(HELP) Mono-Colored Tribal/Themed "Family Game Night" Fun
Deck Help forum
Posted on Sept. 4, 2022, 4:36 a.m. by CodyMTG
I've seen a ton of posts about this but nothing that quite fits what I'm looking for, so here goes.
-
I want to create 5+ mono-colored Tribal or Themed decks. At least one for each color.
-
They'll eventually need to be balanced against one-another.
-
They would need to be usable in both a "Free for All" multiplayer format, as well as a 1v1.
-
I would ideally like to have them ordered and sleeved up for ~$250, including the 10 to 20-something matching / themed basic (or other non-tapped) lands for each deck.
-
This would mean each deck has a roughly $50 budget.
So my initial question before I can even discuss deck building;
What format would be best suited for this purpose?
Of course being able to bend absolutely any rule the format normally has, because it's kitchen magic. For example 60-card EDH decks. Whatever plays best for fresh beginners, and intermediate players alike. EDH format to keep the replay-ability high, with each game being a unique experience. Standard/Pauper to keep it simpler?
I would be very open to "themed" decks just as much as I would tribes. "Sea creatures", "Monsters", "Plants / Nature", I just would like the decks to have a clear and approachable theme. That may also stretch in to archetype themes like "Graveyard / Sacrifice", "Flyers", etc. At this point I'm very open to suggestions.
Possible Tribes:
Black - Zombies, Vampires, Rats
White - Humans, Soldiers
Blue - Merfolk, Illusions, Wizards
Green - Elves, Snakes, Fungus, Dinos (Ghalta?)
Red - Goblins, Elementals, Dragons
Knowing what format I should be building in would be a great help to start. I look forward to reading any replies! Thank you.
wallisface Thank you for the reply! That makes a lot of sense. I didn't think about it like that as far as all tribal decks following the same gameplan overall.
It's going to be primarily played by brand new -> beginner players, so going tribal was meant to be both simple and make each color be more fun-sounding to a non-MTG player. "Do you wanna be Zombies or Goblins?"
Being usable in both 1v1 and multiplayer is mostly inspired by WOTC's Game Night box, but I definitely understand how that would make it tough to balance. Maybe it's okay that a few of them just won't be very viable in 1v1, as long as you still have 1-3 options to choose for 1v1.
You've given me a lot to consider, thanks again!
September 4, 2022 6:41 a.m.
I don't know if you found Jumpstart or Cube, but those would be my starting points. If you already know about them, then feel free to skip this.
It sounds like Jumpstart would be good place to, um, jumpstart this idea. You choose two themed 20-card packs and shuffle them together to make a 40-card deck. It's designed for quick entry and replayability, and the packs are designed to be reasonably balanced. A booster box looks like it's available for around 90 USD online.
For deeper reading:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/products/jumpstart
https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Jumpstart
I would still look to Jumpstart if you want to build your own decks. Choose two themes that you would like to use together (or two packs of the same theme), add a baseline of eight lands and twelve other cards to tie it together, and you have a themed 60-card deck.
Another approach that puts the deck building into the players' hands is to construct a Cube. It's basically a Magic draft set that you create yourself, so it can be made with any themes at any budget you want. Choose the cards you want to include, 350 seems to be a good starting point, and the contents of your basic land box (everyone's got one). When game night comes around, pull out enough cards for three 15-card "boosters" per person and proceed like a normal draft. You have full control over the contents, budget, and size of the Cube, and it's very replayable. There's a lot of information out there on how to construct a Cube for different budgets, styles, and player group sizes.
Good luck!
September 4, 2022 12:24 p.m.
legendofa Thank you for the suggestions! I entirely forgot about Jumpstart. Smashing three of the "Pirate" themes together to make a full 60 card pirate deck actually sounds incredibly easy.
From what I'm reading, like you said, they are incredibly well balanced against one-another.
The people I primarily plan to play with wont want to do any deck-building themselves in the foreseeable future. Would it be viable to just pick up all of the singles for each archetype?
So I grab Pirates V1 / V2 / V3 and just smash it together. Same with Cats V1 / V3 / V4, and so on for as many themes as I can fit in the budget. Seems quick & easy, no massive headache like my above plans would be.
Any glaring downsides to this come to mind? Thank you for the reply!
September 4, 2022 4:16 p.m.
wallisface says... #6
CodyMTG that would be fine, all jumpstarts are meant to be mashed together so there should be no issue.
If you’re wanting to keep to the “no more than 4 of any one card” rule, then mashing 3 of the same theme together might lead to decks having more than 4 copies of some cards.
You also could just run this how jumpstart intends, and mash 2 packs together randomly (with the intention of splitting those packs back up after the game for future randomisations). Doing so would allow for much more replay-ability, which is important if you don’t want what you’re doing to get stale quickly.
September 4, 2022 4:38 p.m.
wallisface Once again you've given me a bit to think about, thank you!
Trying to sell my partner on a "Unicorns and Rainbows" deck doesn't sound too tough, lol
Sticking to 40 card decks doesn't sound bad at all either when played as intended, it was the "splitting it up afterwards" part to make it replay-able that I was missing.
I'm thinking to get around the sluggishness of 1v1v1v1 that I'm reading Jumpstart has, we can play 1v1 if 2 people, Totem if 3 people, and Two-Headed Giant if 4 people?
Then in my head deck selection would be something along the lines of: - Roll dice to decide turn order - Select 1 deck - Repeat until everyone has selected two from the pool (any deck they want, no randomness)
This is the closest I've felt to being able to move forward and order some cards. Starting to feel like a solid plan. I appreciate the help!
September 4, 2022 5:10 p.m.
420MensRightsActivist says... #8
if you're just playing casual with non meta decks, you don't really need to worry about format. just make 60 card decks using whatever you think will fit the theme. technically they'd be vintage legal, but that doesn't mean vintage power level.
wallisface may have been right about exploring non-tribal decks, but they neglected to mention that this will usually require a second color if you want the decks to actually feel unique and not just "play a creature, then play whatever removal this color offers".
September 4, 2022 5:59 p.m.
CodyMTG I'm not sure how much buying individual cards would cost, but $250 should get you a couple of boxes and a handful of individual packs. Of course, Unicorns and Rainbows are a couple of the rarer and more expensive packs...
And yes, the decks are meant to be split up after being used so the packs can be mixed and matched again. Thanks to wallisface for clarifying.
September 4, 2022 6:28 p.m.
wallisface says... #10
420MensRightsActivist there’s a bunch of different strategies that can be implemented on a budget in monocolour, so it’s never just a case of “play a creature and play removal”.
In Black it’s pretty easy to build Reanimator, Sacrifice-Matters, Budget-8Rack, as well as various “cruel-control” style builds.
In Red you’d be able to do Burn pretty easily, as well as Phoenix, Skred-Red, and possibly even Dredge (assuming the monocolour restriction is only for lands, and off-colour cards were still fine to run).
In Green you’ve got budget-Tron, Ramp, HardenedScales.
In White you have Prison, and TokenGeneration. There’s also some of the lifegain-alternate-wincons that could be explored.
Blue has ArtifactsMatter, SpellsMatter, turn-everything-into-islands.
There’s a bunch of non-linear strategies that can be explored on budget, and in a single colour. The only limit is ones own creativity
September 4, 2022 6:38 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #11
If you want to go the "5 mono-color combat based decks" route Wizards actually makes a product for that.
Personally I think that 2 color decks and alternate strategies are a better way to give new players a taste of what the game has to offer without being too overwhelming. I don't think that any format restriction is necessary since you are going to be curating the power levels to be similar. I would exercise caution when using cards off of the legacy or modern banned lists to make sure that they don't have interactions within the decks that you find undesirable.
September 4, 2022 9:10 p.m.
I like the idea of 60 card commander decks. Each deck could have two alternate commanders so players have a chance to change things up every now and then. No idea how you'd balance them, though. Jumpstart probably sounds like your best bet.
September 5, 2022 2:42 p.m.
420MensRightsActivist says... #13
wallisface: i did say "usually", but you can't say "never", because sometimes it is. even a casual reanimator/sacrifice deck is going to want red. many of the examples you listed fall under "play the creature then play the removal in that color". burn, skred red, tron, and ramp all fit. i play mono G eldrazi tron in pauper. "artifactsmatter" just sounds like affinity which is usually izzet or jeskai, and you're gonna have to define "spellsmatter" for me since every nonland is a spell. of course spells matter. "turn everything into islands" isn't a wincon without islandwalk, and thats just going back to ye olde strategy of "play the creatures and turn'em sideways".
September 5, 2022 2:54 p.m.
wallisface says... #14
420MensRightsActivist i mean, honestly dude it sounds like you’ve grouped everything into too simplified a bucket. The list I provided shows a range of really varied and distinct play patterns, but if you’re convinced you can group them into being the same thing, that’s on you. I would be surprised if anyone else shared that sentiment.
September 5, 2022 3:29 p.m.
420MensRightsActivist says... #15
wallisface if you don't see how ramp or tron or burn (all decks that i own and play) arent "play a creature then play removal" then i can't help you. you couldn't possibly be surprised anyone else shared this sentiment. that's delusional to think everyone agrees with you. you also listed decks that aren't budget, nor did you answer my questions.
September 5, 2022 3:33 p.m.
wallisface says... #16
420MensRightsActivist yeah i didn’t as i don’t see this conversation being constructive towards the OPs question (or even in general).
September 5, 2022 4 p.m.
420MensRightsActivist says... #17
wallisface: well you started it by addressing me first.
September 5, 2022 4:12 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #18
Not that it matters, nor that it is helpful. But the original tag of them could be seen as addressing wallisface when you said "they neglected to mention that this will usually require a second color". If you had wanted to disagree without adressing wallisface you could have simply not tagged them and phrased it as a disagreement instead of "they didn't tell you". "Neglected to mention" implies either an objective fact or that it is an opinion that they also hold. Something along the lines of "While wallisface is correct about exploring non-tribal decks, I find that you usually have to add a second color..." would have worked fine.
September 5, 2022 4:30 p.m.
420MensRightsActivist says... #19
Gidgetimer: that's not "addressing" them, that's "mentioning" them. theres a difference between talking "about" someone vs talking "to" someone. "neglected to mention" implies neither of those things. and the wording you say would have worked fine, is pretty much exactly what i said. i literally used the word "usually" just like you did.
wallisface says... #2
Some thoughts:
Trying to balance these decks for both 1-v-1 and free-for-all games is going to be really hard. A lot of strategies get massive nerfs or upgrades from playing in a multiplayer game. It's probably going to be a lot more practical to balance these decks for either 1-v-1 or multiplayer, but not necessarily both
You definitely need to figure out what player base you're aiming this towards, as generally speaking you won't be able to have very complicated decks if you're planning for this to be aimed towards well-versed magic players, but conversely simple decks will bore most people that aren't new to the game.
I would suggest against doing all your decks as "just tribal". People may want to explore different archetypes and strategies, but if everything on-offer is some kind of tribal synergy, this really limits what people are able to play, which may hamper replay-ability. I would suggest making sure each deck explores a unique and interesting set of mechanics and play-styles, so that gameplay can be kept more fresh. For example, having your decks something like (in WUBRG order) Taxes/Spellslingers/Reanimator/Goblins/Ramp provides a much more varied set of decks than just having your decks be Humans/Merfolk/Zombies/Goblins/Elves. That first list of decks all play very differently and each offer a different experience, while the second group is largely all doing the same thing of playing lords and swinging.
September 4, 2022 6:02 a.m. Edited.