Lenses for EDH Deckbuilding⌗

Intro⌗

I have not been playing magic as long as many other players, but I have a ruthless local pod meta that has (I believe) forced me to mature as a brewer faster than average. Every card in every deck has to earn its slot by demonstrating the value it provides in any game where I draw it.

I want to examine the methods or frameworks by which an EDH deck is built, and why no single model is sufficient.

Top-Down and Bottom-Up⌗

The first two frameworks of deckbuilding are more about deck formulation, how the idea of the deck comes together. “Top-down” deckbuilding is done by examining potential commanders, selecting one appealing option, and fleshing out 99 cards that synergize with that commander. This is often done by scrolling EDHRec’s commander listings, or perhaps deciding to build a deck around a card you pulled from a pack.

The complement to top-down is obviously “bottom-up” deckbuilding. “Bottom-up” deckbuilding is done by incubating some collection of cards you think would make one or more strong themes in the 99, then selecting a commander that has some level of synergy with that 99.

Neither of these methods or frameworks are actually that helpful. They don’t provide guidance on how to actually select cards for a deck. They are more a description of where the idea for a deck originates.

8 x 8 Deckbuilding⌗

An actually helpful framework for how to select cards for a deck is the 8 by 8 (or cube) framework. Assuming that ~35 slots of our deck will be occupied by lands, this framework guides our hand to select cards to fill the remaining 64 slots. The 8 by 8 name is pretty self-explanatory from here. We propose 8 “roles” for our deck, and select 8 cards to fulfill each role.

Some roles that are universal to nearly every deck are ramp and card draw. Most decks also want some kind of removal package. So if we dedicate 3 roles to these staples, that leaves us with 5 roles to play with. These 40 cards are going to be the backbone of our deck’s gameplan, and are likely the primary cards through which we will try to win the game.

Two roles can be dedicated to pure “synergy” pieces. These cards advance your gameplan, build board presence, and build the resources you need to win the game.

In many decks, it can be appropriate to dedicate one role to “protection”. These cards hinder your opponents from stopping you from accumulating the resources you want. Cards like Propaganda, Teferi’s Protection, Counterspell, Heroic Intervention, or Swiftfoot Boots fall in this role.

The remaining 2 roles can be filled in with subthemes or other support cards or “staples” you think your deck needs. If you have a green deck with lots of elves you can tap for mana, maybe you dedicate some cards here which can untap your creatures so you can maximize your mana output. Cards like Mobilize and Vitalize.

And boom! With that, you have a reasonably functioning commander deck. Maybe you fiddle around with some of the ratios for each role, but this is a decent default set of guidelines to ensure you dont go totally off the rails.

This framework reminds us that we cannot just have 64 synergy spells, 35 lands, and our commander to win games. We need to eat our vegetables to make sure we can remain competitive with our opponents as much of the game as possible.

My biggest issue with this framework is it does not take into account the mana value or type of cards we select to fill those slots.

Let’s look at a practical example, with Tawnos the Toymaker as our commander. We are building a Beast tribal deck. And our 16 card synergy roles are filled with Beasts that is good for our commander to copy. And since our beasts are creatures, we select Beast Whisperer for a draw engine. Huge flavor win for sure. But Beast Whisperer is a creature of 4 converted mana cost (CMC). About 1/3 of our beasts are lower CMC than Beast Whisperer, and the remaining 2/3 are higher. This is a huge problem. Let’s say we draw and play Beast Whisperer on curve turn 4. Likely, we have already played our lower mana costed creatures that were in our opening hand on turns 1-2-3. So now we have to pray that we still have from our opening hand a decent beast to play, or that we will draw one on turn 5. And even if we do, it will likely be a higher costed beast, just by the composition of our list. And so now our “good” turn 5 is to play a single creature, draw our extra card, and pass. We have spent likely between 6 to 8 mana to put down 2 creatures (going down 2 cards in the process) and draw our first extra card.

For an intentionally low-power play group or pod, this may be acceptable. But I think for most people, spending your critical development turns on slow plays like this one are simply not.

Turn-based analysis⌗

My favorite way to put a freshly brewed deck through the wringer of tests is by relentlessly goldfishing it. I want to see what most of my opening hands look like. Do I have good early game plays? Do I hit my key land drops? Am I developing board presence or beginning to accumulate resources when I expect to do so? Can I play my commander on the desired turn?

Using our Tawnos example, let’s swap Beast Whisperer for Mystic Remora. I think Mystic Remora is usually a bad play on turn 1, but usually a decent play on turn 2. So let’s say we drop it on turn 2. This is a prime time to play Mystic Remora because these are the critical build up turns. Opponents will be playing their Sol Rings, Arcane Signets, Sign in Bloods, etc. Even if we never pay the upkeep on Mystic Remora, we could have just paid 1 mana and 1 card to draw 2-3-4 cards. We’ve now likely guaranteed hitting our next few land drops, finding our next building block, and advanced our gameplan far sooner than in the Beast Whisperer example. And Mystic Remora is a decent drop at any point in the game, because playing spells is how most decks work!

But! This is not to say that lower CMC is always better. We just want to ensure that we get back a good return on our card and mana investment. In a deck with 20 creatures in a 1-2 CMC range, Beast Whisperer can be an excellent choice. Once it is on the field, each of the creatures in your deck becomes a piece of board presence and card draw at a good rate (1-2 mana per card).

This trap of deckbuilding is really easy to fall into, often because EDH is the best format to cast big splashy spells that are too slow for other formats like standard and modern, which thrive on efficient, low CMC threats and answers. But we can learn from that ruthless analysis to enhance our decks and balance out the big splashy spells with the tools to get there.

Perhaps counterintuitively, removing big splashy spells from your deck may mean you get to cast them MORE often, not less. That big 8 mana spell doesnt help you at all in the first 1-5 turns of the game, so it is a dead card in hand. Having many in your deck means you are more likely to have dead cards in your hand for those critical turns. But including more appropriately costed ramp, draw, and removal, you are more likely to have turns 1, 2, 3, 4 that get you to a spot where you can cast that big spell on 4, 5, or 6. Now having that big spell in your opening hand is not as much of a handicap, because you are more likely to draw those same setup cards and you already have the bomb to drop on curve.

I have decks that range from 140 to 240 on total CMC of the deck, but even the biggest, battlecruiser-est decks in my paddock do not neglect the importance of the opening turns.

Conclusion⌗

I hope this analysis has been helpful to you in some way. Building a deck is really hard. Sometimes there just is not any way to add enough support for a deck archetype to make the bombs worth it. But that is ok! We learned, we explored, we grew as a deck builder. We put that deck idea on the shelf for a rainy day, and hope that Wizards of the Coast will come out with a brand new set that gives you ways to make it viable. Practicing this analysis also prevents you from spending tons of money on cards that you end up cutting on the next iteration. Take it from someone who learned that the hard way.