nice article again! to be honest, i wish that you would add more about how the different elements go with the other elements (different examples of decks or whatever).

@Droxium: If you can elaborate a bit, I'll see what I can put together.

I wanted to stay away from example decks, at least until the end of the series, because it's very hard to rate how good or bad a deck is in regards to each of the characteristics. I could only offer general statements about this or that.

I will take effectiveness and sustainability for an example. I sustainable card is Divination but isn't effective like Ponder because Ponder is cheaper and basically chooses what you want to draw. Thinking about it, that might be too much to ask for, but could that happen?

Even that is pretty subjective. Divination and Ponder do different things. Divination gives you raw card advantage, and Ponder gives you information and manipulation in addition to draw power. Most people would be inclined to take Ponder over Divination , but card-to-card analysis is still rather difficult, and it doesn't really tell you much.

I think this was discussed back in the first article of the series. I resolved to use the general approach and explain the characteristics so a lay audience could understand the concepts and think about the applications and implications for themselves.

That said, I'm open to discussing the idea further.

i guess that you are right. i can't think of anything else to make this better except more frequent articles, yeah i know that won't happen. You are able to make the point clear with not boring people through lines of text, thanks a lot for that!

I'll have more time once I graduate. Until May, though, I'm pretty much swamped with work. Real life is a busy thing. At this point, I'm happy to produce monthly articles.

Great article, as always. I learned from writing my article (and a bunch of other things) that it is amazing to write 1200ish words, and great ones too, about anything. I think that you should have a 9th article about how, say, Dominus - Dreamcrusher Edition, has all these qualities.

I rather enjoy how each article does not talk about specific cards or decks.

I feel like Epochalyptik is considering the game from a very high level, which is great to a player in any format. Writing something like this must be quite difficult and I salute you sir for doing a great job. I find you nail down abstract concepts of the game that I could not not articulate nor fully comprehend.

tips hat

Job well done.

This article got me thinking that there are different kinds of sustainability. My standard RDW is topdecking by turn 4-5 most of the time, but does that really matter if I end the game then? How important is sustainability to each archetype? Aggro really does not care about late game, midrange uses ramp spells to swing the game around, and control needs sustainability or they can't race 5 spells with 2-3 counter/kill spells in their opening hand. Does sustainability have a different meaning to each of the cornerstone archetypes?

@thataddkid these articles seem to be geared towards EDH/legacy style of play more than standard play

Azure124, alright, that makes alot more sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

@thataddkid: You make a good point - killing your opponent early is one way to reduce the impact of unsustainability. Aggro tends to deal with sustainability in a completely different time frame because it plays more in the early game, but also tends to win in that early game.

However, in the cases where the game drags on (for example, after a board wipe), aggro decks do tend to suffer from being unsustainable.

@Azure124: It's not necessarily that I'm writing for a specific format; rather, I think it's that Standard's limited card pool makes it harder to see the "ultimate" in any one characteristic. Strong decks in any format have all of the characteristics in this series, but players tend to think across formats as deck compared to deck rather than deck compared to format.

For example, a pre-THS Standard midrange deck appears weaker when you compare it to a Modern or Legacy midrange deck because the latter have better options available to them. However, when you compare the Standard midrange deck to the rest of Standard, it is actually quite strong.

Another great article E, great job!

I like the article but you could probably use examples of deck types in stead of actual decks ie. Control vs. aggro. I'm a fairly new player and as such not familiar with the various concepts of deck construction. I appreciate that your taking the time to go into depth explaining them. Thank you. When I start a new brew I usually look at individual card efficiency and overall synergy of the cards in relation to what I'm trying to accomplish with the deck. I'll have to start looking at it through these different filters and adjust my technique. I often expend my resources too early and leave my self hoping to draw into gas mid-late game.

DimirDan many new players focus on how powerful a card is or a particular combination without adequately considering the entire deck as a whole. One needs to avoid looking at only the individual power of a card but how the 75 cards that comprise your whole deck work together to achieve victory. It's a balance between the major characteristics that E is covering. These principles transend colors or deck type, but have different levels of importance in the distinct builds. For example, sustainability is critical for a control deck. It's not as critical for an aggro deck in the traditional way. For example, control decks are largely sustainable through draw power. But why? Because a control deck gains card advantage through draw to force uneven exchanges in value. An aggro deck maintains sustainability by being able to continually apply pressure. One example might be Mutavault , after an aggro deck has gassed out and is top decking it's very bad unless they have a way to continue to apply pressure. Mutavault is one way to do that, since it evades all sorcery based removal and can continue to apply pressure to a control player with an empty battlefield.

Great article but I would disagree with how you linked sustainability to some of the other characteristics and your statement that a good mana curve contributes to sustainability. These disagreements are of course related to aggro decks. I know that using a single style of deck is a bit nitpicky but in describing characteristics of a strong deck in a broad overview any statement made must be true of all strong decks.

I think everyone can agree that aggro decks are unsustainable decks. So to be a strong deck they have to make up for this by having greater than average strength in other areas.

Just because a deck is unsustainable does not mean it isn't flexible. I would actually contend that an unsustainable deck if it is going to be strong must have superior flexibility since there is less of a chance of getting any one card. Therefore the deck must be flexible enough that there are various ways to accomplish the end goal of reducing your opponent's life to 0 before you run out of gas. This leads into the fact that a strong unsustainable deck must also be extremely consistent since you have less turns and therefore less cards so the tolerance for variation is even tighter than normal.

It has been a while since I read the original article in this series so I forget how you defined Effectiveness for the purpose of this discussion. So I will not contend that unsustainable decks can be effective but I may come say that after I have read over the article again. I have to get going though so that won't be until later if at all. Before I do though I will address the contention that a good mana curve will lead to a sustainable deck. Aggro decks can have well constructed mana curves but because they are planning on winning by turn 4-5 they are weighted close to the 1-2 mana slot with some 3 mana and maybe a few 4 mana spells. So even though the curve is still well constructed it is compressed making the deck unsustainable.

Mana curve is an unstable topic, but, in general, it should be like moving a bell curve:

--For aggro, the peak of the curve should be centered around turns 1 and 2, because this is when it must create and maintain the most pressure. Without this factor, it begins to break down. It is especially effective against control because it takes the most action in the more vulnerable turns of control's build---in the budding, early game; when it's cards are difficult to counteract.

--For midrange, the curve should peak around turn 2 or 3, when it needs to start displacing threats from earlier and later turns of the game. This means it must sustain itself through the first few turns, with larger threats in the mid-game of turns 3 and 4. It is especially effective against aggro because it has access to larger threats that break down an aggro deck's pressure engine early enough in the game to gain an advantageous lead.

--A control deck must play one or two cards with unprecedented pressure around turn 5 or 6, thus the curve will peak around turn 3 or 4. This is because control must access stabilizing agents to counteract early threats. Once it has moved into later turns, it needs only a few of its win conditions to gain a lead.

Please keep in mind that I speak from an experience of mostly standard decks, and these observations may apply less to nonstandard formats.

I'm past the "oooh that's a good card" phase and look past the flashy cards that look cool initialy. Instead I check the cards efficiency ie. mana cost vs. power/toughnes or effect or ability. As far as synergy goes, I decide what I want the deck to do ie. aggro, control, midrange, reanimate, scavenge, or blink ect... I then look at the individual cards and how well they fit into my decks theme based on said efficiency. This could be the wrong way of going about it but it does well. Since I've started, my level of play has increased from a virtual unknown to an actual threat for winning local FNMs in my meta. I live in a medium sized town and don't get to play test much outside FNM. I haven't been playing for as long as most of the top 8 players in my meta. As such my piloting skills aren't what they could be and I often overextend, pick the wrong line of play, or sideboard poorly. But I am getting better every article I read and match play adds that crucial expierience to move to the next level. So how do I look at the whole picture to get a good idea of the decks strength without actually play testing? I think my approach to construction is solid, it's the small tweaks and knowing the ins and outs that get me.

Very nice article, and it goes very well with your last. Keep up the good work!

Wheel of Fortune was the card of choice for old RDW/Sligh decks to refuel the hand. I've thought of using Reforge the Soul as the next best option in Legacy and Modern RDW, however it also gives the opponent card advantage. For instance after a Miracle Reforge the Soul , I play Fireblast saccing two Mountain s and then stare at a Force of Will ...

I suppose the same could be said of Rites of Flourishing , Temple Bell , Howling Mine , and Font of Mythos . They could be good cards in the right build, however your card advantage is compromised due to the opponent gaining advantage as well. Contrarily, Dark Confidant , Brainstorm , Sylvan Library , etc offer card advantage and options, albeit at a cost (well, save Brainstorm...).

@DimirDan: The problem with using archetypes as examples is that there's so much variance between decklists that attempts to generalize or compare them may come up short.

@Gidgetimer: I don't make the argument that an unsustainable deck is necessarily inflexible. I make the argument that a lack of sustainability often translates to a lack of flexibility. The article relates general trends rather than hard ratios because there will always be variance in deck design, especially as players attempt to compensate for weaknesses or flaws in those designs.

Earlier in the series, I gave the following definition for effectiveness:
Effectiveness: the ability of a deck to execute its strategy and achieve its goals. Effectiveness is also a quality of individual cards; effective cards succeed in accomplishing specific goals.

I cover aggro and other low-cost decks in this statement, taken from the second paragraph of the "Maximizing Sustainability" section: "Of course, this pattern varies between archetypes, but the concept is the most important part." I also talk about the danger of using resources too quickly, and there was some discussion earlier in the thread about balancing the risk of low-sustainability strategies with the goal of killing an opponent before unsustainability stops you.

@TheAnnihilator: You give a good summary of mana curves, although there will naturally be some variance even within archetypes. Control, especially in Modern and Legacy, may frontload their mana curves with 1- and 2-drop countermagic, thus departing from the bell curve ideal. It depends mostly on the kind of control deck (for example, Fae and Fish tend to integrate creatures and countermagic fairly well in their curves).

Good discussion so far, everyone!

@aeonstoremyliver cards that give both players draw is detrimental when that draw is left unchecked. There are many ways to limit the usefulness of that draw. One way is to make your opponent pay for that draw (e.g. Black Vise ), limit the ability of your opponent to utilize their draw (e.g. Winter Orb ), or be able to flood the battlefield and better capitalize on the increased draw (e.g. Howling Mine with lots of 1-2 drop goblins that have great synergies between them -even if your opponent has better creatures with a higher CMC, they will be limited by mana as a resource to match the flood of one drop goblins). Essentially in the latter case, it's a question of efficiency coupled to sustainability. Inefficient decks will not be able to capitalize on the added draws.

Apoptosis, of course, I'm in concurrence. Hence my remark about the right build, i.e. efficiency and synergy. The aforementioned cards go well in a 'Mill Fog' type deck, for another example. However, as I also alluded to, against certain match ups the opponent could gain the upper hand.

I feel like there should be examples, just post some Pro-tour top 8s and explain how your article shows in the deck, seems simple enough.