Build TCG Deck
Construct a trading card game deck from archetype selection through final optimization, following a structured process that works across Pokemon TCG, Magic: The Gathering, Flesh and Blood, and other major TCGs.
When to Use
- Building a new deck for a specific tournament format or casual play
- Adapting an existing deck to a changed meta-game
- Evaluating whether a new card or set release warrants a deck change
- Teaching someone the principles of deck construction
- Converting a deck concept into a tournament-ready list
Inputs
- Required: Card game (Pokemon TCG, MTG, FaB, etc.)
- Required: Format (Standard, Expanded, Modern, Legacy, Blitz, etc.)
- Required: Goal (competitive tournament, casual play, budget build)
- Optional: Preferred archetype or strategy (aggro, control, combo, midrange)
- Optional: Budget constraints (maximum spend, cards already owned)
- Optional: Current meta-game snapshot (top decks, expected field)
Procedure
Step 1: Define the Archetype
Choose the deck's strategic identity.
- Identify the available archetypes in the current format:
- Aggro: Win quickly through early pressure and efficient attackers
- Control: Answer threats efficiently, win in the late game with card advantage
- Combo: Assemble specific card combinations for powerful synergy or instant wins
- Midrange: Flexible strategy that shifts between aggro and control as needed
- Tempo: Gain resource advantage through efficient timing and disruption
- Select an archetype based on:
- Player preference and playstyle
- Meta-game positioning (what beats the top decks?)
- Budget constraints (combo decks often need specific expensive cards)
- Format legality (check ban lists and rotation status)
- Identify 1-2 primary win conditions:
- How does this deck actually win the game?
- What is the ideal game state this deck is trying to reach?
- State the archetype selection and win condition clearly
Expected: A clear archetype with defined win conditions. The strategy is specific enough to guide card selection but flexible enough to adapt.
On failure: If no archetype feels right, start with the strongest individual cards available and let the archetype emerge from the card pool. Sometimes the best deck is built around a card, not a concept.
Step 2: Build the Core
Select the cards that define the deck's strategy.
- Identify the core engine (12-20 cards depending on game):
- The cards that directly enable the win condition
- Maximum legal copies of each core card
- These are non-negotiable — the deck doesn't function without them
- Add support cards (8-15 cards):
- Cards that find or protect the core engine
- Draw/search effects to improve consistency
- Protection for key pieces (counters, shields, removal)
- Add interaction (8-12 cards):
- Removal for opponent's threats
- Disruption for opponent's strategy
- Defensive options appropriate to the format
- Fill the resource base (game-specific):
- MTG: Lands (typically 24-26 for 60-card, 16-17 for 40-card)
- Pokemon: Energy cards (8-12 basic + special)
- FaB: Pitch value distribution (balance red/yellow/blue)
Expected: A complete deck list at or near the minimum deck size for the format. Every card has a clear role (core, support, interaction, or resource).
On failure: If the deck list exceeds the format size, cut the weakest support cards first. If the core engine requires too many cards (>25), the strategy may be too fragile — simplify the win condition.
Step 3: Analyze the Curve
Verify the deck's resource distribution supports its strategy.
- Plot the mana/energy/cost curve:
- Count cards at each cost point (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+)
- Verify the curve matches the archetype:
- Aggro: peaks at 1-2, drops sharply after 3
- Midrange: peaks at 2-3, moderate presence at 4-5
- Control: flatter curve, more high-cost finishers
- Combo: concentrated at combo-piece costs
- Check color/type distribution (MTG: color balance; Pokemon: energy type coverage):
- Can the resource base reliably cast cards on curve?
- Are there color-intensive cards that need dedicated resource support?
- Verify card type balance:
- Sufficient creatures/attackers to apply pressure
- Sufficient spells/trainers for interaction and consistency
- No critical category completely missing
- Adjust if the curve doesn't support the strategy
Expected: A smooth curve that lets the deck execute its strategy on time. Aggro plays out fast, control survives early, combo assembles on schedule.
On failure: If the curve is lumpy (too many expensive cards, not enough early plays), swap expensive support cards for cheaper alternatives. The curve is more important than any individual card.
Step 4: Meta-Game Positioning
Evaluate the deck against the expected field.
- Identify the top 5 decks in the current meta (use tournament results, tier lists)
- For each top deck, evaluate:
- Favorable: Your strategy naturally counters theirs (score: +1)
- Even: Neither deck has a structural advantage (score: 0)
- Unfavorable: Their strategy naturally counters yours (score: -1)
- Calculate the expected win rate against the field:
- Weight matchups by the opponent's meta share
- A deck with 60%+ expected win rate against the top 5 is well-positioned
- If positioning is poor, consider:
- Switching interaction cards to target the worst matchups
- Adding sideboard (if the format allows) for unfavorable matchups
- Whether a different archetype is better positioned
Expected: A clear picture of where the deck sits in the meta. Favorable and unfavorable matchups identified with specific reasons.
On failure: If meta data isn't available, focus on versatility — ensure the deck can interact with multiple strategies rather than being optimized for one matchup.
Step 5: Build the Sideboard
Construct sideboard/side deck for format-specific adaptation (if applicable).
- For each unfavorable matchup from Step 4:
- Identify 2-4 cards that improve the matchup significantly
- These should be high-impact cards, not marginal improvements
- For each card in the sideboard, know:
- What matchup(s) it comes in against
- What it replaces from the main deck
- Whether bringing it in changes the deck's curve significantly
- Verify sideboard doesn't exceed format limits (MTG: 15 cards, FaB: varies)
- Ensure no sideboard card is only relevant against one fringe deck
- Each sideboard slot should cover at least 2 matchups if possible
Expected: A focused sideboard that meaningfully improves the worst matchups without diluting the main strategy.
On failure: If the sideboard can't fix the worst matchups, the deck may be poorly positioned in the current meta. Consider whether the core strategy needs adjustment rather than sideboard patches.
Validation Checklist
Common Pitfalls
- Too many win conditions: A deck with 3 different ways to win usually does none of them well. Focus on 1-2
- Curve blindness: Adding powerful expensive cards without checking if the deck can cast them on time
- Ignoring the meta: Building in a vacuum. The best deck in theory loses to the most common deck in practice
- Emotional card inclusion: Keeping a pet card that doesn't serve the strategy. Every slot must earn its place
- Sideboard afterthought: Building the sideboard last with leftover cards. The sideboard is part of the deck, not an appendix
- Over-teching: Filling the deck with narrow answers to specific decks instead of proactive strategy
Related Skills
grade-tcg-card — Card condition assessment for tournament legality and collection valuemanage-tcg-collection — Inventory management for tracking which cards are available for deck building