With point one, that certainly is one way, it certainly isn't the only way. How did the first meta decks come about? Just trying different things, which for people like me is way more fun. On the second synergy and combo are two different things. A combo is a set of cards that all the cards have to be played in order for the powerful game state to happen. A synergy is when cards of a theme increase each others' individual card power. A deck can have high synergy without any combos and can have combos and low synergy. On three, I see it as a triangle of aggro-midrange-control, then a separate switch of combo or not. This is because every point of the triangle can be combo or not.
@@ProfessorWaifu The video is not about what is the most "fun" way to build a deck, but rather how to efficiently build stronger deck . Fun is subjective and if you find any of the steps tedious feel free to disegard them, we play games for fun at the end of the day. The first meta deck came about mostly by people knowing how strong decks look like in other TCGs, so nothing is ever created out of thin air, but I agree that obvioulsy studiying a meta is important steps when there is a meta to study, and when there is none it's a bit different. What if a combo doesn't have to be played in a specific order to work, your definition doesn't work. Combo and synergies are synonimous, but people usually use the word "combo" to qualify powerful synergies that constiute a win condition for their deck. So at best, there is a different of degree not a difference of nature between the two. The classification is wrong in my opinion, and usually used by people who play games where combo decks are non existent (yet). Midrange decks are simply sitting in between aggro and control, while combo decks have a radically different approach to the game and deserve their own category. Also just to clarify combo decks are decks that use a combo as their win condition, so a deck that as combo (or synergies) in it is not automcially a combo deck.
Hey I've been working on an analysis of a bunch of top decks from tournaments. Basically taking the trends between top decks and how they are built. I did post my initial findings on reddit I'm working on updating it and going more in depth
Good video thanks, something I discovered as I was asking for coaching playing your boba deck that might be helpful to those of us coming back to or new to these games like this is what lists styles should just go against a base vs being distracted by units (aggro / mid) vs control that will kill units or need to distract the other player from attacking base. This simple thing completely changed my win rate and seemed so dumb that I didn’t realize it. Not sure any of that made sense but don’t underestimate lack of knowledge lol 😂
Built a budget Krennic deck, but I didn't want just a worse version of the meta deck cuz I didn't have Vader. So I went in a slightly different direction and focused on Admiral Piett (along with pay off cards and sentinels to protect) and I've been impressed that it can keep up with meta decks. But because it's an off meta variant it's been tricky and I basically had to figure it out myself (especially since you can't search for decks with specific cards in it in swudb)
Bonjour Pierre Je voudrais d abord te remercier pour la qualité des vidéos et de tes conseils en deckbuilding et je voulais aussi te poser une question simple , vas tu faire des vidéos en français ? Pour ma part je comprends un peu l anglais mais ca serais pas mal pour la communauté fr . Merci encore et bon courage continue comme ca .
I don't think SWU will ever have a traditional or true "combo deck". Every time you complete an action and have to pass, your combo is (by you) and can be(by your opponent) interrupted. Now, there are short high damage combo chains, and nested actions that could create interesting mini combos, but I doubt it would ever be enough to outright win, unless your opponent was already low HP.
Well just like the term aggro and control, Combo covers a huge numbers of different playstyle. I agree we will most likely not see pure combo decks that completely ignores the opponent. However Aggro/combo decks that can switch from one plan to an other , or slower combo decks that can properly protect their combo. Those decks will definitely be a thing at some point. Unless FFG actively tries to remove them but that would be a shame imo.
You should have spent a lot more time on Balancing Your Deck. You hit only the surface depth of it and it is the core of deck building. How many cards of each cost belong in your deck to play on curve - and how many of them should be proactive (like offensive units) versus reaction (removal)? How much do you focus on 2 and 3 drops versus 4+ drops? Why? (Because you get to draw 4 cards before a 4+ drop is relevant). Etc... For a 50 card deck, my starting point is 9 proactive 2s and 7 proactive 3s. These are the cards I want to put down on the table when I am not reacting to my opponent, but are instead "doing my thing". Then I have 5 proactive 4s and 5s (each) and 4 proactive 6s and 7s (each - although I might not include 7s in a fast deck). That is 34 cards (or 30). The remaining 16 cards (or 20) are what I call "tech". This includes reactive cards (removal, buff, etc...), high cost cards (8 to 10) and 1s and 0s. These cards should be selected to support a theme / plan that works with my leader and each other. Then I look at the highest cost card I want to play - which often caps out at 7. When selecting tech for most decks, I try to ensure that the cost of cards in my deck average out to around or under half that cost. So if I cap out with 7 drops, I want my deck to average slightly less than 3.5 resources for cost. Why? So that I can use up the cards in hand. A card in hand is wasted potential. When selecting tech, I pick tech that supports what the rest of the deck can do. Further, in this game, you can select tech that are units. For example, Cartel Spacer is an interesting 2 drop to include in my Vader deck - but I would never want to play it on turn 2. Instead, I like to summon it out when I play a Vader to tap out an enemy card when Vader hits the table if I can't drop a killing blow on my Vader turn. I count them as tech, not proactive 2 drops. Following these rules gives me a starting position for a deck. In the first design, I often include no more than 2 of any given card. Why? To force me to experiment with other cards in the right cost range. In the trial games I will confirm that some cards I was forcing myself to include do not work, but occasionally I hit on a synergy that makes a seemingly mediocre card surprisingly useful. I run a few cards in my decks that I do not see anyone else using that have really interesting subtle value that doesn't jump out to you, but when you see it in play it makes great sense. As an example, I run 2 Recruit in my Boba Command deck. They slightly thin my deck, I often get to cast them using the extra Boba resource that might otherwise go to waste, and they give me a chance to get to the right unit at the right time while not filling my hand with my ramp cards after I get to the maximum number of resources I want out. I would not have discovered them without forcing myself to experiment, but in a Boba deck - which is so focused on units - they provide a subtle but large benefit to my deck.
Ok let me answer paragraph by paragraph: That's what I said in the video. I won't go into more details on that matter because I think beyond what I say in the video, you start entering territories where the answer is different for each deck and there is no fixed framework. I don't think it's a good idea to have such a predetermined framework. Different styles of deck as well as the card available, will most likely determine the exact proportions. I never heard of such rules and laws to build a curve. In my opinion, those considerations come very far behind the other criteria I follow to choose cards (power level, synergies, gameplan, meta...) I agree with this and it's mentioned in the video ideally you should not include in your curve reactive cards like boost , removal.... Also I strongly disagree that cartel spacer should NEVER be used as t1 play, it's a fine card to play on turn 1 depending on the situation. I agree it's a good idea to have a variety of cards at the beginning, especially the ones you're not sure about. FYI, Recruit was heavily played in Boba green when the card pool was smaller. but it was deemed as not always easy to play and players dreaded not finding anything from it which can happen from time to time. But on the principle, I agree. Thanks for you comment.
@@Thorrk_THT I think you're missing my point. My feedback primarily was there to show what I expected from the video based upon the name of it. This video is about deckbuilding. Out of a 36 minute video, you spent 5.5 minutes on substantive building advice. The discussion of curve was higher level and lacked precise suggestions on where to start. When I saw the title of the video, and then saw the length, I expected to see 25 to 30 minutes discussion of how to decide what cards to put in based upon the rules of the game, the cost structures, the mulligan mechanics, etc... The advice I provide above is based upon probability of draw (factoring in the mulligan options) and making sure you optimize your chance to have strong plays while balancing against the need to have late game plays to drive to a victory. If you look at the tournament winning decks, they (mostly) align to my advice.
@@jgsugden Well we don't see deckbuilding the same way. For me curve is important but quite a simple matter really that is certainly not worth spending 30 minutes on. That's fine you will make your own better video then ^^
@@Thorrk_THT That surprises to me. Leaving resources unused, cards in hand unplayed, etc... is generally reducing your efficiency. Starting deck design from a point where you're balanced in a way that tends towards full utilization of available resources is a pretty standard starting point for deck construction across TCGs. Good luck with your channel.
@@J1KK1not really. They cannot currently get product. Hard to blame them when they are ordering but it’s not available. It’s rumored that they will be allocated to a point that they will not be able to offer whole displays for sale due to limited availability up to the next set, too.
@@J1KK1 the 10 or so game shops in the KC are not lying. The shops are getting allocated 2-6 boxes per month and they have not gotten an April allocation as of yet. I just wanted to call out placing blame at the feet of stores when they are trying to order product and cannot get it. Graz on being a place that is somehow still getting orders fulfilled, I guess. I find that a bit disingenuous, considering I am family with an owner of one of the local stores and have talked to a number of the others. All have given the same information. It does not hurt me. Because I was all over it and saw the writing in the wall. So I bought a bunch when they had product available.
lol… to build good decks, net deck. I couldn’t disagree more. Net decking is how you learn to rely on other players to tell you what deck to build. Want to find that deck no one else plays but is very very good? Want to be a meta trend setter? Play many many games with a deck you designed and tweak it until you can beat all your opponents. I knew I was an effective meta deck builder when the decks I build show up on tournament lists. The other people never saw my deck, but we realized that a particular deck was effective. Net decking does not promote this. Net decking does not teach a player the value of cards. Instead, they won’t want to use cards that aren’t on the “meta” decks online. They are a worse player and deck builder because of it. Your Intial tip kinda ruined all the other tips. I appreciate your video, but that one tip is where you and I disagree so hard.
He literally says "if you've never built a competitive deck before". You don't have to like net decking but he's objectively correct that it's a good tool for building better decks
@@owlxoggest6247 I disagree with you as well. I suppose you are right that if you want to build the best decks the fastest, you copy what others do. But he is offering tips on how to become a better deck builder, I am stating that simply net decking does NOT improve deck building. The reason why is quite clear - you’ll never truly grasp card interactions if you don’t first make bad decks then slowly improve them to beat your opponents. People that net deck, almost always simply net deck and maybe change a couple cards IF that. What will happen is what always happens, you’ll grow accustomed to simply looking online, seeing what everyone else is doing and copying them. You’ll call yourself a good deck builder, you’ll be happy that you tweaked a single card, but you’ll always simply be using what other people use. Starting with net decking as a method of building better decks teaches them to always net deck. Ya know the people that build meta setting decks for Star Wars? They played many many games and improved their decks. I simply disagree with “copy other people” to get better.
@@brailleeulogy120 the mistake you are making is rejecting someone's advice because it contradicts your own personal experience. Net-decking didn't help you. Fine. To be fair, I don't net-deck either, however, I've been playing CCG's since Magic came out in '93, when the Internet wasn't as pervasive as it is now. I've played dozens, maybe more than 100 different games over the past 30 years. But, my experience is not everyone else's, so I accept the fact that not everyone else will be successful doing it my way.. The Internet has a wealth of information. If my goal was to be a better player and deck builder, that will be competing against others who will look for every advantage they can find, it would be foolish to choose to ignore that information, and operate in a vacuum. Especially if I wanted to become better in a short amount of time, which some people want to do, as they may have a big tournament they are wanting to play in. Stumbling around trying to figure out if you should put Recruit in every deck or not, may ultimately make you a better player, and deck builder, but at what cost? Some people have jobs, families, etc. Not everyone has the time to start from scratch. Net decking saves you time. At the very least you get familiar with meta decks so you can trying improving them, or adjusting them to a more specific/broad meta is needed. Or even how to attack them by noticing a flaw in their design. Starting at 0 is also a good way to perpetually be behind, when so many others are utilizing resources you have refused. To what degree you do it is up to each individual. Some will copy a list in its entirety. Others will just peek at lists to get an idea of where to start. NGL when I do build something on my own, it's a little frustrating to show up to the store and hear someone say "oh is that Throkk's list?" But, I get to choose if I let someone's ignorance bother me or not. I don't need other people's praise, appreciation, or credit. And if you're in a TLDR kind of mood: Net-decking is not as polarizing of a choice as what you're making it out to be.
@@brailleeulogy120 I think you are missunderstanding what I am saying. I am not suggesting to start deck building from an existing deck Taken from the internet. I suggest that BEFORE you start deck building, you should do your homework and know what's out there, learn the meta. And the most efficient way to do that is to grab some good decks from the internet and play them. You would be hard press to know a movie director that's has never seen a movie in their life. It's the same with deckbuilding, you should know how a good deck plays like if you want to make one.
