Decks over 40, could 10 more cards be good or bad.[DISCO]

[Thomas★Zero]

Well I had just though on to this little idea knowing that most people play 40 card decks just for easy drawing but they never consider if their is an advantage to having a 50 card deck (ovb 51 or higher will just make it too slow >.>)

[Azuh]

Well I never go over 44. And getting to 44 is very rare

 

Having less cards in the deck allows you to draw what you want faster

[Thomas★Zero]

Well I never go over 44. And getting to 44 is very rare

 

Having less cards in the deck allows you to draw what you want faster

I already meantioned the part about less cards = more speed but what if the other 10 cards were draw engine/Trap/Monsters with support effects.

 

Also with 50 card decks it pervents deckout to happen so quickly and this also puts LS in consideration aswell.

[Mysty]

If you need more than 40 cards for Lightsworn, you are doing it quite wrong. If you really do have a problem decking out, then I suppose it's time to start using this:

And that's terrible. In fact, I think it's time to open up a discussion about this card.

[tonisanoob]

omg please tell me this is a joke >.

[OmegaWave]

The deck I run on WC2009 has 47 Cards and I rarely ever lose. I think going over 40 should only happen when it's absolutely needed.

[CrabHelmet]

The largest reasonable deck I've seen is Fifth Gadget at 45 cards, and Seventh Gadget is better anyhow.

[Spiff!]

My decks are always either 40 or 41.

 

Depending on the number of sleeves available.

 

My general formula is:

20/21 M, 12 S, 8 T.

[tonisanoob]

you cant give a formula to how many types of cards you stick in a deck, lightsworn commonly run about 25 monsters

[Spiff!]

so?

 

I don't run Lightsworn.

 

It's just a general card-count, modified depending on the deck.

 

But I usually keep it around that area.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

There's pretty much no advantage to having a deck at over 40 cards.

 

Edit: Currently! If they ever make a card that benefits from having more cards in your deck... actually, that sounds like a halfway decent create-a-card type. *skips away*

[GenzoTheHarpist]

LS and gadgets can stand running a few more than 40... most decks should keep it at 40.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

LS and gadgets can stand running a few more than 40... most decks should keep it at 40.

 

In the brilliant words of me: "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

[Father Wolf]

Never go above 45 but try to stick between 40 - 42. even in LS.

[Toffee.]

Well I never go over 44. And getting to 44 is very rare

My decks tend to go up to 45. Mostly because I'mm too lazy to try and thin it.

But even if it is 45' date=' the deck usualy has alot of cards that reduce the number of cards in your deck(D-Draw, Allure, Malicious, etc)

 

Also....

Casual Chaos Necromancer/Shadow Ghoul decks

[/topic']

[RyanAtlus]

Sneak Preview = 23 Cards.

It Decks them out :D

Especially with all those crappy Stallers from ANPR.

 

Srsly, RL Decks should be < 42 cards, unless a rather special build is built.

[Valkyrie Lupia Blitzer]

There's pretty much no advantage to having a deck at over 40 cards.

 

Edit: Currently! If they ever make a card that benefits from having more cards in your deck... actually' date=' that sounds like a halfway decent create-a-card type. *skips away*

[/quote']

 

I've created a few written cards that work better with a larger deck. It's a dead topic though.

 

How much of you would use less than 40 cards if you could? Say the minimum was...35? Then what would you do?

 

(Shoot me if this would be off-topic.)

[CrabHelmet]

If I recall correctly, there's a card in Magic called Battle of Wits that instantly wins the game... but only if your deck has over 200 cards in it.

[Toffee.]

If I recall correctly' date=' there's a card in Magic called Battle of Wits that instantly wins the game... but only if your deck has over 200 cards in it.

[/quote']

 

PROF. OAK FTW

[burnpsy]

If I recall correctly' date=' there's a card in Magic called Battle of Wits that instantly wins the game... but only if your deck has over 200 cards in it.

[/quote']

 

 

I wonder what would happen if Yu-Gi-Oh! had a card like that, but with 54 cards required left in the deck... It'd be near-unusable.

[-Berserker-]

I activate "Battle of Wits"

You don't have 200 cards!

I do!, let's see. One, two, three... ehm, where I was? Well, let's start again... One, two.

Ok, ok. I surrender. You win.

Actually, I had a horrible (but extremely fun) deck when I was able to have 80 cards in my deck. It was half fusion heroes and half the warrior structure deck.

[Luis2]

I always put 40 cards. I have a 60 card deck in WC2004 but after playing WC2009, I went back and made a 40 deck in WC2004.

[Sleepy]

Close to the limit:

-More concistency

-More Speed

 

50+ cards:

-You will have more cards, but since there are more cards, both points up there are lost, or at least weakened. I can only think of Crab Helmet's card xD for something that would work.

 

=======

 

If 35 cards was the minimun, I would maybe try most of my Decks around that O_o

except odd builds like my Spell Counter Deck that needs lots of cards so it will be able to keep searching for spells and add counters, but needs to also have not that many because then I wouldn't draw what I want.

 

I actually think 40 card limit is very fitting to the game...

[jackmen10]

I saw an awesome deck on TCGPlayer.com called GiantWings.

BlackWings with 60 cards, it worked REALLY well.

I'll see if I can dig up the link.

[Mehmani]

I run 43 in my Blackwings, and they work fine.