I'm just brainstorming here. I know there will always be counterexamples, but some baseline rules of thumb may help many people.
While these guidelines may seem obvious, there are plenty of times when people reduce the wrong cards from 4 to 3 while adding new cards, or suggest adding a singleton to a deck where it won't make a significant improvement. I make these mistakes too.
4-of cards are generally:
Powerful and broadly applicable
Highly desirable in the opening hand
Tolerable or advantageous in multiples
Likely to attract removal
4-ofs are very common in competitive decks, and oftentimes the only reason people don't play more of a particular card is because they can't.
Examples might include Goblin Guide or Aether Vial, which you want to drop on the first turn in almost every game, or Jace, the Mind Sculptor if it is key to your deck's strategy and will attract a lot of removal, or Fireblast, which while difficult to manage in multiples may be your deck's best finisher.
3-of cards are generally:
Powerful and broadly applicable
Not required in the opening hand, but desirable every game
Less desirable in multiples
Less likely to face removal
3-ofs are also common, and are usually seen because having more would actually weaken the deck.
Examples include Legendary cards such as Umezawa's Jitte that conflict with each other, higher casting cost cards that are less useful in the initial turns of the game, cards such as enchantments, which are more difficult to remove than creatures, or a card such as Volcanic Fallout, which is difficult to disrupt.
2x cards may be:
Overlapping with another similar card to fill a 4x niche
A virtual 3x in concert with a lot of library manipulation
Useful for late game endurance or as game finishers
2-ofs are less commonly seen in competitive decks. Generally, either a card is good and you should play 3+ copies, or a card is bad for that particular deck and shouldn't be used at all. However, they do have their uses:
You can drop a 3x down to 2x if you only need it in the later stages of the game and you already have a lot of library manipulation (Ponder, Faithless Looting, etc.) to sift through the deck and find a copy.
Be careful to not be lazy in your metagame analysis, and simply use a 2/2 split to "cover the bases" when one card may actually be more generally useful in the context of the rest of your deck and the opponents you're likely to face. Consolidating on one card, especially in the maindeck, is often the best choice.
1x cards are generally one of:
Tutor/Wish target
Two or more different, similar cards used together to reduce the risk of disruption
With extremely rare exceptions, the above situations are the only times where you would want to use a 1-of in your deck. Adding singletons for other reasons don't give the deck a competitive advantage.
Oftentimes, the player adds a variety of narrow yet powerful answers. They think, "All I have to do is draw the right card against this particular opponent and blow them out." If there is a powerful, narrow spell that's very useful against a common matchup, add multiples of that card in the sideboard but keep a consistent maindeck that's viable against a broad spectrum of opponents.
Sometimes the player tries to add more strategies into a deck, and reduces card counts to 1-ofs due to lack of room. It's important to simply choose the best strategies that work well together, and focus on their power and consistency rather than spread too thin.
I'm not sold on your position on 1-ofs though. There is also the "miser's" 1-of, mostly in control decks, which has proven to be fine. This is generally a card which is useful in a variety of match-ups but a huge blowout in one fairly common one. For example, a local player I know ran a "miser's" Banefire in Counter-Top (legacy) prior to the printing of Jace. it was fine in plenty of match-ups, but in the mirror is was absurd. The mirror tended to degenerate into Tarmogoyf stand-offs, with stand-offs in the air as well with that thing from Ravnica block that Naturalizes on hitting the player (can't remember the name for the life of me right now, sorry), after both players stabalized at some low life total (10/12, from fetchland activations and a hit or two from beaters before the field got locked up). You'd draw Banefire and just Burn them out.
The miser's 1-of doesn't fit in every deck, but it does have its place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Thanks for the comments. Your Banefire example reminds me of when we used to run Ensnare in Legacy Countersliver to fight the mirror match. And while that card might have also been useful against Goblins, Elves, and other decks as well, I just stuck a pair in the sideboard so I could use more generally applicable cards such as Swords to Plowshares in the maindeck instead.
Here's a counterexample: what if you're playing that control mirror and at turn 12 he topdecks two more beaters than you have and will soon swing for the win through your blockers? If you've seen 30 cards due to cantrips and such, there's still a 50% chance that your miser's copy of Banefire is stuck in the bottom half of your deck. Those are hardly good odds.
If many people in your meta are playing control, by all means tune your deck for that matchup, but build around it and be able to rely on it. In that case my suggestion would be to run 2-3 copies and own that common matchup.
Just as you're not sold on my position, I'm not entirely convinced that a miser's copy of a card is ever advisable. I'm aware of very successful decks with 1-ofs but usually they feature a lot of library manipulation, making that single card behave closer to a pair (see the section on 2-ofs as virtual 3-ofs). And who knows whether they were successful because they ran that singleton, or in spite of it?
In some cases, it's probably just a difference of preferred play style. I know there are always exceptions. However, I'm sure you've also seen people suggesting 1-ofs without good reason. It's those cases that I'm mainly trying to address.
Another 1 of is "I really want 4 of these but only have 3 SB slots so I put in a couple singletons that won't hurt me in the main".
I don't know how to summarize that, but I see that quite a bit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Generally, I agree with your analysis. However, when it comes to 3-ofs, I'm not sure I agree that they are necessarily "less likely to face removal." More often than not I think the undesirability of seeing multiples, particularly in the opening hand, largely governs the decision between running something as a 4-of or a 3-of, chances of removal notwithstanding.
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
Generally, I agree with your analysis. However, when it comes to 3-ofs, I'm not sure I agree that they are necessarily "less likely to face removal." More often than not I think the undesirability of seeing multiples, particularly in the opening hand, largely governs the decision between running something as a 4-of or a 3-of, chances of removal notwithstanding.
Good point. Susceptibility to removal/disruption isn't always the primary concern, but it's relevant to me when a deck starts getting tight and I have to really think to come up with things to remove. I still think it bears mentioning.
I use to run 1x of Stifle or Daze on my UR-Snapcaster/Delver Legacy deck (not both, just one) just for mainly make my opponent think that I may have more and play arround it, also Stifle (for example) isn't as bad as Daze is on the late game.
Psyching out the opp. is a neat trick but just as inconsistent as other techniques that rely on randomly drawing a 1-of at precisely the right time.
Sure you might Daze their first spell of the match and they'll play around it. You might also topdeck that Daze on turn 6 of game 3 when you really wished you had another Snapcaster or other card that could just end the game right then, but was taken down to 3x or 2x to fit the singleton Daze.
I agree that this is a reason why someone would include a 1-of in the deck, but I don't believe that doing so would produce a consistent competitive advantage.
Powerful Legendary cards are usually 4x or 3x (or 1x with search mechanics to fetch it).
In the 4-of section, I use the example of Jace, The Mind Sculptor. Despite the Legendary status, control decks often use four because of its raw power, susceptibility to removal, and importance to the deck's strategy.
In the 3-of section, I use Umezawa's Jitte as an example of a card you might not want 4 of because it is Legendary. While it's a prime target for removal, artifacts are still less vulnerable than creatures and planeswalkers, and Jitte is likely less central to the deck's strategy than Jace to a control deck. If an entire deck hinged on Jitte, it would likely be a 4-of regardless of Legendary status.
I like your thoughts on card density. They seem very well thought out.
However, I don't understand why a 1-of is usually "the wrong number." I read your points, but they haven't seemed convincing to me yet. I feel there are certain decks that like one-ofs for reasons you haven't mentioned.
For example, a few months ago I saw local's UW control list for legacy. He ran only one copy of Elspeth, Knight Errant in his MD. Why? Because while she is good, he doesn't want her all the time. With brainstorms, etc, his list could cycle through quite a few cards throughout a game. If he ever saw the Elspeth, it was pretty cool (not needed, however), but he would almost never want to see two unless it was in a particular MU (and for that he ran another in the SB). Elspeth wasn't really a blow-out card; she was good against almost anything, but he just didn't want to see her all the time.
Also, in my BUG Control list, I run one copy of darkblast. The card is plain awful against a variety of decks, but against most it is a pretty good card. I can simply side it out if I don't need it, or add the other copy in my SB to the MD in a matchup where it shines, such as mavrick.
Basically, I think 1-ofs can be appropriate when either:
a) you like it when you see it, but you seldom need it and certainly don't want to see 2
or
b) the meta of your area in a particular format is, say, 35-40% one particular deck, and you want a little advantage g1 in case you happen to play against it; and the card isn't too shabby against other decks either. Is it a blow-out card that you would just have to hope you draw? No, you can still win without it, but it does give you a little edge when it comes up. Does it suck vs. most other matches? Sometimes, against some decks, but generally no.
... vintage is constructed too. Many arguments against 1-ofs don't apply. Often, its the one-ofs that make the difference between a competitive deck and a kitchen table/budget one. And cards like tinker and time vault are slapped in, just because, even if they don't really reflect the central theme of the deck.
And don't tell me that eternal wasn't considered, given that the first point, "wishes" are things only eternal has.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
The way that I learned it is this:
4-of: Cards that you want in your opening hand or as soon/as many as possible.
3-of: Cards where you want 1 by the end of every game, but not necessarily in your opening hand.
2/1-of: Conditional cards which you want sometimes but not every game or cards that you can tutor for if you need them. Also sometimes a complex metagame encourages having 2 of one card and 2 of another instead of running 4 of a single card.
Tutors: For the purpose of deck-building, these go into a special category where you don't think about it as a single card on its own. It is the 5th copy of whichever card you didn't draw into for your combo.
There are no hard fast rules about what kind of cards go into each category. It depends on the type of deck, it's speed, mana requirements, and metagame.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Collection:
Every English card ever printed: 99.02%
Arabian Nights through Lorwyn: Complete
Alpha: 94.2% Beta: 95.0%
Unlimited through M10: Complete
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While these guidelines may seem obvious, there are plenty of times when people reduce the wrong cards from 4 to 3 while adding new cards, or suggest adding a singleton to a deck where it won't make a significant improvement. I make these mistakes too.
4-of cards are generally:
4-ofs are very common in competitive decks, and oftentimes the only reason people don't play more of a particular card is because they can't.
Examples might include Goblin Guide or Aether Vial, which you want to drop on the first turn in almost every game, or Jace, the Mind Sculptor if it is key to your deck's strategy and will attract a lot of removal, or Fireblast, which while difficult to manage in multiples may be your deck's best finisher.
3-of cards are generally:
3-ofs are also common, and are usually seen because having more would actually weaken the deck.
Examples include Legendary cards such as Umezawa's Jitte that conflict with each other, higher casting cost cards that are less useful in the initial turns of the game, cards such as enchantments, which are more difficult to remove than creatures, or a card such as Volcanic Fallout, which is difficult to disrupt.
2x cards may be:
2-ofs are less commonly seen in competitive decks. Generally, either a card is good and you should play 3+ copies, or a card is bad for that particular deck and shouldn't be used at all. However, they do have their uses:
Examples include Sylvan Library in aggressive decks for late game endurance, Wurmcoil Engine or similar big creatures to finish off a game, or 2/2 splits of Duress/Inquisition of Kozilek or Smother/Victim of Night to more broadly cover the needs of a deck.
You can drop a 3x down to 2x if you only need it in the later stages of the game and you already have a lot of library manipulation (Ponder, Faithless Looting, etc.) to sift through the deck and find a copy.
Be careful to not be lazy in your metagame analysis, and simply use a 2/2 split to "cover the bases" when one card may actually be more generally useful in the context of the rest of your deck and the opponents you're likely to face. Consolidating on one card, especially in the maindeck, is often the best choice.
1x cards are generally one of:
Examples include Gaddock Teeg or Scavenging Ooze to fetch with Living Wish, Worldly Tutor, or Green Sun's Zenith. Alternately, you might run Relic of Progenitus and Tormod's Crypt in the sideboard against graveyard strategies, and use both to sidestep Pithing Needle.
With extremely rare exceptions, the above situations are the only times where you would want to use a 1-of in your deck. Adding singletons for other reasons don't give the deck a competitive advantage.
Oftentimes, the player adds a variety of narrow yet powerful answers. They think, "All I have to do is draw the right card against this particular opponent and blow them out." If there is a powerful, narrow spell that's very useful against a common matchup, add multiples of that card in the sideboard but keep a consistent maindeck that's viable against a broad spectrum of opponents.
Sometimes the player tries to add more strategies into a deck, and reduces card counts to 1-ofs due to lack of room. It's important to simply choose the best strategies that work well together, and focus on their power and consistency rather than spread too thin.
2) Use the right number of each card.
3) Know your probabilities.
4) Print your deck lists; make yourself and your judges happier.
I'm not sold on your position on 1-ofs though. There is also the "miser's" 1-of, mostly in control decks, which has proven to be fine. This is generally a card which is useful in a variety of match-ups but a huge blowout in one fairly common one. For example, a local player I know ran a "miser's" Banefire in Counter-Top (legacy) prior to the printing of Jace. it was fine in plenty of match-ups, but in the mirror is was absurd. The mirror tended to degenerate into Tarmogoyf stand-offs, with stand-offs in the air as well with that thing from Ravnica block that Naturalizes on hitting the player (can't remember the name for the life of me right now, sorry), after both players stabalized at some low life total (10/12, from fetchland activations and a hit or two from beaters before the field got locked up). You'd draw Banefire and just Burn them out.
The miser's 1-of doesn't fit in every deck, but it does have its place.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Here's a counterexample: what if you're playing that control mirror and at turn 12 he topdecks two more beaters than you have and will soon swing for the win through your blockers? If you've seen 30 cards due to cantrips and such, there's still a 50% chance that your miser's copy of Banefire is stuck in the bottom half of your deck. Those are hardly good odds.
If many people in your meta are playing control, by all means tune your deck for that matchup, but build around it and be able to rely on it. In that case my suggestion would be to run 2-3 copies and own that common matchup.
Just as you're not sold on my position, I'm not entirely convinced that a miser's copy of a card is ever advisable. I'm aware of very successful decks with 1-ofs but usually they feature a lot of library manipulation, making that single card behave closer to a pair (see the section on 2-ofs as virtual 3-ofs). And who knows whether they were successful because they ran that singleton, or in spite of it?
In some cases, it's probably just a difference of preferred play style. I know there are always exceptions. However, I'm sure you've also seen people suggesting 1-ofs without good reason. It's those cases that I'm mainly trying to address.
Thanks again. =)
2) Use the right number of each card.
3) Know your probabilities.
4) Print your deck lists; make yourself and your judges happier.
I don't know how to summarize that, but I see that quite a bit.
R.I.P. Sundering Titan (6/20/12) and Braids, Cabal Minion (9/12/14)
Good point. Susceptibility to removal/disruption isn't always the primary concern, but it's relevant to me when a deck starts getting tight and I have to really think to come up with things to remove. I still think it bears mentioning.
Psyching out the opp. is a neat trick but just as inconsistent as other techniques that rely on randomly drawing a 1-of at precisely the right time.
Sure you might Daze their first spell of the match and they'll play around it. You might also topdeck that Daze on turn 6 of game 3 when you really wished you had another Snapcaster or other card that could just end the game right then, but was taken down to 3x or 2x to fit the singleton Daze.
I agree that this is a reason why someone would include a 1-of in the deck, but I don't believe that doing so would produce a consistent competitive advantage.
Powerful Legendary cards are usually 4x or 3x (or 1x with search mechanics to fetch it).
In the 4-of section, I use the example of Jace, The Mind Sculptor. Despite the Legendary status, control decks often use four because of its raw power, susceptibility to removal, and importance to the deck's strategy.
In the 3-of section, I use Umezawa's Jitte as an example of a card you might not want 4 of because it is Legendary. While it's a prime target for removal, artifacts are still less vulnerable than creatures and planeswalkers, and Jitte is likely less central to the deck's strategy than Jace to a control deck. If an entire deck hinged on Jitte, it would likely be a 4-of regardless of Legendary status.
2) Use the right number of each card.
3) Know your probabilities.
4) Print your deck lists; make yourself and your judges happier.
However, I don't understand why a 1-of is usually "the wrong number." I read your points, but they haven't seemed convincing to me yet. I feel there are certain decks that like one-ofs for reasons you haven't mentioned.
For example, a few months ago I saw local's UW control list for legacy. He ran only one copy of Elspeth, Knight Errant in his MD. Why? Because while she is good, he doesn't want her all the time. With brainstorms, etc, his list could cycle through quite a few cards throughout a game. If he ever saw the Elspeth, it was pretty cool (not needed, however), but he would almost never want to see two unless it was in a particular MU (and for that he ran another in the SB). Elspeth wasn't really a blow-out card; she was good against almost anything, but he just didn't want to see her all the time.
Also, in my BUG Control list, I run one copy of darkblast. The card is plain awful against a variety of decks, but against most it is a pretty good card. I can simply side it out if I don't need it, or add the other copy in my SB to the MD in a matchup where it shines, such as mavrick.
Basically, I think 1-ofs can be appropriate when either:
a) you like it when you see it, but you seldom need it and certainly don't want to see 2
or
b) the meta of your area in a particular format is, say, 35-40% one particular deck, and you want a little advantage g1 in case you happen to play against it; and the card isn't too shabby against other decks either. Is it a blow-out card that you would just have to hope you draw? No, you can still win without it, but it does give you a little edge when it comes up. Does it suck vs. most other matches? Sometimes, against some decks, but generally no.
And don't tell me that eternal wasn't considered, given that the first point, "wishes" are things only eternal has.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
4-of: Cards that you want in your opening hand or as soon/as many as possible.
3-of: Cards where you want 1 by the end of every game, but not necessarily in your opening hand.
2/1-of: Conditional cards which you want sometimes but not every game or cards that you can tutor for if you need them. Also sometimes a complex metagame encourages having 2 of one card and 2 of another instead of running 4 of a single card.
Tutors: For the purpose of deck-building, these go into a special category where you don't think about it as a single card on its own. It is the 5th copy of whichever card you didn't draw into for your combo.
There are no hard fast rules about what kind of cards go into each category. It depends on the type of deck, it's speed, mana requirements, and metagame.
Every English card ever printed: 99.02%
Arabian Nights through Lorwyn: Complete
Alpha: 94.2% Beta: 95.0%
Unlimited through M10: Complete