View Full Version : [HexTCGPro] Deck Garage - Building Mid-Range Strategies

09-03-2013, 11:57 AM
Hey guys!

Today, John talks about mid range decks and what you're looking for when building one. Still don't know how to build a proper mid range deck? He tries to help you do just that. Tune in here:


Also, on the main page, we posted our HexTCGPro Cast from Thursday. Be sure to check it out and thanks for watching!

09-04-2013, 03:32 AM
nice read but i heavily disagree with the deck im afraid, it feel very inconsistent from looknig at it due to all the one drops.

cards of note id concider:

charge bot
lord alexander
shin hare high born
polonius (for the champion)

i think warlock inquisitor is to threshold needy to be in here without threshold fixing early on.

i hada go at midrange but if im honest im not exactly happy with this build myself.


09-04-2013, 07:51 AM
I assume when you refer to "one-drops" what you really mean are the one-ofs in the deck. As in the cards that there are only 1 copy of. I'm not sure how much you have experience you have with CCGs or deck building but playing single copies of cards is a good practice as long as they're functional. For example, playing 3 Murder and 1 Atrophy is playing 4 targeted removal spells; not 3 copies of one and 1 copy of the other. Atrophy will be better in certain situations but not enough times where you want an entire set of them. This is what we call a functional one-of.

The Chaos Key and Omen of Oblivion is another example. We're essentially playing two ways to deal with Constants and Artifacts, they're just different cards and better at different times. Again, this is functional as they function the same way, more or less. Jadiim is different because he's a card that we never want multiples of and is pretty good when we draw it. Also, we really just want to test it out. You need to look outside the box when deck building and when you're able to do that, a whole new world of possibility opens up for you.

The cards you mentioned are not really midrange cards. Charge Bot doesn't do anything to advance your strategy. He comes down, charges your champion, and then dies to a block probably without trading. That's not really what we want to be doing with our deck. While he is certainly a decent card that will see play, he just isn't worth the card investment with what we're trying to do. That goes doubly so with Zoltog and Shin'hare Highborn. Again, they're good cards but don't do anything to effect the board immediately. We're looking for value cards and these cards operate much differently in terms of the value we're looking for. Lord Alexander is a consideration if only because he Inspires all of our Troops but again, we're not too interested in Speed when all of our Troops are likely to be better than the opponents anyway. He's a sideboard consideration for the control matchups but not something I'm interested in play main deck.

Finally, Warlock Inquisitor is one of the key cards in the deck and while the Threshold cost IS steep (like all the other cards in the deck if you look them up) he's far worth the cost. We don't need to play him on turn three for him to maintain value. In fact, we can play him at any point in the game and be happy with the three resource investment.

The deck you made, while being similar, is considerably different. It's a little bit more aggressive and lacks the mid to late game that the one I assembled has. I'm not saying that it's bad but it's just different. I don't agree with playing all the troops that you do along side Extinction. As I mentioned in my actual article, a few times actually, I think cutting Ruby is probably correct. You have access to a better resource curve and can play your cards more reliably.

09-04-2013, 09:45 AM
Nice article - glad to see someone else actually sees the potential of the Royal Falconer. Almost everyone else I've seen talking about it doesn't like it! Crazy people.

One thing though; Master Beast Rider has been nerfed/replaced by Nelebrin Scout, so he only has a Minor Socket now. Not sure why he hasn't shown up on either of the card databases, but you can see him here - http://forums.cryptozoic.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=963&d=1376580704
Since your MBR uses a Major gem, this affects your deck a bit.

09-04-2013, 09:58 AM
I'd be interested in learning more about one-offs, as they seem to defy logic in terms of card draw probability. How isn't it a psychological chase of those memorable moments when you miraculously draw the perfect one-off at the perfect time?

I can understand trying to give a deck some versatility, but lessening your chances to draw Murder, an incredibly useful card in all situations, in order to gain an expensive cantrip of minor impact? Or funding another one-off by sacrificing your fourth copy of Ragefire, thus drastically reducing your chances of building up deadly stacks of Escalation? These seem like decisions that would be hard to justify- not the simple act of having a one-off, but choosing to take 3 copies of nigh universally useful cards instead of 4.

09-04-2013, 10:22 AM
I also can't really see the point behind the atrophy instead of a murder outside of the rather specific use against Warlock Inquisitor. 3 ragefires is because he has an extremely minor red presence and would not want ragefire in his opener or very quickly most of the time. Though I do agree that dropping red completely might be the best option till we see more threshold fixing. 1 wild growth also feels really random given how universally useful it is. And as somebody else pointed out, without the major socket MBR is significantly less interesting outside saph/wild or mancubus tricks so you might want to just put in some root dancers. Especially with 4 chloros.

My thoughts:

1 atrophy -> 4th murder
1 falconer -> 4th beetle
1 mancubus -> 4th xarlox
1 falconer + 2 MBR -> 3 root dancer
3 ragefire -> 3 more wild growths, or split between omen and growth, or put in some card draw like secret lab or pact.

09-04-2013, 10:59 AM
I'll try to explain this a bit more as it's a pretty practiced theory of deckbuilding.

Playing functional one-ofs is a pretty fundamental part of deckbuilding. You include cards that are functionally the same as what you are replacing but not necessarily as useful and are very situational. Let's take Atrophy for example. Atrophy clearly isn't as good as Murder IN MOST CASES. There are going to be times where you want a combat trick that cantrips and there are going to be times where you need to kill an X/1. Those are the times where you don't want to necessarily Murder something for no value. Atrophy only costs one more resource than Murder and it draws a card. Like I said, the card is situational but it's worth playing in some number. I feel like the number is one and have it replace the fourth Murder; a card that you don't necessarily want four of every match.

Now, let's take the Falconer and Jadiim. In a vacuum, they're just random one ofs, right? They don't serve any purpose other than being large creatures that we hope to draw at some point throughout a game. I'd argue that together, it's essentially playing two large creatures that are good in different situations and act as finishers. I don't want to play two Jadiim and I don't want to play two Falconers but I do want two of them in some fashion to serve as a win condition. Functionally, they're identical.

The Wild Growth is different as you certainly don't want to draw it more than one time during a game. It's a neat trick but we're not really in the market for a trick. We want to use it to attack for lethal with our Falconer or use it to abuse our Mancubus. We also can use it to save a troop during combat. That said, we really don't want a hand with a few Growths in it so we've decided that for now the proper number is just one. It could be the zero is better but more than one likely isn't correct.

I talked about Wild Root Dancer in my article and stand by what I said. There aren't enough early drop troops in the deck to warrant playing him. There will be many situations where he would be the only troop that you have in play and wouldn't be able to trigger his ability. There would also be many situations where even triggering his ability for +1/+1 wouldn't necessarily do anything as we aren't trying to kill our opponent as fast as possible rather than slowly and efficiently. As you can see from the article, all of our troops generate some kind of value for us already and Root Dancer doesn't exactly help us out too much more.

I didn't know about the Beast Rider nerf so that's nice to know. I wasn't really sold on him anyway but he was worth testing due to his major socket at the 3-drop slot. I think I'd replace it with Glimmerglen Witch for now and see what that does for us. Maybe Pact of Pain would be worth testing but I'm not sold on that card without some form of life gain, even in moderation.

Really guys, thanks for the feedback and discussion. I love talking about this stuff. I was on the best deck building team in the WoW TCG for many years and learned a lot from the team and felt like I also brought a lot to the table myself. I'm very happy to be able to share all that with the HEX community.

09-04-2013, 12:19 PM
I just feel like any situation that atrophy would be better than murder for, a xarlox would be better than the atrophy. Outside of Warlock without a come-into-play socket. (Unfortunately I think the best Warlock sockets are both come into play sockets so even that is kind of meh.)

My replacements for the red cards is based on the idea of removing red completely rather than thinking that the cards are bad. Just not sure if they are worth the inconsistency. Though I suppose the higher curve let's you play shards without disrupting your gameplan as much as other decks.

I also just noticed that you didn't list which champion you were using, so you could just have the blood draw champ for refueling instead of pact.

09-04-2013, 06:58 PM
Cool, thanks for running down the thought processes! Always very interested in the under-the-hood stuff from experienced competitors.

09-05-2013, 12:00 AM
I'll go into this more later but I have over 10 years of gaming under my belt and while I do agree one offs work you need ways to get to them when needed.

One off without ways to get or them up can cause you to be really unstuck especially when this deck has no card draw to back it up. I played in wowtcg a few years ago a warlock deck that had about 6 to 8 one offs and the main reason it worked was My ability to tutor up any ally I needed with a card called portal which I ran four of. I finished runner up in that tournament as well.

Again I'll discuss this more later with you all :-)

Btw thanks for the detailed replies I've only scanned over them atm.