Post by uptick on Jul 24, 2013 23:25:19 GMT -5
Hi guys,
I'm pretty new to Magic, and would love to get your thoughts on some of the characteristics of a good deck in Pauper.
With lack of mana fixing in the Pauper Format, is it a first priority to always try to come up with an idea for a deck that uses cards that generally costs less mana to cast?
In addition, most decks usually have a theory or focus behind them that strives to achieve a certain goal or condition. For example, discarding your opponent's card to deplete his library in order to win, or to out sustain your enemy with cards that give back health points, or simply straight out aggression.
However, most of these ideas often have holes in them that make them vulnerable to certain things. But at the same time if you try to add things to patch up the holes, then you might lessen the effectiveness of your main strategy since more resources and cards will have to be allocated.
Where do you strike a balance between your MAIN strategy (the idea for the build, whether it's lifelink, discard, etc) and everything else that needs to be added in order to prevent a counter?
I saw a Mill deck last night for the first time where the player basically used a strategy to deplete an opponent's library (7 discards per turn) and he won a lot of games with it.... however, the few times he lost was because the opponent was able to lower his life points enough before he could deplete their library.... now this seemed like a problem that can be easily fixed by adding one or two more elements into the deck to prevent losing hp before your'e able to kill an enemy's library... yet how come this is not a strong deck? (at least from what some people have told me)
Is it considered a cheesy deck? is it because if you try to add more elements to the deck, you're essentially taking resources away from your main strategy, therefore making it less effective? since you're doing too many things at once.
Should a good deck focus on one strategy, and just go for the throne with it?
I'm pretty new to Magic, and would love to get your thoughts on some of the characteristics of a good deck in Pauper.
With lack of mana fixing in the Pauper Format, is it a first priority to always try to come up with an idea for a deck that uses cards that generally costs less mana to cast?
In addition, most decks usually have a theory or focus behind them that strives to achieve a certain goal or condition. For example, discarding your opponent's card to deplete his library in order to win, or to out sustain your enemy with cards that give back health points, or simply straight out aggression.
However, most of these ideas often have holes in them that make them vulnerable to certain things. But at the same time if you try to add things to patch up the holes, then you might lessen the effectiveness of your main strategy since more resources and cards will have to be allocated.
Where do you strike a balance between your MAIN strategy (the idea for the build, whether it's lifelink, discard, etc) and everything else that needs to be added in order to prevent a counter?
I saw a Mill deck last night for the first time where the player basically used a strategy to deplete an opponent's library (7 discards per turn) and he won a lot of games with it.... however, the few times he lost was because the opponent was able to lower his life points enough before he could deplete their library.... now this seemed like a problem that can be easily fixed by adding one or two more elements into the deck to prevent losing hp before your'e able to kill an enemy's library... yet how come this is not a strong deck? (at least from what some people have told me)
Is it considered a cheesy deck? is it because if you try to add more elements to the deck, you're essentially taking resources away from your main strategy, therefore making it less effective? since you're doing too many things at once.
Should a good deck focus on one strategy, and just go for the throne with it?