Why Smaller Decks are Better

My good friend Chris, who is currently staying with me, recently wrote an excellent article detailing why 57 card decks might be viable.  It can be found here.  57 card decks is one of many topics Chris and I have been discussing while he’s been here, and while I agree with his points, I’d like to give the disadvantages for 57 card decks as well.

Larger decks require more lost souls.  While this can technically be an advantage as well, as some lost souls have fantastic abilities, I would argue that it’s largely a disadvantage.  The point of the game is to rescue five lost souls, and using souls like the N.T. and Female Only is a great way to stall out your opponent.  More lost souls means there’s more of a chance at drawing the souls you don’t want.  This is particularly noticeable at the end of the game, when all of your souls are on the table.  Having one less lost soul can make the difference between your opponent winning the game and losing it.  Perhaps you played Confusion to discard your opponent’s Son of God, and with Burial or the Exchanger, you can manipulate your souls to only have N.T. and Female Only.  This can force your opponent to rescue with un-ideal heroes, or perhaps not be able to rescue at all.

Larger decks mean there’s less of a chance at drawing cards you want.  This is generally the largest reason given for smaller decks.  In a 50 card deck, Son of God occupies 2% of your deck.  In a 57 card deck, that number shrinks to 1.7%.  In other words, there’s a greater chance of drawing Son of God earlier in a smaller deck.  While Olijar is much more adept at giving specific statistics, this is general common sense.

More cards just aren’t necessary.  Two out of three of the arguments for larger decks Chris used are so you can include more speed, more defense, more dominants, and/or more soul generation.  In other words, more options is better.  However, smaller decks have proven time and time again that they are just as capable of winning with less cards in the deck.  Sure, larger decks can do well, but it isn’t necessary.  Let’s look at a history of nationals winning deck counts.  The rule changes that occurred in 2012 was the large reason behind the meta shift we currently see today, and the reason behind the magic number 57—which allows for 8 dominants while still keeping a relatively small deck.

                1st    2nd    3rd
2013  50 50     Unk
2012 52 51 57
2011 51   51     50/70

The 2013 third place person, Justin Sangillo, was playing a Disciples/Gray deck, and was likely at 50-52 cards, although is unknown because he never posted his deck.  It’s clear that historically, larger decks have not done as well.

Part of the reason behind the lack of success is that not a lot of good players play decks larger than 52 cards.  This is because top tier players recognize the advantages and disadvantages, and will only play a larger deck if they’re confident it’s the right play.  This was the case for me in 2011, where I employed both the use of a 50 and a 70 card deck.  However, when I build a deck the night before a tournament, I always go with 50-52.  While this isn’t exactly a reason to play a smaller deck, this is a pattern among top players, and is important to recognize.

So to answer Chris’ question: are 57 card decks viable?  Yes.  Larger decks have always been viable.  However, are 57 card decks the best play?  I’m going to say no, but ultimately, it’s your initiative.  What will you play?

-Westy