A General Word About Decks

There is a right and wrong way to build a deck.

I don't understand why people are consistently saying that "Oh, my deck is built differently than yours, but that doesn't mean it's worse" and then attempt to justify their weird, awkward jumble of cards using pathos-based logic and circumstantial evidence. Seriously? You do realize you're playing a card game, right? You're not trying to write a literary paper or attempt to sway an audience to believing what you're saying. You're trying to build a deck that maximizes efficiency and synergy while maintaining optimal performance in all situations. This isn't something you can casually BS your way out of.

I was recently in a conversation with a person who heavily disagreed with the math and science behind the testing and calculations a group of us were doing. I eventually asked him what was wrong with the math that I was presenting. And you know what response I got? "We're not talking about science. We're talking about a card game."

Dear friend, if a card game isn't science, then please, what in the world is it?

Please enlighten me

Every single card game in the entire universe will always be founded on three things: a predetermined population size, a constantly varying sample size, and an array of algorithms to iterate through the population. Do you know what this means? It means everything can be calculated. Everything. Every move, every action, every draw, every card will have both a number and a percentage attached to it. All card games are based in numbers and steeped in probability. To deny this fundamental fact is to deny the idea of playing a card game.

Until you admit that an optimal solution exists for everything, you will never improve and you will never reach a high-level of competitive play. This is just the cold hard truth.

Alright, I'm done ranting

Now that I've hopefully shocked or drilled into you the fact that this is a numbers game and that math is important, I can back off slightly by saying that building a deck is definitely a form of art. Numbers aren't always everything - most of the values in a card game are beyond our capacity to simulate consistently. It takes a trained eye to see the strategies, combinations, and opportunities that a 50-index set has to offer. Everybody will have their own approach and will ultimately arrive at different solutions that, as long as the right methods and the right calculations are used, will be equally potent and equally viable.

Hey, if that's what it takes for you to learn something

Here at BF Theory, I won't go about preaching the One True Build or mandating a compulsory metagame simply because they don't exist (and let us pray that they never will). Buddyfight, with its unique game mechanics and card types, allows for a large amount of freedom with its card selection and deck building. For Vanguard players, this will be a huge relief and a major upside; for Weiss players, this is just more of the good stuff you're used to. However, I will highlight certain key ideas that decks need to follow. I'll also be constantly relying on the advantage scale to calculate the worth of individual cards - but when the big picture starts forming, it's important to know when to drop the petty details and when to embrace the masterpiece.

Every Deck

has three things: a playstyle, an engine, and a winning image.

The master is here

The playstyle of a deck is how it performs throughout a game. Is it focused on doing a lot of damage upfront (aggressive)? Is it focused on prolonging the game (stall)? What about maintaining field and hand dominance (control)? How about predicting and outwitting your opponent's plays (counter)? Does it peak early (rush), middle (midgame), or late (endgame)? Or what if it just does a bit of  everything (toolbox)? These are just a few examples. This overall theme is the most important thing to get down in a deck, because every single card must be able to contribute to this theme. If you choose to implement too many themes, your deck becomes scattered and inconsistent, attempting to perform too many jobs and not actually succeeding at any. Choose one or two and focus your attention to making sure that your deck will shine in those areas; if you have room later, you can always add more.

Best Support Team

The engine of a deck is how it gains advantage during a game. This is where math comes in. You need a way to turn your draws into more draws, your heals into more heals, your gauge into dominance and your monsters into threats. Decks revolve around a central way of gaining advantage. Sometimes, it's as simple as 4-12 spells that just give you more resources than what you put in. Other times, it's a complicated mesh of half your deck that intricately intertwine to create a massive web of advantage gain. It's up to you to find which fits your playstyle and deck the best. Remember, every deck needs to have this, otherwise they'll find themselves outpaced by decks that have got their engine optimized.

Free Shipping

The winning image of a deck is the clear, definitive series of events that should lead to a certain victory. Basically, if the entire match was a story, this would be your "good end", the ending that you want to reach. This is the ideal way for you to crush your opponent into oblivion, your dream moment of triumph. A good winning image often makes a good deck. Of course, your winning image has to be reasonable and consistently attainable. If your winning image involves some ridiculous strategy that requires many specific unique cards and an inordinate amount of gauge, then chances are you won't be able to win via winning image often - thus defeating the purpose of having one in the first place. This should be a result that your deck can work towards on multiple levels, something your deck can achieve in more than one way. A winning image gives your deck direction and purpose and above all, a thirst for victory.

Testing

I haven't tested any of these decks. There's really no fair tiering system to work with, so there's really no point to perform batch testing en masse. I have run a few trials with the decks just to make sure they draw fine and have the 3 key points, but not enough to give some kind of valued estimate to just how good the decks are. This blog is Buddyfight Theory, remember, not Buddyfight Scientific Law.

Feel free to test the life out of any deck I post. However, I should remind you that testing is something that is done seriously. It's not as simple as bringing the deck to your local cardshop and playing with some random stranger you find there. Testing is done in a controlled environment where all variables should be heavily monitored and maintained.

It's pretty easy to tell when you just make up the numbers

FIrstly, you can only ever test with yourself. This is to maintain the variable of skill. Different players will be at different skill levels, so playing against other people might not show that one deck is better but that one player is better.

Secondly, you must shuffle thoroughly always. This is to maintain the variable of randomness. Yes, this is a variable, and yes, this can be controlled. There are articles on how to shuffle and how much will actually provide a reasonable randomized, er, randomness. I've heard 7 riffle 7 strip is adequate for 50 card decks.

Lastly, you must test a lot. 10 times? 20 times? 30 times? Actually, you can never test enough. They say that for digital mahjong players to fully appropriate their skill level, they need to play a thousand hands of mahjong (by the way, that's about 125 hanchan games). If you want a definite number, 50 or 100 sounds solid. The standard deviation should have stabilized by then.

If you do decide to test my decks, by all means let me know your findings. I'll be sure to add results to my articles with proper attribution (but I'll be checking your work first!). Maybe in the future I can hire/recruit a full-time testing staff. That would be amazing.

Stay educated, guys!