Pandora's Deckbox: Consistency and Deck Strength

Pandora's Deckbox

Epochalyptik

14 December 2013

3293 views

Introduction

This is a followup to Characteristics of a Strong Deck. That article outlined the seven characteristics that contribute to a deck's overall strength: flexibility, resilience, sustainability, consistency, cohesiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness. Each of the followup articles will focus in depth on one of these characteristics. In this release, we will examine consistency as a deck trait and how it affects the strength of a deck.



What Is Consistency?

Consistency: the ability of a deck to perform evenly across multiple games.

Consistency is what makes a deck play the same way (almost) every game. Of course, Magic is full of random chance, but consistency takes some of the uncertainty out of the equation. A consistent deck is likelier to produce patterned and predictable results. These results are not a measure of how often the deck wins. Rather, they are a measure of the average potential actions per turn (e.g. land drops, number of spells available per turn, number of abilities available per turn) and how that average changes over the game. Consistency is therefore difficult to measure in any quantifiable sense. It is much easier to think of deck elements and changes in terms of whether they improve or detract from a deck's current consistency.

An inconsistent deck will produce unpredictable and varied results during games and testing. Inconsistency can be a problem for competitive play because a competitive deck must be able to produce strong results every game.



Why Is Consistency Important?

Consistency is a major contributor to deck strength. If a deck cannot deliver strong results across all (or even most) of its games, then it cannot truly be a strong deck. When assessing deck strength, one must account for all results and all characteristics. This means the worst results are just as important (or more important) than the best results. If an inflexible, unresilient, or unsustainable deck is a glass cannon, then an inconsistent deck is a glass cannon loaded with an indeterminate amount of shot and powder and primed with a random fuse.

In competitive games and events, consistency is one of the most important deck characteristics. A consistent deck can be properly understood on a functional level, which means the deck's pilot can gauge how the deck should perform in a vacuum, and also how the deck should perform in each matchup. Consistency across matchups allows a player to determine which cards need to be sideboarded to handle which matchups. An inconsistent deck will be more unpredictable, and it will therefore be harder to gauge how the deck will perform in certain matchups and what sideboard choices should be made to improve performance.



Contributing Factors

Because consistency is a broad characteristic, it has many contributing factors.

A deck's size is a factor in its consistency. With the exception of EDH and some other non-sanctioned formats, Magic decks have a minimum size requirement. Limited decks must contain at least 40 cards, and other decks must contain at least 60 cards. Decks that contain more than the minimum number of cards will naturally become less consistent for each card over the minimum. Therefore, the deck building process is often viewed as a process of elimination - it involves trimming all the dead weight from a deck such that only the best possible card choices for that deck remain. The common consensus is that the consistency offered by the minimum deck size is more valuable than the inconsistency that comes with larger decks, even if a larger deck allows for more options.

The card count for individual cards is also a factor in deck consistency. Decks may contain up to four copies of most cards (the exceptions are basic lands and some cards that specifically override the maximum card count rule). The more copies of a card a deck contains, the likelier the pilot is to draw that particular card. Therefore, higher card counts lead to higher consistency. A deck with more copies of fewer cards will naturally be more consistent than a deck with fewer copies of more cards (other contributing factors aside).

Draw power improves consistency by virtue of making more resources available during games. If more cards are available to a deck's pilot at any given time, it is likelier that an optimal permutation of cards will be in that pool. Draw power improves a player's chances of being able to make the appropriate plays at the appropriate times.

Tutor power is similar to draw power, but it operates on a finer level. Where draw power takes the numbers route, tutor power goes directly to the necessary cards for the current game state. In Magic theory, a tutor card represents an additional copy of each other card that tutor could find. Therefore, tutor cards exponentially increase a deck's consistency because they theoretically represent multiple cards while physically occupying fewer slots in a deck. Tutors are limited by their individual effectiveness and efficiency, but, when used properly, add a great deal of potential and consistency to a deck.

Recursion effects improve consistency in a roundabout way by giving extra access to some cards. It is not the most powerful contributor, and recursion effects are somewhat limited in effectiveness and efficiency.

A deck's mana curve has a strong impact on its consistency. A deck with a smooth, well-balanced curve will have a smooth, well-balanced transition between the phases of the game. Ideally, a deck will have some cards at each CMC up until its highest CMC. This means there should be options during each turn. Card count also matters here; if there is a low number of cards from a given CMC in a deck, then there is a decreased likelihood of drawing one of those cards as the game comes to the appropriate turn.



How Does Consistency Interact With Other Characteristics?



Flexibility

Flexibility indirectly contributes to consistency. A deck with flexible cards, especially modal or multi-optional cards, is more likely to have options available throughout the game. Additionally, flexible cards provide those options in fewer card slots, meaning there is more deck space available for other cards.

A lack of flexibility hurts a deck's ability to perform consistently in various matchups. Without reliable answers to changes in the game state, game outcomes are less certain. The results are subject to chance, which is exactly what consistency attempts to combat.



Resilience

Resilience, like flexibility, is crucial to consistency. Resilience contributes to a deck's ability to perform across various matchups. Without reliable ways to recover from setbacks, game outcomes are less certain. Player decisions do factor into resilience, but some deck designs are inherently fragile. This frailty translates to decreased consistency.



Sustainability

Sustainability is important to consistency because it is the driving force behind a deck's ability to operate. An unsustainable (or unreliable) deck is naturally inconsistent because the performance of the deck wavers. The random chance involved in draws, resource availability, and opponents' actions combine to reduce consistency when a deck is lacks the sustainability to control those factors.



Cohesion

Cohesion can contribute to deck consistency, but cohesion on its own is not a guarantee of consistency. Cohesiveness is simply a measure of a deck's synergy and the unity between its elements. Typically, a consistent deck has one unifying strategy, which means it has decent cohesion. A lack of focus tends to lead to a division of resources and power, which decrease consistency by virtue of increasing randomness.

However, cohesiveness can also function independently of consistency. Because cohesiveness encompasses strategies, card choices, and themes, it is possible for a deck to be cohesive in terms of composition without that cohesion also contributing to consistency.



Efficiency

Efficiency indirectly improves consistency. An efficient deck uses and does exactly what is necessary and pays only as much as necessary to get the job done. Because an efficient deck does not require more mana, cards, or time than is necessary to do something, it is likelier to perform the same way each game. An inefficient deck may have to stall for turns at a time until it builds up enough resources to take an action, and this stalling decreases consistency in much the same way that unsustainability does.



Effectiveness

An effective deck must be consistent. That is the bottom line. If a deck cannot reliably achieve its goals, then it is not effective. Consistency is critical because it allows a deck to perform uniformly across multiple games. However, consistency is not the sole factor influencing deck effectiveness - a consistent deck can still be weak if it does not properly account for the other characteristics.



Maximizing Consistency(?)

Normally, this section would be devoted to explaining how to increase the relevant characteristic through better deckbuilding. However, consistency is unique in that it is the one characteristic most commonly overstressed in some way or another. Many deckbuilders aim for consistency without understanding that there is some value in inconsistency - as long as that inconsistency is functional. There are certain situations in which a deckbuilder may purposefully want to sacrifice some consistency to improve other characteristics. Understanding how to balance consistency with the other characteristics - specifically flexibility and cohesion - is the key to not weakening a deck in this manner.

Too often, the argument is made that a deck should include playsets of all of its cards. While it is true that running four copies of a card increases the chances of drawing that card (and thereby increases consistency), it is not always the case that a deck should contain four copies of every card. Often, cards are included because they add flexibility, resilience, or some other utility. A supporting card does not need to be included as a playset because it may not always be necessary. For example, a deckbuilder might opt to include only one or two copies of Maelstrom Pulse in a deck because it is a strong utility card, but not one that needs to be drawn every turn (or even every game). It is good to have, but it is not necessarily bad to not have.

Furthermore, it is detrimental to overload a deck with high-cost cards because that hinders the early game and directly decreases sustainability. Finishers, especially those in the 5+ CMC range, are only relevant in the late game. Therefore, it is appropriate to design a deck such that those cards become available in the mid to late game. By including only two or three copies of an important finisher, a deckbuilder can reduce the probability that said finisher will appear before it is needed, yet maintain a decent chance of drawing it when it becomes relevant later in the game.

For cards important enough and relevant enough in most situations, however, maximizing card count is the easiest way to ensure consistent availability. Most often, these cards fall in the 1-3 CMC range (although this varies by deck and archetype). Cards that are important in the early and mid game should be included with higher frequency than cards that are only relevant in the late game or as utilities.

Including functionally identical or functionally similar copies of important cards also increases consistency. When a role is so vital to a deck's function that one card (or one playset of cards) is not enough to fulfill that role consistently enough, it is wise to look for additional cards that can fill that role. Sometimes, the situation can be as broad as simply having enough aggressive creatures at a certain point on the mana curve. At other times, deck needs may be so specific as to require more cards with certain traits or abilities (for example, tribal lords like Lord of Atlantis and Master of the Pearl Trident).

Properly balancing a deck's mana curve is another means of increasing its fundamental consistency. As explained earlier, a deck with a smooth mana curve - meaning a logical progression of costs for the strategy and archetype - is likely to be consistent. A smooth curve means smoother transitions between the stages of the game, and smoother transitions mean less stalling for plays. There is no golden number of each CMC for each archetype. Consistency is a relative quality, and the deckbuilding process naturally involves testing and tweaking to achieve better consistency and performance.

Keeping the deck at the minimum possible size is also beneficial. Decks that are exactly the minimum number of cards have the maximum achievable consistency in terms of overall card count. It is not necessarily the case that a deck at the minimum total card count is a consistent deck, but it does derive some consistency by virtue of maximizing the potential to draw any one particular card.

There are other means of improving consistency, such as increasing draw power, including tutor effects, or including mana ramp. However, the most effective improvements will always be made at the foundational level. For the most part, a deck without a proper mana curve, overall card count, and individual card count will struggle to achieve consistency. EDH and other singleton formats are the notable exception to the latter two factors because deck size and card counts are dictated by the format rules. In EDH, draw, tutor, and ramp effects are often viewed as the primary means of achieving consistency.



Conclusion

Consistency is perhaps the most complex characteristic yet covered in this series. It has many influencing factors, and it influences many other characteristics. Additionally, there are times when consistency can be purposefully sacrificed to improve a deck's strength. It may be difficult to understand some of these concepts at first, but they are vital considerations for any serious deckbuilder.



website statistics


This article is a follow-up to Pandora's Deckbox: Sustainability and Deck Strength The next article in this series is Pandora's Deckbox: Cohesiveness and Deck Strength

YerpyMoose says... #1

Published in da future!

December 13, 2013 2:49 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #2

It appears we have a time traveler.

Anyway, the article is finished now and ready for discussion.

December 14, 2013 10:19 p.m.

metalevolence says... #3

The background behind the text is really not doing my eyes any favors

December 14, 2013 10:50 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #4

@metalevolence: Background? I used the default. I didn't add a custom one or anything. Anything I can do to improve it?

December 14, 2013 10:53 p.m.

Blakkhand says... #5

Good stuff.

December 14, 2013 10:54 p.m.

miracleHat says... #6

Liked the article! Nothing to critique or improve upon in here, keep up the good work.

December 14, 2013 11 p.m.

Matsi883 says... #7

I most definitely agree with Droxium. Great stuff, written by a great author.

December 15, 2013 7:24 a.m.

smash10101 says... #8

Epochalyptik: There is a brighter part about 1/3 of the way over from the left that does mess with the eyes a bit.

December 15, 2013 8:51 a.m.

Epochalyptik says... #9

That's strange. I can only see that gradient now that I'm on my desktop. The background is all-black on my laptop.

December 15, 2013 8:53 a.m.

smash10101 says... #10

are you using a different browser/os? That could cause the difference.

December 15, 2013 9:06 a.m.

Firefox on both; Windows on my desktop and Mac OSX on my laptop.

December 15, 2013 9:23 a.m.

smash10101 says... #12

Well, I am strangely on Windows right now. I guess I could check to see if it goes away when I go back to OSX. Even if you're using Firefox on both, it is significantly different on different OSs, though I wouldn't think it would cause that much of a difference. Now I really want to try different browsers across multiple operating systems.

December 15, 2013 9:26 a.m.

miracleHat says... #13

@Epochalyptik, that is weird because i am on my laptop and now that you mention it, i can see a gradient. I have never been bothered by it, i think that it is the same for all articles. The same background is on google chrome and firefox.

December 15, 2013 9:44 a.m.

smash10101 says... #14

@Droxium: The gradient appears on Chrome, Firefox and IE on my Windows 7 boot. I'll check my OSX boot when I restart. (Yes, I did open IE and download Firefox just to check.)

December 15, 2013 11:25 a.m.

YerpyMoose says... #15

Good read, here in the future.

The gradient is showing up on my computer (mac osx, google chrome), didn't show up on my phone earlier (iphone, google chrome), but it really isn't an issue for me... Strange as hell though.

December 15, 2013 12:40 p.m.

smash10101 says... #16

Update: The gradient shows up on Safari, Chrome, and Firefox on OSX Mavericks.

December 16, 2013 8:32 p.m.

Twyn says... #17

Gradient issues aside (Windows 7, Chrome, visible gradient), I like the article, but would have loved a little more depth on how to make a more consistent deck. Something I heard of for the first time recently was the "Rule of 9" for deckbuilding. That is, try and stick to a few distinct cards as possible (ideally 9, hence the name). While you definitely have a point about not wanting to draw all of your finishers in your opening hand (I would never run 4 Aetherlings, for example), I do think this is a good way to improve consistency. Tutors are not really something I had considered, but seeing at there's only a Black tutor in Standard at the moment, that leaves many decks out in the cold.

December 17, 2013 7:47 p.m.

Great article (seriously, did anyone expect less?), once again.

One little thing bugs me though: A deck that stalls due to a bumpy mana curve is not inconsistent. Ineffective, maybe. But it will always or just often stall for a similar time, for example when the curve jumps from cmc2 to cmc4. The stall is expectable and the player can prepare for it. In this example, the stall will always occur after playing the second land and end when the fourth hits the field, lasting between two and about four turns. Predictable, therefore consistent.

Actually, a deck that always loses is consistent too, so consistency has two faces...

Oh, btw, the gradient also shows on firefox and dolphin for android. I don't find it too bothering, though.

December 19, 2013 3:51 p.m.

@Triforce-Finder: I suppose it depends on interpretation. You make a valid argument, though. I suppose what I wrote in that section is more appropriately attributed to sustainability than consistency.

The consistency interpretation relies mostly on comparison. If a deck has only a few cards of a certain CMC, it is likely to have only inconsistent access to those cards. For example, a deck that plays only two cards in the CMC 2 slot is unlikely to have access to those cards at the appropriate time in any given game.

Whether that falls under true inconsistency or consistent inconsistency depends mostly on interpretation; there are good arguments for both sides.

December 20, 2013 2:12 a.m.

Supersun says... #20

It's good that you mentioned increasing the card count for individual cards, but increasing the count for groups or types of cards is ...surprisingly absent from the list... especially since that's the theory of how a mana curve works in the first place.

At the end of the article you mentioned how Draw, Tutor, and Ramp are the primary means of achieving consistency for an EDH deck, but that's not true. First and foremost is that you increase the number of functional copies of a card that you want to run. For example say that you want to build an EDH deck that builds a lot of mana and to Fireball someone in the face. While you could add tutor effects to your deck for the sole purpose of searching for your lone Fireball that's generally more inefficient then just adding some of the million different versions of Fireball to your deck like Banefire in addition to your Fireball .

Not to say tutoring is bad. Tutoring definitely has a place when you are searching for a card that doesn't have any other cards that can function as a "copy" of the card, or when you are trying to set up some form of combo since the tutor can act as an additional card to each of the subset of cards that create your combo, but even then one of the first questions you are going to ask yourself building a deck are how many draw, tutor, and ramp cards is my deck going to run, because if you don't run enough draw, tutor, and ramp cards in your deck you aren't going consistently have draw, tutor, and ramp cards to use in the first place.

December 29, 2013 5:36 p.m.

@Supersun: Actually, adding a functional copy of a certain card is worse for consistency than adding a tutor effect. As I explained in the article, a tutor functions as an additional copy of many different cards simultaneously. If you have Fireball and Banefire in your deck, you have an increased chance of drawing a Fireball effect. However, if you have a Fireball and a Demonic Tutor , you have an effectively increased chance of drawing a Fireball effect AND an effectively increased chance of drawing every other card, as the Demonic Tutor can still function as an additional copy of any other card in the deck.

While it's true that sometimes you want to have redundancy among the elements of a deck, you need to think in general terms about what you want that redundancy to accomplish.

December 29, 2013 6:05 p.m.

Supersun says... #22

Missed the point.

I was using a very simple example to describe a simple concept. Yes, you can tear the example apart if you start nitpicking the fine details of the example, but the example isn't meant to be anything more than to illustrate a simple point that adding redundancy (not sure that's the best word to describe it) can create consistency without a loss of resources unlike a tutor.

Yes, in general tutors increase the consistency of the deck, and increase the consistency of a deck more than redundancy, but tutors often come at an expense of either mana or card advantage.

My post wasn't meant to start a debate of whether redundancy or tutors are better. My point was to simply point out that your article complete missed redundancy in a card suit as a way of increasing consistency.

It's the most basic and important method of increasing consistency yet is virtually absent from your article minus a small mention of increasing redundancy by running 4 of your staples and to have a well balanced mana curve.

Every deck uses redundancy to be more consistent. Running X many cards on a certain spot on the curve is a form is "redundancy." Running X creatures and/or X non-creatures is a form of "redundancy" Running X lands is a form of "redundancy"!

Anytime you are running more than 1 effective copy of a card in your deck you are using a form of redundancy to make your deck more consistent. I mean that's the reason people generally don't run only 1 of a single card in their deck because there isn't enough redundancy to make that card consistently appear in any game. If a deck is only running a single copy of a card it's generally because they have a way to tutor it up (which means the tutors are effectively acting as additional copies of that card), or that the single card is actually the "5th" copy of another suit of cards.

December 29, 2013 7:22 p.m.

@Supersun: I'm fine with the point you made. I actually agree with it. I'm not fine with how you're arguing your point.

You say:
At the end of the article you mentioned how Draw, Tutor, and Ramp are the primary means of achieving consistency for an EDH deck, but that's not true. First and foremost is that you increase the number of functional copies of a card that you want to run.

That's simply wrong. Therefore, I broke the example apart to clarify because it's not obvious from your choice of example that you are making the point you want to make. I'm not arguing that your contention about redundancy being a means of increasing consistency is wrong. I'm arguing that your contention about redundancy being better than tutors in EDH decks is wrong. Don't be so quick to generalize something.

December 29, 2013 9:03 p.m.

Supersun says... #24

aaaaand there's the issue,

We meet again Semantics!

I didn't say that redundancy was better then tutors at increasing the consistency of a deck (though it can be).

I said that redundancy is the primary means of achieving consistency for an EDH deck.

By primary I didn't mean that it's a better method. I meant that it's the main method.

Even still I wouldn't go as far as to say that tutors are universally better then redundancy at increasing the consistency of a deck, at least not until they release a free tutor that doesn't result in a loss to card advantage or life. It's situational on what you are looking for, what tutors you have available, and what is the powerlevel of alternative cards.

I mean most people aren't in a rush to use Planar Portal over Cryptic Command or something like that.

December 30, 2013 3 a.m.

@Supersun: I see what you're saying now.

I still think tutors are better in EDH because the singleton deck construction and large deck size weigh heavily in favor of tutors. Even though you have to make an initial payment to turn a tutor into another card, the flexibility that tutors provide is substantially more important than the straightforward benefit of simply having another of a certain card or kind of card.

I added a section to the article to cover your point.

December 30, 2013 2:29 p.m.

Please login to comment