Build TCG Deck

Construct TCG deck archetype → final optimization. Works across Pokemon TCG, MTG, FaB, other major TCGs.

Use When

• New deck for tournament format or casual
• Adapt existing deck to changed meta
• Eval whether new card/set warrants change
• Teach deck construction principles
• Convert concept → tournament-ready list

In

• Required: Game (Pokemon TCG, MTG, FaB, etc.)
• Required: Format (Standard, Expanded, Modern, Legacy, Blitz, etc.)
• Required: Goal (competitive, casual, budget)
• Optional: Preferred archetype (aggro, control, combo, midrange)
• Optional: Budget constraints
• Optional: Current meta (top decks, expected field)

Do

Step 1: Define Archetype

Choose strategic identity.

1. ID available archetypes in format:
   • Aggro: Early pressure + efficient attackers
   • Control: Answer threats, win late via card advantage
   • Combo: Assemble card combos → powerful synergy / instant wins
   • Midrange: Flexible, shifts aggro ↔ control
   • Tempo: Resource advantage via efficient timing + disruption
2. Select based on:
   • Playstyle
   • Meta positioning (what beats top?)
   • Budget (combo needs specific expensive)
   • Format legality (bans, rotation)
3. ID 1-2 primary win conditions:
   • How does deck actually win?
   • Ideal game state to reach?
4. State archetype + win condition clearly

→ Clear archetype + win conditions. Specific enough to guide selection, flexible to adapt.

If err: No archetype feels right → start w/ strongest individual cards, let archetype emerge from pool. Sometimes best deck built around a card, not concept.

Step 2: Build Core

Select cards defining strategy.

1. Core engine (12-20 cards depending on game):
   • Directly enable win condition
   • Max legal copies
   • Non-negotiable — deck fails w/o
2. Support (8-15):
   • Find/protect core
   • Draw/search for consistency
   • Protection (counters, shields, removal)
3. Interaction (8-12):
   • Removal for opponent threats
   • Disruption for opponent strategy
   • Defensive opts appropriate to format
4. Resource base (game-specific):
   • MTG: Lands (24-26 for 60-card, 16-17 for 40-card)
   • Pokemon: Energy (8-12 basic + special)
   • FaB: Pitch value distribution (balance red/yellow/blue)

→ Complete list at/near min deck size. Every card has role (core, support, interaction, resource).

If err: Exceeds format size → cut weakest support first. Core needs too many (>25) → strategy too fragile, simplify win condition.

Step 3: Analyze Curve

Verify resource distribution supports strategy.

1. Plot mana/energy/cost curve:
   • Count cards at each cost (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+)
   • Match archetype:
     • Aggro: peaks 1-2, drops after 3
     • Midrange: peaks 2-3, moderate at 4-5
     • Control: flatter, more high-cost finishers
     • Combo: concentrated at combo-piece costs
2. Check color/type distribution (MTG: color balance; Pokemon: energy coverage):
   • Resource base can reliably cast on curve?
   • Color-intensive cards need dedicated support?
3. Verify card type balance:
   • Enough creatures/attackers for pressure
   • Enough spells/trainers for interaction + consistency
   • No critical category missing
4. Adjust if curve doesn't support

→ Smooth curve → deck executes strategy on time. Aggro fast, control survives early, combo assembles on schedule.

If err: Lumpy (too many expensive, not enough early) → swap expensive support for cheaper. Curve > any individual card.

Step 4: Meta Positioning

Eval vs expected field.

1. ID top 5 decks in current meta (tournament results, tier lists)
2. Each top deck:
   • Favorable: Strategy counters theirs (+1)
   • Even: No structural advantage (0)
   • Unfavorable: Theirs counters yours (-1)
3. Calc expected win rate vs field:
   • Weight by opponent meta share
   • 60%+ vs top 5 = well-positioned
4. Poor positioning → consider:
   • Switch interaction to target worst matchups
   • Sideboard (if format allows) for unfavorable
   • Whether diff archetype better positioned

→ Clear picture of where deck sits. Favorable + unfavorable matchups ID'd w/ specific reasons.

If err: Meta data unavailable → focus on versatility, interact w/ multiple strategies vs optimizing for one matchup.

Step 5: Sideboard

Construct sideboard/side deck for format adaptation (if applicable).

1. Each unfavorable matchup (Step 4):
   • 2-4 cards significantly improve
   • High-impact, not marginal
2. Each sideboard card, know:
   • What matchup(s) it comes in against
   • What it replaces from main
   • Whether bringing it changes curve significantly
3. Verify sideboard ≤ format limits (MTG: 15, FaB: varies)
4. No sideboard card only relevant vs one fringe deck
   • Each slot covers ≥2 matchups if possible

→ Focused sideboard meaningfully improves worst matchups w/o diluting main.

If err: Sideboard can't fix worst matchups → deck poorly positioned in meta. Core strategy may need adjust, not sideboard patches.

Check

• Archetype + win conditions clearly defined
• Format legality met (bans, rotation, card count)
• Every card has defined role (core, support, interaction, resource)
• Curve supports strategy speed
• Resource base reliably casts on curve
• Meta matchups evaluated w/ specific reasoning
• Sideboard targets worst matchups w/ clear swap plans
• Budget satisfied (if applicable)

Traps

• Too many win conditions: 3 ways to win → none done well. Focus 1-2
• Curve blindness: Powerful expensive cards w/o checking if deck casts on time
• Ignore meta: Building in vacuum. Best in theory loses to most common in practice
• Emotional inclusion: Pet card not serving strategy. Every slot earns place
• Sideboard afterthought: Last w/ leftover. Sideboard = part of deck, not appendix
• Over-teching: Narrow answers to specific decks vs proactive strategy

→

• grade-tcg-card — card condition assessment for tournament legality + collection value
• manage-tcg-collection — inventory mgmt for tracking which cards available