40+ Card Decks | Are they bad, can they be good, is it worth arguing over?

[Delibirb]

So a little debate sprouted in the Decks forum so I thought it would be a good idea to make a separate topic for it. Most of us are on the side that 40 cards decks are in general superior to any deck which runs more than 40~ cards. But there are some people of course who believe that 40+ and even 60 card decks can be good, if done well. So basically, discuss either side.

 

Helpful points to get you started:

• Upstart Goblin, PoD, and other consistency cards
• How far over 40 is too far?
• 60 card decks recent successes(?)
• General mathematics of drawing/opening hands/etc.

(For the record, I am on the side that in all cases, a 40 card deck will be superior to a 40+ card deck of the same variant. In cases where the decks are not the same variant, it's kind of up to matchups, but in general, the 40 card deck will still be superior, if only marginally.

[~Faytl~]

I personally never use any deck unless the number of cards it has is no higher than 42. Consistency is just more important to me than having more options within the deck, especially since we live in a format where much of your consistency is derived so largely from the Graveyard and Extra Deck.

[Simping For Hina]

There is nothing to argue. 

 

Going with the minimum amount in a deck provides the best amount of consistency in drawing cards needed. It is under mathematical claim to the reason why only 40 card decks do well; because no one in their right mind would play 40+ in any competitive scenario unless they expect to not finish with a good enough record. 

[Aix]

Case by case thing, but in like 99% of cases, 40 cards is better and you shouldn't be running more than 40 unless you absolutely cannot do without it. As for judging whether you need that extra card or two, that's matter of your skill as a deckbuilder.

When I still played I remember 60 card Shaddoll Burning Abyss being popular because they burn themselves out when they have 40 cards, ending up with no resources if the game drags on, although I need to look into 60 card Decks more, because I feel like there can probably be a happy medium where you have enough of the advantages of the 60 card Decks while trying to get more consistency. There was also the 60 Dragon Rulers that happened a while back.

[Expelsword]

40 cards is mathematically the best, the very first rulebook advertised it as so, and 12 (?) years of intense play worldwide has never come up with evidence to the contrary.

 

The fact that anyone gets away with 60 card Shaddoll Lightsworn Burning Abyss speaks to just how stupid all of those cards are, not that large decks are better.

[Slinky]

Well, I had some pretty big success with my 60 card SHAFT deck (Seraph, Hand, Artifact, Fire Fist, Traptrix). Combining a multitude of +1 engines into one that didn't just stop at HAT usually works.

 

I will stand by however, that running more than 40 cards DOES NOT WORK /UNLESS/ YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING

[玄魔の王]

I never run a deck unless it has less than 40 cards. That's just me though lol.

[Slinky]

I never run a deck unless it has less than 40 cards. That's just me though lol.

 

Remind me how you are using a deck with less than 40 cards again?

[Toffee.]

I've played like a few decks before that were like 41 and 42.

I mean, it's fine if you go over by like 1-2 cards because it's a very minimal change.

 

However... If you get to like 45, then it starts getting iffy.

[玄魔の王]

Remind me how you are using a deck with less than 40 cards again?

My opponents at locals never count my cards?

In all seriousness though, any deck I run is Exactly 40 cards, and I refuse to run more than that.

[Toffee.]

I see my last post got like 2 Reps.
I... Unintentionally forgot a detail about what I said; Going over by like 1-2 cards heavily depends on the sort of deck you are using.
Because this has to do with the speed of the deck in question, and how efficient you can pull of [X] moves. Otherwise, your just playing random junk for no real reason, other then to hope you get dead draws which will cost you the game.
It becomes a love-hate relationship, if you will. It throws the deck in question into an endless cycle of conflicting it's inner love with the passionate moves of it's matching duelist. The perfect middle-ground is what the two must establish for an ideal marriage; Then a deck can be truly awe inspiring <3

[Cirrus]

It's a question of mathematics; whether you want your power cards as often as possible or whether you care more about the quantity of your resources. For example, in formats with Future Fusion, RfDD, et al., why would you not want to power through your deck as quickly as possible to find game-winning cards?

 

So, it's quality versus quantity. If a deck burns through resources quickly - very specifically, the number of cards in their deck - it is completely acceptable to run a decent excess of cards if you feel the loss of consistency is irrelevant (because, say, you have engines that reasonably allow you to acquire a playable hand in 95% of the circumstances).

 

Large decks can be successful, it just requires a specific set of circumstances for them to be. I strongly disagree that it was necessarily the "stupidity" of BA/Shaddoll/Artifacts that made the deck playable, but rather their properties; we've had 50ish-card Mermail perform very well at tournaments before too, and it's because they share similar qualities.

[Slinky]

Weren't 47 card deck Mermails a thing anyway? or somewhere close to that? Back when they were actually relevant?

[Cirrus]

52-card Mermail existed too, re: above. At least as far as I can recall.

[Minato Sakai]

53 card mermail won ycs lille in 2013

[Maeriberii Haan]

For a deck to be realistically able to be competitive while going with more than 45 cards, first of all, the deck needs an actual solid reason to run more than 45 cards.

 

Well, take the 45+ card mermails from back then. Most of them run the powerful-but-can be dead as fuck Undine+Controller, along with the purer way to run Merlanteans. From the extra card slots, they get more options and potential plays, while reduces the chance to multiple controllers in hand along the way.

 

Then, we have the 60-card control deck that consists of Shaddoll/BA/artifacts also enjoys the added options for plays. Drastically increased monster count also allows them to run triple (iirc) Beginning of the End effectively, with smaller chance for them to be opened in multiples.

 

Second, there's also another important factor. The deck -must- be able to access these added option and resources easily enough even with the increased  decksize. Your deck must not only be able to dig deep and precise, but you must be able to dig deep and precise in as many opening hands as possible, which means, having as many combination of cards as possible that could constitute as a good opening hand.

 

Both Mermails and 60-card control has that ability, to an extent. Hence why they can see success.

 

Granted, even with the two factors, there's always the weakness of these kind of strategies, which is siding.

 

Digging for sided cards gets harder in these kind of decks, of course, and it really -hurts-.

[Minato Sakai]

theres also the 60 card fire fist that got 3rd place in the 2013 miami regionals.

[Maeriberii Haan]

theres also the 60 card fire fist that got 3rd place in the 2013 miami regionals.

 

Right, i think I remember this one.

 

http://articles.alterealitygames.com/3rd-place-miami-regional-paul-blake-60-card-fire-fist-deck/

 

This one, right?

[Minato Sakai]

Right, i think I remember this one.

 

http://articles.alterealitygames.com/3rd-place-miami-regional-paul-blake-60-card-fire-fist-deck/

 

This one, right?

 

yes, that one

[Maeriberii Haan]

I think it's also a case of the deck still being able to have multitudes of decent to good opening, while being able to have multitudes of answers to different situations by virtue of the many ways to access the Fire Formation and Fire Fist cards on the deck.

 

Transmod/Onslaught, etc.

 

Also, the deck is probably the best way to play FF if you really want to use Seito, which he did use. The card's old issue was that you'll burn through too many resources when it's finally able to be activated, which really reduced its viability. Also opening it sucks.

 

Running 60 cards helps mitigate both issues. You have a win-con card that can be accessed almost anytime, and you'll have less chance to open it early on.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Personally speaking, the most I tend to go for in a Deck is around 43-44ish; there've been some 45-card ones on rare occasions, but nothing above that.

On average, I use 40-42; mainly for any extra support that my Decks might need that couldn't be kept under the bare minimum. Though, there hasn't been any problems with the extras; most of the time, they are useful.

 

My stance on the matter: Keep the number of cards close to the minimum so you have a better chance; so bigger Decks aren't necessarily a better thing.

If you can make the Deck work with 60 cards, then fine; but as Dyson mentioned, DO NOT try it unless you can make it work smoothly.

 

Really depends on the Deck though, but IMO sticking close to the minimum is ideal, unless you absolutely need to run 50-60 cards and stuff, in addition to being able to consistently get good hands at the start.

 

In the case of HEROs (which that whole debate was about, more/less), they need a good amount of support cards, yes, but it's possible to build them closer to the bare minimum if you are able to.

[Maeriberii Haan]

Dragon Rulers has also been tried with more than 45 cards, which, since they're freaking Drulers, they still worked really well.

 

Still, apparently they were deemed not really worth it and the normal sized builds are strictly better than the bigger builds, if I remember correctly.

[-Griffin]

60 card highlander or go home

[CLG Klavier]

Exactly. Key words being "you know what you're doing". Randomly going 42-43 "because I don't wanna cut anything" is bullshit. Cutting redunant cards is the first skill you should learn when you build decks.

[Maeriberii Haan]

42-43 is not -that- bad.

Unless your deck requires as many consistency as it can get due to general frailness/subpar base consistency/needing to open something too much, 42-43's not horrid otherwise. Cutting it down to 41-40 is ideal, but you can definitely live with 42/43 unless the deck's plagued with the issues above.

Too tired to do maths atm.