This post was inspired by a comment response I made in /r/legacy last week. Apologies to those of you who don't speak legacy, but as it's the only format I play, I don't have any examples from other formats.
I brew a lot of decks. I self identify as a Johnny/Spike (see this article if you don't know what that means). I want to create something new and unique and I want to put my touch on every deck I play. That said, I still want to win. I always want to win. Depending on the quality of the deck, sometimes I'm content with 2-2 and sometimes I think it should go 4-0, but I'm never content with just playing the deck if it can't put up results.
My quest for the next big thing means I'm always trying strange things at my local shop's weekly tournaments. I've had to develop some shortcuts to figure out which decks are worth sleeving up and taking to the shop, though, because I still only get one shot a week to play something goofy and I want it to be worth it. Once I've articulated a basic idea for what my deck concept does, whether it's a new combo deck or based around some underexplored synergy, I put together 60 cards, goldfish them a few times, and then ask myself the following questions.
There's no right answer to all of these questions, but asking them is the first step to noticing problems. Once you've done this a bunch of times it'll all become second nature and you won't find yourself having to stop and ask them at the end because you caught all the problems on the way through the first time. This test won't make your brews win every tournament you enter, but it'll prevent you from showing up with an 0-4 clunker that never has a chance. There's nothing worse than showing up with a sweet new idea and realizing after round 1 that you're not going to win a match the rest of the night.
I brew a lot of decks. I self identify as a Johnny/Spike (see this article if you don't know what that means). I want to create something new and unique and I want to put my touch on every deck I play. That said, I still want to win. I always want to win. Depending on the quality of the deck, sometimes I'm content with 2-2 and sometimes I think it should go 4-0, but I'm never content with just playing the deck if it can't put up results.
My quest for the next big thing means I'm always trying strange things at my local shop's weekly tournaments. I've had to develop some shortcuts to figure out which decks are worth sleeving up and taking to the shop, though, because I still only get one shot a week to play something goofy and I want it to be worth it. Once I've articulated a basic idea for what my deck concept does, whether it's a new combo deck or based around some underexplored synergy, I put together 60 cards, goldfish them a few times, and then ask myself the following questions.
- What exactly does this deck DO? There should be a basic plan that you can articulate. This is probably the same sentence that articulated your original idea. Some classic examples are below.
- Sneak and Show wants to put a single game winning threat into play with Sneak Attack or Show and Tell, and devotes all cards other than those 16 combo pieces to protection and filtering.
- Delver wants to play one or maybe two aggressive threats and protect them until it wins while disrupting your mana to prevent you from stopping them.
- Elves wants to play a hybrid combo/aggro deck that can win in one fell swoop with Craterhoof Behemoth but has a solid backup plan of attacking with guys they can flood the board with.
- How exactly does an average game against the 2 or 3 best decks of different strategies in the format go? Right now, I'd be asking how an average game against RUG, Miracles, and OmniTell would go. You don't have to be right, but you should have a one or two sentence answer that would describe it.
- If I were building mono green 12post, for example, I'd say about my Miracles matchup "I'll use all of my cheap spells to make land drops consistently, force them to counter every spell that would put a Primeval Titan in play, and win as soon as I resolve a Primeval or get enough mana and an Eye of Ugin".
- If I were building Grixis Control I'd say about my RUG matchup "As long as I'm able to make my land drops I'll use True-Name Nemesis and Baleful Strix to control Tarmogoyf and Nimble Mongoose, I'll use burn spells to control Delver of Secrets, and eventually I'll use Dig Through Time to pull ahead on cards against a deck that has no built in card advantage"
- IF everything goes right, why would this deck be better than $SimilarDeck? Most decks you come up with are close to something. Aggro/Combo/Prison/Control/Tempo, the established archetypes have all been built around before. Look at the closest deck to what you're building and explain why I should try it. Cool Factor shouldn't apply here. This doesn't have to be a perfect answer, and there will always be holes in it, but you should at least be able to create a theoretical situation where what you're doing is better than what's already out there.
- Recently I built a U/B Omnitell deck with 4 Dream Halls, 4 Griselbrand, and 2 Tendrils of Agony. My answer to why it would be better than normal Omnitell is that it gets to win the turn it combos off more often as well as playing a full sideboard instead of losing space to a wishboard. It's backup plan of just Show and Telling Griselbrand is also better than regular OmniTell's backup plan of . . . . losing.
- I've put a lot of work into a U/W Chief Engineer prison/aggro deck. It's very similar to Death and Taxes. If it's better than D&T, it's because it has actual ramp to get to it's bigger spells (Mox Opal, Chief Engineer) and it's mana denial can also act as answers to creatures (Vedalken Certarch).
- How likely is it that everything will go right? Once you know what your dream scenario is, how likely is it, and what happens when it doesn't go that way? The difference between Jund's dream scenario and below average game is a lot smaller than the difference between Belcher's dream scenario and below average game. Both of those are viable decks, you just need to understand what you're building and plan accordingly. If you're just as unlikely as Belcher to hit your dream scenario, then you'd better win the game when it happens. You don't want a situation where it's rare for everything to go just right, and when it finally does you just find yourself in a slightly advantageous board position.
There's no right answer to all of these questions, but asking them is the first step to noticing problems. Once you've done this a bunch of times it'll all become second nature and you won't find yourself having to stop and ask them at the end because you caught all the problems on the way through the first time. This test won't make your brews win every tournament you enter, but it'll prevent you from showing up with an 0-4 clunker that never has a chance. There's nothing worse than showing up with a sweet new idea and realizing after round 1 that you're not going to win a match the rest of the night.
I doubt much of this post is groundbreaking to any experienced brewer, but to those of you trying to get off the ground and wondering why you're not seeing real results, I hope you'll find these four questions help you show up to your local shop with a deck that's a little more ready for prime time.
