct with every 'tcg'. This game seems to be like magic's core game rules, so I would guess a smaller deck would be better. So you always get the few specific cards you need faster. So go with smaller amount.

Slish
06-03-2013, 04:54 PM
it was battle of wits, you pretty much HAVE to build a deck in the 230-250 card range, and load it with tutors, draw, shuffles, and just overall good cards.

Battle of Wits- 3UU enchantment, beginning of your upkeep, you win if you have 200+ cards in your deck.

Call me a noob, but I dont understand this "Battle of Wits" card.
It means he winst at turn 1 upkeep? Since he starts with 200+ cards in his deck?

Tyrfang
06-03-2013, 04:58 PM
Call me a noob, but I dont understand this "Battle of Wits" card.
It means he winst at turn 1 upkeep? Since he starts with 200+ cards in his deck?

It's an alternate-win condition enchantment.
It has to be in play and then you have to meet the requirements of the card to win the game.

paulcoyotle
06-03-2013, 08:18 PM
The only reason to play more than 60 cards is when you don't know which card is correct to cut to get down from 61 cards. This has happened to at least 1 magic pro that found a good deck but didn't have enough time to properly test which of the 61 cards was the weakest. So he played 61 cards just because of the risk of cutting the wrong card.

It is not necessary the case for 61 cards. For example you have to have balanced deck of 51-55 cards + 10 cards to oppose Time Bugs + Dopplegadget combo (Matter Bender gloves equipped on Dopplegadget). Lets check all cards during HEX alpha.