An approach to deckbuilding; please tell me what you think

[Sammy Dead-O]

I've been thinking about this for a while; it might be because I have a tendency to be very unfocused when deciding what decks to build and tweak. I think I've found a way to focus myself and have a lot of fun with deckbuilding (and with the history of Magic).

I am now taking championship decks from the past and attempting to build them pretty much card-by-card with the closest choices available in the current Type II. This can then serve as the starting point for my tweaking. I get to play with a deck that probably won't suck and that gives me a feel for Magic's history at the same time.

One of the main decks I've been looking at is Olle Rade's Pro Tour III-winning Spider Deck. It looked like this:

4 Deadly Insect
4 Fyndhorn Elves
2 Giant Growth
4 Woolly Spider
1 Gorilla Shaman
4 Incinerate
1 Jokulhaups
2 Lava Burst
2 Orcish Cannoneers
3 Pillage
1 Pyroclasm
2 Storm Shaman
4 Giant Trap Door Spider
2 Stormbind
2 Lodestone Bauble
4 Urza's Bauble
7 Forest
4 Karplusan Forest
7 Mountain

My T2 version, with a little metagame tweaking, comes out like this (for now):

4 Blastoderm
4 Llanowar Elves
2 Wax/Wane
4 Pincer Spider
1 Kris Mage
2 Scorching Lava
2 Seal of Fire
1 Jokulhaups
2 Ghitu Fire
2 Orcish Artillery
3 Pillage
2 Skizzik
4 Hunting Kavu
2 Arc Mage
1 Groundskeeper
1 Creeping Mold
2 Karplusan Forest
2 Shivan Oasis
2 Brushland
8 Forest
8 Mountain

It's random, I know, but it seems like it would be a surprising deck to play against. Anyway, please give me your opinions on this approach to deckbuilding. I'd like to hear 'em. Thanks for reading!

 

[Gizmo]

Learning from the past is the best way to become a better player, but I think that by simply converting card types as accurately as possible you are actually creating a system whereby you avoid learning the one crucial lesson. Instead of changing cards try to see what the deck was set up to DO, and then try to create a deck along the same principles - this would not necessarily mean using cards most similar to the originals.

Probably looking at a block deck, like Olles, is not a great startig point as the deck will be designed to exploit specific weaknesses not found in current T2. For instance if you see Olle`s deck he has been careful to use no 2-toughness monsters as a defence against Stormbind and Blinking Spirit. In fact his creature choices are marked by their resistance to Stormbind, but this would not be a factor in T2 today. More of a factor now is an ability to handle enchantments such as Crusade and Saproling Burst without overextending to Wrath of God, and neither of those threats existed at all in Ice Age.

So what is more important than specific card abilities is that Olle is setting out to:
a) Avoid a key defensive strategy (Stormbind)
b) Establish board advantage (Orcish Artillery, Pyroclasm, Trapdoors, Pillage)
c) Strike quickly once their defenses are down, with offense that is hard to defend by non-creature means (Deadly Insect)

So translating it into T2 means:
a) Avoid a key defensive strategy (Wrath Of God)
b) Establish board advantage(the hard part in the current card mix)
c) Strike quickly ... (Blastoderm)

I`m not sure what the finished deck looks like, but I`ve got a feeling that it would end up a lot like Kibler`s W/G/R deck from the PT - a deck that is able to defend from Fires and Rebels then strike where they cannot defend.
Another, less obvious but more accurate, translation of Olle`s deck is the Counter-Rebel deck fromm the PT, which uses the chain of Rebel searchers to avoid Wrath of God (what, you wrathed an army? well my Sergeant will make another) and then carries enough defensive spells to hold off the Fires deck`s creature rush. It doesn`t really win fast, but the card advantage and countermagic in the deck allows it to defend a slower kill as it pushes it home, and makes it a kill that is hard to stop with spells.

 

[Duel]

I think the best decks to try this on (My latest articles are based on this attempt) are some of the extended deck types.

Use frozen fish. look for translating that deck.

Look for PT Junk. It should be fun to translate.

Look for Three-duece. I tried translating it and failed. Maybe you won't. good luck.

 

[Sammy Dead-O]

Thanks for the responses, y'all. I'll definitely try to dig more into the deck's theme (vs. the cards) as I hone each deck.

Duel: I've enjoyed the articles. I see T2 PT Junk is working for you. The deck looks good.

 

[superguy]

Whenever I make or remake a deck I try to look at the card pool, all of the cards available and if its remaking a deck, I also look for what cards can be replaced with and how well they can be replaced with it. Then I make a deck on apprentice(which usually comes out to be about 120 cards) and make cuts. Then I look for synergy in cards, or how well they work together. I cut and cut and cut until I'm left with the cream of corn. Then I try to test the deck. Here are some excellent articles on deck-building:
http://www.starcityccg.com/news/Magic/Tyne/010105tyne.html
...and
http://www.starcityccg.com/news/Magic/Kastle/010102kastle.html

 

[rakso]

Try this, too, since it deals specifically with your initial situation (but it uses decks from 1996 instead): http://www.bdominia.addr.com/discus/messages/9/9255.shtml?SundayDecember3120000226am

 

[Duel]

Try doing it on the other side. Write down each card by purpose, what it's in the deck for. Then try and find cards that fill those same purposes. Match each up, and try and keep cc as close to original as possible.

 

[Istanbul]

The most important thing is to figure out WHY the deck won in the first place. Was the combo simply that vicious? (Sliving Death) Was it perfectly tuned for the metagame (ErnhaGeddon)? Figure out why the deck won, what inherent quality of it made it a top deck...then look at the cards in the current card pool, and see if you can duplicate that effect.