154 replies to this topic

[Knift-e]

/facepalm this is like a year long discussion to one of the best articles out there.
Einstein is saying that 40 cards is the ideal, since statically speaking, you'll get to any card you need at any moment faster than with more cards. You cannot argue that fact. Everything else you people said is also true.

[ODST Lucifer]

ok lets say your opponent runs a stall deck.
you have a 40 card deck when they have a 42 card deck.

say you have used all your cards that can destroy your opponents monsters and they have an arcanite magician(With no Counters) patrican of darkness and spirit reaper on the field with royal decree and secret village of the spellcasters.

You have a herak face up on the field, have no more test tigers in your deck or hand, and your bestiari is removed from play.

And you lose by deck out.

Wouldnt it HELP alot if you had 2 extra cards?

it wouldve helped me alot but it failed and i lost.

[Shadow]

Lucifer, on 09 August 2009 - 11:54 PM, said:

ok lets say your opponent runs a stall deck.
you have a 40 card deck when they have a 42 card deck.

say you have used all your cards that can destroy your opponents monsters and they have an arcanite magician(With no Counters) patrican of darkness and spirit reaper on the field with royal decree and secret village of the spellcasters.

You have a herak face up on the field, have no more test tigers in your deck or hand, and your bestiari is removed from play.

And you lose by deck out.

Wouldnt it HELP alot if you had 2 extra cards?

it wouldve helped me alot but it failed and i lost.

Nobody /good/ runs Stall.

Edited by Shadow, 10 August 2009 - 10:11 AM.

[Fallen]

Shadow, on 10 August 2009 - 10:10 AM, said:

Nobody /good/ runs Stall.

Not to mention that situation is highly unlikely.

[Barlex]

Xerodynamicz, on 10 August 2009 - 12:24 PM, said:

Not to mention that situation is highly unlikely.

Seriously. How often would that scenario ever come up?

[Lloyd6770]

I personally am a firm believer of running 40 cards. The only time I've ever run more than 40 is if I counted wrong, and there were 41 cards in it, heh.

[Linnis]

Okay, first of all, can we not be so hostile? Let's look at cards that SS a lot from the deck? Glads, Spellcasters, well-designed Fairies... I keep my Athena OTK at 40-42 because it's an OTK, but if it wasn't? 45 easy because I am known to deck out with it. Which can be a problem in some decks. Now, I know you disagree with anecdotal evidence, but the point I'm making is that generalizations are general, there are always going to be exceptions, and rather than flame and berate the exceptions, you should just leave them alone.

I understand the statistical argument, and yes, the thinner a deck, the more statistically likely you're going to get a certain card, but the only deck where that is the only factor in the duel is Exodia, every other deck design it's not just a run of the numbers nor is it just luck of the draw. It's more about tactics, preparation.... it's a matter of using your cards effectively and not a matter of just drawing like mad. Eventually, including speed cards, the number of effectors to the outcome of the game in a deck is absurdly low these days, and that's problematic.

And since you're going to flame me for this post, let me cap it by saying quite simply, and elegantly; Fortune Ladies for the win.

Edited by Linnis, 11 August 2009 - 01:50 PM.

[iYoda]

well. the point of a 40 card deck even is even with draw power. there are still 40 cards you ahve to search through. 45 makes it way harder to get what you need. ;[ and 41 is uneven. and 42 is lame. 40 card decks are the best. look at any top teir deck. 40 cards. if your using 45. then you are a n00b.

Linnis, on 11 August 2009 - 01:08 PM, said:

Okay, first of all, can we not be so hostile? Let's look at cards that SS a lot from the deck? Glads, Spellcasters, well-designed Fairies... I keep my Athena OTK at 40-42 because it's an OTK, but if it wasn't? 45 easy because I am known to deck out with it. Which can be a problem in some decks. Now, I know you disagree with anecdotal evidence, but the point I'm making is that generalizations are general, there are always going to be exceptions, and rather than flame and berate the exceptions, you should just leave them alone.

I understand the statistical argument, and yes, the thinner a deck, the more statistically likely you're going to get a certain card, but the only deck where that is the only factor in the duel is Exodia, every other deck design it's not just a run of the numbers nor is it just luck of the draw. It's more about tactics, preparation.... it's a matter of using your cards effectively and not a matter of just drawing like mad. Eventually, including speed cards, the number of effectors to the outcome of the game in a deck is absurdly low these days, and that's problematic.

And since you're going to flame me for this post, let me cap it by saying quite simply, and elegantly; Fortune Ladies for the win.

acctually. the game is nothing about any of that anymore x] now its who can read online and net deck cards and never come up with their own stratagys. D:

[Linnis]

iYoda, on 12 August 2009 - 09:58 AM, said:

well. the point of a 40 card deck even is even with draw power. there are still 40 cards you ahve to search through. 45 makes it way harder to get what you need. ;[ and 41 is uneven. and 42 is lame. 40 card decks are the best. look at any top teir deck. 40 cards. if your using 45. then you are a n00b.

Way to make no point at all while being insulting to people who actually took the time to SPELL CHECK let alone articulate our arguments. I expect to be flamed by a higher caliber post than this. I mean, if someone's gonna flame me, can they at least make a coherent argument while doing it?

Edited by Linnis, 12 August 2009 - 02:29 PM.

[Wario]

Linnis, on 12 August 2009 - 02:26 PM, said:

Way to make no point at all while being insulting to people who actually took the time to SPELL CHECK let alone articulate our arguments. I expect to be flamed by a higher caliber post than this. I mean, if someone's gonna flame me, can they at least make a coherent argument while doing it?

make me a samich

[Linnis]

Wario, on 12 August 2009 - 04:54 PM, said:

make me a samich

- 1 for sexism.

[Cybersword]

Linnis, on 12 August 2009 - 02:26 PM, said:

Way to make no point at all while being insulting to people who actually took the time to SPELL CHECK let alone articulate our arguments. I expect to be flamed by a higher caliber post than this. I mean, if someone's gonna flame me, can they at least make a coherent argument while doing it?

God I love this girl.

[PJTierney]

Depending on the pace of the format you should always be striving for 40 cards.

40,41,42 is usually fine, anything higher and you get the Law of Dimishing Returns.

If the September list is real, I'd be running 40 and 2 Sarco.

[Sean]

Knift-E, on 08 August 2009 - 10:07 AM, said:

/facepalm this is like a year long discussion to one of the best articles out there.
Einstein is saying that 40 cards is the ideal, since statically speaking, you'll get to any card you need at any moment faster than with more cards. You cannot argue that fact. Everything else you people said is also true.

^


Also, lol at the stall deck comment.

[Amber R]

Why you should run 40 cards in almost every deck? [there are few exceptions]

Because you're not going to see the 40 cards of your deck when you play (that would be very, very rare to happen).

Edited by Amber R, 10 November 2009 - 07:25 PM.

[drew]

and another topic gets necro'd.

*sigh...

[Chris Itmas]

What the hell Amber lol.

[Einstein]

Amber R, on 10 November 2009 - 07:20 PM, said:

Why you should run 40 cards in almost every deck? [there are few exceptions]

Because you're not going to see the 40 cards of your deck when you play (that would be very, very rare to happen).

Hey, if you're wondering why you should run 40 cards in every deck, there's this cool article I wrote that gives quite a few reasons for that.

Oh, wait...

[Amber R]

I thought that the topic was resurrected, there was a previous poster before me and that was yesterday (it was erased or I hallucinated), also didn't checked the previous posters...

Edited by Amber R, 11 November 2009 - 09:06 PM.

[drew]

no... you necro'd it.

and lmao someone negged me.