is it really that bad of a thing to have more than 60 cards in a deck?
Asked by theultrasphinx 13 years ago
to me, without question, the hardest part about building a deck is deciding what cards NOT to use. and then even after I settle on something that I think is well enough focused and workable I always have that maybe board that's full cards I wish I could find room for. and it seems like even just suggesting say, a 63 card deck is totally rediculous if not just plain stupid to gauge some peoples reactions. it seems to me that if I decide to design a deck that runs a lot of card drawing and/or fetching, it shouldn't be a disadvantage to main board in a couple extra fetchable cards. like for instance, Green Sun's Zenith and Primeval Titan. one card lets me fetch another which in turn lets me fetch and drop two additional lands every turn. of course, green sun's gets shuffled right back in, and by the time I end up having enough mana to go fetch a titan, I'm probably more interested in increasing my odds of top decking creatures than I am in
KorApprentice says... Accepted answer #2
The great Patrick Chapin himself wrote an article about why you should never run over 60 cards, and I have always felt the same way. Running more than 60 cards reduces your odds of drawing anything in your deck. Here is the article to explain it for you.
March 19, 2012 2:36 a.m.
theultrasphinx says... #3
@ korApprentice, well...I am a believer. thanks for the link!! although I want this logic to be flawed so that I can run a >60 card deck and believe I'm actually improving my odds of winning, I just can't argue with it. thanks again!
March 19, 2012 3:09 a.m.
KorApprentice says... #4
No problem! Trust me, Patrick Chapin can make anyone a believer. I really look up to that guy.
funkalunk says... #1
The problem is, though, with every card you add the odds of drawing GSZ go down dramatically. It's ultimately your decision, but it doesn't always pay off.
March 19, 2012 2:27 a.m.