Why I prefer 70 card decks.

202 posts / 0 new
Last post
I've playtested all sizes in builds and have discovered, for my playstyle, 70 cards are better when I play 2HG. 60 cards usually leave me completely helpless against certain threats.

Large decks exist and have even won many tournaments, especially the massive 200 card Battle of Wits decks. But go into any magic forum, say that you prefer larger decks and suddenly you're besieged by 60 card Nazis. A few times you're met with good discussions about probabilities, etc. but most times it's "blah, blah, blah noob" or "blah, blah, blah You suck". You end up feeling like you're tied to a stake and have been pronounced witch for even mentioning "larger decks".

Truth is, not everyone is the same. I play large because I think large. I build my decks more of a toolbox style, not the cut and dried copying of others. Got a combo? I'll find an answer and have always prided myself on it.

What I would like is a reasonable discussion from my fellow "large deckers". I promise at least I won't try to ride you out of town on a rail. Please add in your 70 card builds you've used. Let's see who can design the best one, but you have to give the reasons why you put such and such card in it.

Get back to me when you see a >60 card (outside of Battle of Wits) actually do well in a real tourney. The math is tried and tested son. 

But go ahead and "be different" if it makes you feel better.  
Eh, my most common 2HG partner and friend runs those decks all the time.  He does all right.  HE knows the math and agrees that it is worse, but he enjoys doing it...... so we go play and have fun.

2 + 2 = fish

I Don't have to. I have experimented. Have you used a 70 card deck? Then I suggest you go do so. If you can't design it, maybe you're mentally deficient. Just saying. If you can't do it, don't post here.

And if you buy Chicken Strips at KFC instead of the buckets of chicken, then you probably order hamburgers off the kids menu at Olive Garden.
Get back to me when you see a >60 card (outside of Battle of Wits) actually do well in a real tourney. The math is tried and tested son. 

But go ahead and "be different" if it makes you feel better.  



Sorry I didn't greet you in the manner you're accustomed to. But here it comes, better late than never:

"Seig Heil!"

The last time I used a >60 card deck was the last time I played the first Duels of the Planeswalkers. If you're going to do/play something, you might as well do/play it well. 

Now excuse me as I go goose step out of this thread and sew you a 70 card armband.  
So, you're saying that you can accommodate a bigger than normal deck?

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

Mastergear_Owen's take on Magic 2014 Campaign.

Show
You know what I've got more issues. Whats up with the story in this game? The adverts said I was going to team up with Chandra and we were going to kick butt and chew bubblegum across the planes on a revenge campaign against some... guy she knew I guess? Who's Ramaz anyway? What do I get instead? I beat Chandra like 2 minutes in with a mono-green stompy thing Garruk gave me (why does he keep giving all these new planeswalkers his deck) and then I spent like 5 hours jumping from plane to plane picking up random nicknacks for her mantlepiece while she sits back back doing her nails or something. I was thrown in jail! I got hit by a Roil Storm twice! Do you know how many rats are on Ravnica, Chandra? All of them! All of the rats! All of the rats eating me!

Then we go kick her Ex's bearded-screaming-butt and what does she do to help? Nothing! She throws of the occasional fire ball and spends her time trying not to freeze to death. You should have worn pants Chandra. While we're on the subject what happened to your shoes? You had like Steelies on. Steelies are cool. Now your running around with stupid boots with like 5-inch heels? Thats not appropriate footware for Planeswalking! That's not appropriate footware for normal walking! At least Liliana is doing it for the whole 'evil is sexy' thing and can summon undead to carry her when she breaks her ankle. What are you going to do ride a Phoenix? Its made of fire! You'll fall right through! Man I should have gone Planeswalking with Liliana - yeah she'd crack my head open with a rock 5 minutes in and raise my corpse to serve her but at least we could have gone dancing!

Now with more original content and open bar!

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedevilwuster

Lol, you quoted one card that was designed for bigger decks and think that's right?

I'll defend your rights to run 70 cards all day long, play however you like, but don't claim it's better than the tried, tested and mathematically proven method. That's just idiocy.

In short: 70 card decks aren't as good but if you like em then bloody well run them.
I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
Anyone who uses the Olive Garden as an example of a good restaurant also likely believes running 60> decks is the 'smarter' idea...

...oh wait.
NimNams 2014 DoTP Invitational Sealed Tournament Champion - Undefeated... 'merica. eyePad GC tag: increasing aperture (formerly: uglywagon)
I don't mind if people play with 70 card decks if they know how to friggin play 2HG as a team instead of off on their own similar to playing solo... (but no, it is not superior or even equal to 60 card decks.  The only difference is mathematically less consistency than a 60 card deck, sorry)

I draw the line on the 80+ cards people though, usually just leave after one match at that point. 
I invite you to find one single example of a deck with 70 or more cards that isn't a Battle of Wits deck that has won any major tournament, from a credible source, and post the link here.

Until you do this, I'm going with the probably-correct assumption that one does not exist, and that you may as well rename this thread "Why I'm not a good enough deckbuilder to pick the cards to not use in my decks and end up running 70-card decks". 

Look man.  It's your game.  You can do whatever you like and play it however you like.  Even if it's playing badly.  I am not saying this because I am a mean person and want to make you feel bad.  This is simply what many players who have played and analyzed this game (beyond DotP) far more than you have concluded a long time ago.

You mentioned probability.  If you understood any of what you've read about probability and this game, it's that running more cards reduces the probability of you drawing the cards you need (as the number of cards you see each game depends only on the # of turns elapsed and draw effects, and is not directly affected by deck size).  Which, as the previous poster mentioned, is just about the only impact of having more cards.  The ~only~ time having more cards could ever be beneficial is if you're against a mill deck or if you somehow end up in a stalemate for dozens of turns and the other guy mills himself because he has a smaller deck.

BTW, here is a "toolbox deck" that won the 1998 worlds: tappedout.net/mtg-decks/1998-brian-selde... ... 1-2 copies of many creatures fetched by Survival of the Fittest and it's 60 cards.  Like every other deck that has won a major tournament (unless and until you prove me wrong on that claim).  Even if you build a "toolbox deck" with many cards that are fetchable, some tools are better than others and you now probably want a smaller deck so you're more likely to find the keys that open up your toolbox, and so that you don't draw the tools that are less useful. 
Anyone who uses the Olive Garden as an example of a good restaurant also likely believes running 60> decks is the 'smarter' idea...

...oh wait.




Ever had their escargot?

Horrid. Absolutly rapist...

I might be an engineering inspector now but I'm also a certified chef who apprenticed under Eves Schmidt who apprenticed under Auguste Escoffier.
I know bad food and Olive Garden is BAD food. Italian my ass.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

Mastergear_Owen's take on Magic 2014 Campaign.

Show
You know what I've got more issues. Whats up with the story in this game? The adverts said I was going to team up with Chandra and we were going to kick butt and chew bubblegum across the planes on a revenge campaign against some... guy she knew I guess? Who's Ramaz anyway? What do I get instead? I beat Chandra like 2 minutes in with a mono-green stompy thing Garruk gave me (why does he keep giving all these new planeswalkers his deck) and then I spent like 5 hours jumping from plane to plane picking up random nicknacks for her mantlepiece while she sits back back doing her nails or something. I was thrown in jail! I got hit by a Roil Storm twice! Do you know how many rats are on Ravnica, Chandra? All of them! All of the rats! All of the rats eating me!

Then we go kick her Ex's bearded-screaming-butt and what does she do to help? Nothing! She throws of the occasional fire ball and spends her time trying not to freeze to death. You should have worn pants Chandra. While we're on the subject what happened to your shoes? You had like Steelies on. Steelies are cool. Now your running around with stupid boots with like 5-inch heels? Thats not appropriate footware for Planeswalking! That's not appropriate footware for normal walking! At least Liliana is doing it for the whole 'evil is sexy' thing and can summon undead to carry her when she breaks her ankle. What are you going to do ride a Phoenix? Its made of fire! You'll fall right through! Man I should have gone Planeswalking with Liliana - yeah she'd crack my head open with a rock 5 minutes in and raise my corpse to serve her but at least we could have gone dancing!

Now with more original content and open bar!

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedevilwuster

I totally want to see this thread derailed into a food discussion thread, cuz that'd be more interesting Laughing

Portillo's > Olive Garden and KFC combined, who dares to challenge that! Cool 
Get back to me when you see a >60 card (outside of Battle of Wits) actually do well in a real tourney. The math is tried and tested son. 

But go ahead and "be different" if it makes you feel better.  



Sorry I didn't greet you in the manner you're accustomed to. But here it comes, better late than never:

"Seig Heil!"




en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Also - a 70 card deck can work, of course it can. AND IT CAN ALWAYS BE IMPROVED BY CUTTING IT TO 60!

I'm not going to read this thread anymore, I've said what I came to say.
So, you're saying that you can accommodate a bigger than normal deck?


I'm not going to touch that with a 10 foot pole....wait a second...
Speaking of accomodation... isn't the actual tournament rule that a deck has to be able to stand up under its own wait to be tournament legal on the high end?

Edit: I looked it up, the actual rule is that you must be able to shuffle your deck without assistance. 

2 + 2 = fish

Lol, you quoted one card that was designed for bigger decks and think that's right? I'll defend your rights to run 70 cards all day long, play however you like, but don't claim it's better than the tried, tested and mathematically proven method. That's just idiocy. In short: 70 card decks aren't as good but if you like em then bloody well run them.



What I never understood is why players use all sorts of math, which can easily be disproven as the math always lacks a part of the equation for # of available options, but never even try to make a 70 card deck. It's as if they're afraid the deck will leap off the screen and mug them. Until you do, I can't take any of your opinions seriously.

Also, I did this thread and deliberately goaded the 60 carders to get people talking again. This forum was dead, nothing happening. I do think many act like fascists about it though.

I never considered Olive Garden a fine restaurant.  It's your basic mass produced generic crud masquerading as Italian. I used it because most everyone knows what it is. Portillo's? Sorry, never heard of it, but I'm sure without knowing it's better than Olive Garden. I was tired or I'd probably have used a different example. "You're the type that goes to a chinese restaurant and orders the bland american food they serve so that little kids don't bitch".

I shouldn't have mentioned food then because I woke up early from sleep due to hunger. I'm wanting a bucket of KFC right now. As for Italian food, our real Italian restaurants all closed down due to terrible economy in recent years....as I'm sure some of you have had the same thing happen. So I'm jealous if you still have "other than franchise" options. At least it beats the 80's and 90's as when you asked someone if their town had an italian restaurant and they direct you to Pizza Hut or Chuck E Cheeze.

If you are comfortable with only running 60 cards, then by all means, don't change it. But do not criticize unless you try to run a larger deck yourself.


Speaking of accomodation... isn't the actual tournament rule that a deck has to be able to stand up under its own wait to be tournament legal on the high end?

Edit: I looked it up, the actual rule is that you must be able to shuffle your deck without assistance. 



How can anyone shuffle a 200 card deck like that? I've had psoriatic arthritis for years and can't even imagine it anymore. I've wondered why tournaments don't use those shuffler machines that casinos use, you can be sure that players aren't stacking their decks with these. I've never cheated with any sort of deck before, including playing cards, but I could stack a deck while shuffling in no time and I taught myself as a child from a book.


So what's the advantage you get from using a 70 card deck? Not having to figure out what cards to cut? Giving luck a bigger role in your wins?

There's no mill deck in the game, so the most cards you're going to see is about 30. That means 40 cards in your deck you'll never even see in the game. So why wouldn't you wanna do as much as you can to affect what exactly those 30 cards are.
IMAGE(http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/images/smilies/manab.gif)IMAGE(http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/images/smilies/manab.gif)IMAGE(http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/images/smilies/manab.gif)
Nearly decked myself earlier tonight with guardians with a good partner vs some really good opponents(mutual respect all around) in a classic game.

Anyways, If you go over a 70 card deck, you're hurting your options seriously. Yes, if players are using 80 cards, you have every right to abandon them after that first game unless you both win.

No, it's not easy deciding what extra cards to put in. They must have more than 1 use. They must be low mana. They must have symmetry with other cards in your deck and you must have adequate draw or tutors to cover it.

Advantages:
1- You have more answers to opponent's deck
2- Your deck has the sideboard in, where there is no sideboard in DoTP
3- Your deck still has variety after multiple games. After a person plays the same deck, the shuffle lowers it's probabilities for the cards already played. Watch next time you do this. You're more likely to draw, in the 2nd and over games, the cards you haven't drawn yet.
4- You automatically get seen as a noob by a 60 carder that doesn't understand and who then makes mistakes underestimating you.
@shadowcran, it would take me half an hour, but there are probably tournament sanctioned methods I could use to shuffle 1000 cards.  250 is not that bad.  I can reliably shuffle that for a fact in 5 minutes.

2 + 2 = fish


3- Your deck still has variety after multiple games. After a person plays the same deck, the shuffle lowers it's probabilities for the cards already played. Watch next time you do this. You're more likely to draw, in the 2nd and over games, the cards you haven't drawn yet.




Show some evidence of that claim, because.....pfffft.

In all honestly though, you're allowed to prefer a larger deck size. If you enjoy playing with more cards, then you probably should play with more cards. I do it. But that doesnt make it better. The well made 60 card decks are going to be more competitive, even if it comes down to a fraction of a fraction. 

But more importantly, most of your posts are undermined by the ones where you attack other posters for not agreeing with you.

3- Your deck still has variety after multiple games. After a person plays the same deck, the shuffle lowers it's probabilities for the cards already played. Watch next time you do this. You're more likely to draw, in the 2nd and over games, the cards you haven't drawn yet.




Show some evidence of that claim, because.....pfffft.


In all honestly though, you're allowed to prefer a larger deck size. If you enjoy playing with more cards, then you probably should play with more cards. I do it. But that doesnt make it better. The well made 60 card decks are going to be more competitive, even if it comes down to a fraction of a fraction. 

But more importantly, most of your posts are undermined by the ones where you attack other posters for not agreeing you.


I'm comfortable with it myself. I only attack when threatened....or to increase chatter in a thread when the forum is dead.


What is Portillo's?  I have never heard of that restaurant.  Also, I thought escargot was french not italian.

2 + 2 = fish

What is Portillo's?  I have never heard of that restaurant.  Also, I thought escargot was french not italian.


looked it up, yeah it's french.

What I never understood is why players use all sorts of math, which can easily be disproven as the math always lacks a part of the equation for # of available options, but never even try to make a 70 card deck. It's as if they're afraid the deck will leap off the screen and mug them. Until you do, I can't take any of your opinions seriously.



the "thing" about 70 cards is that you put yourself even more into lady luck hands, ofc with a bigger deck you can put in more cards that can be usefull in a certain situation or you can put in many "aggro cards" with big finishers but doing that you also have more chance to draw cards that are not so usefull in the situation or you just cant play because their mana cost same goes for your drawing hand...

to do a pratical example... lets say you are AG and you want to start with a Champion of the parish to put pressure on your opponent.

you have 2 of them in your deck, with 70 cards the chance to not hit one on the first draw is 68/70, to not find one on the second draw is 67/69 (as now there is 1 less card in your deck) and so on.
so (68/70)*(67/69)*(66/68)*(65/67)*(64/66)*(63/65)*(62/64) = ~80%
so more or less you have ~20% chance to start with a CotP in your hand.

same for a 60 deck...
(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54) = ~77%
so now your chance to draw at least one in the initial hand is ~23%
(i hope the math is right :P)

ofc the difference is not huge but is quite substantial and it apply for pretty much every card in your deck...

so in the end you are trading in "redundancy" (dotp decks are also very lacking in that reguard) for cards you may need, hoping to draw them at the right moment also this way you may end up having not a real plan for your deck.

now i see you mentioned 2hg that is generally slower than 1vs1 and this gives you more time to draw the cards you may want, but again, you can probably get similar results cutting cards that you generally dont want to see... for example Diregraf Ghoul is a fine card for an aggro 1vs1 DW, but i dont think i will include it in 2hg and i will shift my focus more on the midrange aspect of the deck.

just a few notes... is it true that battle of wits decks have tons of card in them... but thats because they are pretty much combo decks and the amount of cards are necessary for their win condition, and they use tons of tutors, draw card engines, mana accelleration to get the stuff they need as fast as possible.

note2... it can be good to have more cards vs mill decks, but this year there are not any of them and you kinda need to know you are going to face one :P     

note3 ofc is not that 70 card decks is terribad and it totally suck, you can have a nice 70 card deck, but overall 60 cards version of it will be better/more consistant.
shadowcran you are wrong on the math my friend, but I don't see the point of being too serious in a thread that is basically a repeat of a dozen others

2 + 2 = fish


What I never understood is why players use all sorts of math, which can easily be disproven as the math always lacks a part of the equation for # of available options, but never even try to make a 70 card deck. It's as if they're afraid the deck will leap off the screen and mug them. Until you do, I can't take any of your opinions seriously.



the "thing" about 70 cards is that you put yourself even more into lady luck hands, ofc with a bigger deck you can put in more cards that can be usefull in a certain situation or you can put in many "aggro cards" with big finishers but doing that you also have more chance to draw cards that are not so usefull in the situation or you just cant play because their mana cost same goes for your drawing hand...]
I should correct myself. I never meant aggro to be 70 cards as it truly needs to run a tight ship. I apologize. I hate that this negates the well reasoned argument that follows.

to do a pratical example... lets say you are AG and you want to start with a Champion of the parish to put pressure on your opponent.

you have 2 of them in your deck, with 70 cards the chance to not hit one on the first draw is 68/70, to not find one on the second draw is 67/69 (as now there is 1 less card in your deck) and so on.
so (68/70)*(67/69)*(66/68)*(65/67)*(64/66)*(63/65)*(62/64) = ~80%
so more or less you have ~20% chance to start with a CotP in your hand.

same for a 60 deck...
(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54) = ~77%
so now your chance to draw at least one in the initial hand is ~23%
(i hope the math is right :P)
The math is correct, but the problem is the random generator in online play. It doesn't change that statistic at all, which is why we get mana screw or famine(which can be called Spell screw). The random generator has been outdated for 15 years and I've preached in many forums how off it is. Now, if they fixed this problem....I'd probably reconsider 70 card decks. Also, if someone counters your strategm, you had better be able to come up with another on the spot. In 2hg, one of the 2 decks has a good shot of countering it fast and even more so with more cards. Often when this happens, players with 60 card decks haven't an idea what to do next if they are new to 2hg and rely only on the big 3 there.

ofc the difference is not huge but is quite substantial and it apply for pretty much every card in your deck...

so in the end you are trading in "redundancy" (dotp decks are also very lacking in that reguard) for cards you may need, hoping to draw them at the right moment also this way you may end up having not a real plan for your deck.
No, I never have a plan, I have many plans.

now i see you mentioned 2hg that is generally slower than 1vs1 and this gives you more time to draw the cards you may want, but again, you can probably get similar results cutting cards that you generally dont want to see... for example Diregraf Ghoul is a fine card for an aggro 1vs1 DW, but i dont think i will include it in 2hg and i will shift my focus more on the midrange aspect of the deck.
Wise, very wise. Do not use it in 2hg. 

just a few notes... is it true that battle of wits decks have tons of card in them... but thats because they are pretty much combo decks and the amount of cards are necessary for their win condition, and they use tons of tutors, draw card engines, mana accelleration to get the stuff they need as fast as possible.
Which is why it's not much use to use large decks with aggro. So we're agreed.

note2... it can be good to have more cards vs mill decks, but this year there are not any of them and you kinda need to know you are going to face one :P  
 

note3 ofc is not that 70 card decks is terribad and it totally suck, you can have a nice 70 card deck, but overall 60 cards version of it will be better/more consistant.



After 2000 games in 2hg. 1000 with 60 cards, 1000 with 70 cards. I'm at 61% winning with 60, 77% with 70. I would ask of you to try it with Guardians, Dimir and Chant.(I cannot explain why with Chant....it mystifies me) and even try a more control build with Deadwalkers at 65 to 70. You will be surprised at the results. Yes, I know this testing of mine sounds anal and must require "no life", but...I'm disabled and actually do have no life as I'm also homebound. Once a month out for groceries.
 
First of all, Thank you. This is the kind of response I prefer. Due to it's length, I'm going to have to take it paragraph by paragraph but such a post deserves the proper responses. Give me a moment and I'll edit this one with rebuttal.

The following statement does NOT support my point. Reason I had to wait before editing is due to finishing a match. Versus 2 60 carders, My partner using 74 cards and me using 70 using MotD and DW respectively,  beat them 5 times in a row. One was a classic, the others were beatdowns.


@shadowcran, please post your dimir deck list

2 + 2 = fish

Please give me a moment and I will. You won't believe the statistical anomaly I found as I don't understand it either, but in a 70 card deck, running 22 lands, you actually rarely ever see mana screw or famine. It's bizarre and proof something is wrong with random generator. Will edit this post with it. Also, I finished replying to previous poster in my edited post.
11 x Islands
11 x Swamps
2 x Terramorphic Expanse
4 x Dimir Guildmage(2 mana early chump blockers and mid and late game threats)
2 x Surveiling Sprite(card draw and early flight blocking? great)
3 x Ravenous Rats
1 x Countersquall (spells difference in matches vs MM oftentimes)
4 x Last Gasp
1 x Treasure Hunt
1 x Hands of Binding(ever cipher one of these to early surveiling sprite? Can buy you 3 turns usually)
2 x Threads of Disloyalty(so much for the vaunted Champion of Pariah or buffed Kor)
1 x Consult the Necrosages(if there's a dimir deck not running this, they should be shot)
1 x Time ebb(underrated momentum changer. Not just underrated in this game)
2 x Divination(meh, I'd rather have 4 x accumulated Knowledge)
1 x Mind Rot
2 x Evil Twin
1 x Doomsday Spectre(Should be called Lightning Rod as opponents can't wait to kill it)
2 x Archeomancer(thank you sir, may I have another)
1 x Reins of Power(won me more games than I can count)
2 x Lobotomy(Lost count of the rage quits)
2 x Sleep(at times, a 4 mana time warp)
1 x Mental Vapors
1 x Ghastlord of Fugue
1 x Dire Undercurrents
1 x Followed Footsteps(once won a game putting this on a mentor of the meek)
1 x Dinrova Horror(Wish there were 2 of these)
1 x Beacon of Unrest
1 x Necropolis Regent
2 x Vengeful Vampire(3/2? No, 7/5)
1 x Spinal Embrace
1 x Stolen Identity
1 x Diluvian Primordial
1 x Avatar of Will

For 1 on 1, remove 10. Easy to do.
Recommended drops for 1 on 1:
Beacon of Unrest
2 lands
Treasure Hunt
both vengeful Vamps
countersquall
2 dimir guildmages
1 x Diluvian Primordial
1 x Spinal Embrace









I don't know if that "anomaly" is just luck or not.  However, I believe that it is easier to make good points looking at a list, and people really know their dimir.

2 + 2 = fish

I will keep using 60-card decks because I like to win as much as possible.

Damn the system and its hypocrites! You quit your quest and venture into the slums of the Gruul Clans!
Damn the system and its hypocrites! You quit your quest and venture into the slums of the Gruul Clans!
Take THE QUEST FOR RAVNICA today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

 

Having all the answers to opponent's played is very nice if you are full with tutors, but useless if you don't.

The only deck in 2014 so far that has sense of being over 60 is CoDM.

Having all the answers in MotD doesn't change your odds to draw them.
Let's assume a 120 deck with 2 answers. so your chance to draw each one of them is 10% after seeing 12 cards.
If you chose one of the answers for a 60 cards deck, your chance of drawing the answer is 20%, so better to choose the answer which is more relevant and get double the chances of getting it.

if you played a 120 deck with 8 tutors of drawing each answer is ~80% of getting each of the answers which might be better than ~90% for a 60 cards deck with 4 tutors and one answer.  
So, you're saying that you can accommodate a bigger than normal deck?



I have no words for the sheer brilliance.  Kudos Wuster. 

i can't justify running more than 60 cards unless the deck has obsene ammoutns of draw and/or tutoring.  Even then, there are very few inclusions I would call "extra tools" to handle situations that the deck could not otherwise deal with.  The DOTP decks are already very limited in what they can do.

  I mean, take gaurdians of light.  Obscene draw potential and loads of tutoring.  It would be a great candidate for the kind of 70-card shenannigans you are talking about, but the only thing I can really see as being useful would be adding a few more creatures so I can have extra bodies to boost my critter count.  But then I have a greater chance to be staring at a hand full of creatures and no auras to make them useful.

  I think I might try it just to see what it does, but I can't say I'm optimistic.
Of all things, Death is least permanent.
Only decks I have at 60 are Dimir, Dragons, and Chandra. I had Mul Daya at 60 but it has to be at 70 if you're running those early landdrop cards. IT is hard to make a deck 60 on 2014. I never had any problem with a 70 card deck.
It is hard FOR YOU to make a deck 60 cards.

@ shadow, I don't think there are 48 good cards available in Dimir
its a big variance but also consider that more you play more your win % should grow, especially with many games under your belt as you know what to expect from other players and know better your cards and what you can do.

also is interesting to see that your 70 card deck playes 24 lands that equal to 20-21 lands on a 60 deck. this may be another reason why you prefer the 70 card deck, maybe your 60 had too many lands and/or a curve too low for 2hg.

for chant i admit that i have troubles to cut it too :P as the best cards are probably in green but eye gives you an easy to grab tutor for the bombs of the deck every turn. (that can be more relevant in 2hg than in 1vs1), also for my taste it is generally played with a bit too many lands, so that may be a reason why your 70chant feels way better than 60.  

it could be interesting to trim again your decks this time cutting some lands too and see how it feels... but btw if it works for you play as what you like, is pretty fun to do well with a deck you feel "yours" even if sometimes is not 100% "optimal" ^^
Though I do not agree with Shadow that 70 cards is better than 60 cards, I do agree on his view that there is something wrong with the random generator.

A while back, I did an experiment on how frequent you will got mana screw or mana flood.  My methodology was:
a)  Start with any 60-card deck with 22-24 lands.  For this instance, I played with 24 lands, and I played HS, MotD, and MM.
b)  For everytime I got mana flood, I will replace 1 land with a nonland card.  And start on the next game.
c)  For everytime I got mana screw, I will replace 1 nonland card with a land. 

Result:
The longest streak I went without the need to replace a card is when I was down to 18-19 lands.

Conclusion:
There is something wrong with the random generator. 
In the end you can play with whatever size deck you like but it's proven that if you can cut decks down to minimum size then it will run better than if it had a few extra cards in it.

A 60 card deck can have all the same different parts a 70 card deck has to confront all the different types of situations it may confront but will be better for the simple fact that you cut out 10 cards you don't absolutely need.

Sure there can be difficult choices in some decks but forcing yourself to go to the minimum just makes it run that bit better.

Eye kneed teh speelchequer bach!

Sorry to get back to the food issue but i have to say,

Portillo's = kick ass hot dog's and cheese fries!!!!

Also, 60 card deck is where its at,
Though I do not agree with Shadow that 70 cards is better than 60 cards, I do agree on his view that there is something wrong with the random generator.

A while back, I did an experiment on how frequent you will got mana screw or mana flood.  My methodology was:
a)  Start with any 60-card deck with 22-24 lands.  For this instance, I played with 24 lands, and I played HS, MotD, and MM.
b)  For everytime I got mana flood, I will replace 1 land with a nonland card.  And start on the next game.
c)  For everytime I got mana screw, I will replace 1 nonland card with a land. 

Result:
The longest streak I went without the need to replace a card is when I was down to 18-19 lands.

Conclusion:
There is something wrong with the random generator. 



First, before I reply to the quoted post, thanks to you others for your input and the nice way you put it.

Second, give it a try instead of just saying it won't work. I've been partnering with the guy ranked #1 in 2hg on Steam and his decks are larger than mine.

Ok. As to the quoted post...I agree man, there must be another way to test this besides land. But first, I'm going to use the game most MTG players don't know exist, Magic: the Gathering Tactics, as it's random generator works wrong in the same ways as an example.

Land is automatically provided in Tactics. That means 40 card decks would rule, right? No. Every tourney is dominated by the handful who use 60 to 75 cards...but this is due to the format and use of terrain advantages and STILL most players stubbornly refuse to accept it. The subject of this discussion is the land generation.

Let's say you make a U/W deck that's 50/50, split right down the middle, on mana requirements(on the graph). You would expect to get 1 U, then 1 W, or sometimes 2 in a row or maybe as an abnormality, 3 in a row...nope, you're more likely going to get 4 or 5 in a row of one color to start...leaving you with the other color cards just sitting there.(You can alter what mana you get next via the talents the game has, these are the beginner talents on the tree).

This isn't an abnormality, it's the rule...it happens ALL THE TIME. I've tested with other measures. Lets say you do a color with a 10%  splash of another color. I tested this out in one of the campaign scenarios in solo.

There were times it was when the 12 or higher mana came out before I got the 1 splash color with a standard 40 card deck. So basically, it wasn't 90%, it was 120%? There were also times the splash mana would generate 3 times out of 10.

However, run a high card deck there with the same %. Guess what? You're MORE LIKELY GOING TO GET IT EXACTLY AS YOU WANT IT. The probabilities change to support larger decks and it's all due to it's statistical screwups. Was I successful in Tactics? 5 x every card, 90% of the cards won in tourneys and the wealthiest player in the game gp wise, most wins of any player. There, I've given up my secrets..not that anyone will believe it as they're STUCK IN THE 60 CARD MINDSET which the random generator makes so much..excrement.

the same patterns seem to be screwing with DoTP. This kind of crud doesn't happen in card where I stick to 60 cards like glue.(seriously, I can't do 61 to save my life) The shuffle there is actually random and doesn't have a pattern(unless you're a mississippi bottom dealer...which I am but never do as that takes the fun out of it). If Dotp And Tactics had the same probabilities as card, then we wouldnt' be having this discussion at all. I have to rely on skill as I'm naturally unlucky is why there I stick to 60.

Does this pattern happen in other types of games using the random generator? You bet your ass it does. I've seen games with a 99% hit capability miss 3 times in a row. Brand new weapons break on the first hit. Your creature's stats randomly fubar. on and on and on. It makes you wonder if you play enough of the old Mario games that Toad will tell you instead of the usual "sorry Mario, but the princess is in another castle...dumb guido"

But nobody listens when I bring this up.






Sign In to post comments