How many Decks Can you Build?

[Maximinn]

One of the biggest downsides I find in Pokemon is that, since there are so many cards that are absolute staples , in every deck (N, Sycamore, Lysandre, Muscle Band, etc), I find I can't build more than one deck at any time because they would share too many cards.

I only started collecting properly with the release of Furious Fists and just bought a handful of singles to fill in the staple trainers I had missed out on so I'm expecting to notice this less after the (presumed) XY-on rotation. As much as I'll miss my Jirachi-EX and Computer Search, the idea of not having cards that I can only justify buying one copy of but still want to put in every deck I build is appealing.

How many decks can you build before you need to start sharing staples between them. Do you buy multiple playsets of cards like Sycamore and N specifically to allow having multiple decks built at once?

I play Magic very, very casually and, despite having a fraction of the cards I have in Pokemon, I have easily been able to build 3 decks and could have done more if I had more sleeves/boxes. Is such heavy card sharing a Pokemon only thing or does it happen in other TCGs too?

 

[Pikachu6319]

I can tell you that the staple card issue is not just a Pokémon issue. In the past I've had the same situations come up with both Yugioh and the now defunct Buffy card game.

I play Pokémon though I haven't been competitive in such a long time. When I was competitive I had several decks I could run at any given time. That was in the base set to about Neo Destiny era when you didn't necessarily need as many trainers as you seem to now, again different play eras here. These days I could run about two decks. maybe three but they'd have to be vastly changed up for competitive play.

 

[TokenDuelist]

The problem is that the game has hit a point where the number of staples has increased to a much larger number. There was always things like switch, energy search, etc. But there was also a lot of variety in the game's options so those who didn't have staples could easily utilize a deck that didn't always revolve around staple cards.
Nowadays, that's something that is very hard to do. You can't build a deck without the staples, as mostly every single deck-type out there has it's own Pokemon Ability-Driven tactic now. Reducing the roles of many trainer cards that can be used. So they never really see the light of day.

For me, I can build at least 3 decks with the amount of staples I've kept to myself, 4 if I choose to make something like a Fire-type deck because that's an example of a deck that doesn't need to be focused specifically on staples. Not counting Unlimited or Expanded format decks.

 

[Otaku]

This isn't really much of an issue.

Unless you're keeping multiple decks up for multiple players, just accept that yes you will need to share cards between decks and in fact it is assumed you are doing this.

Unless you're on the PTCGO, anyway.

It can be quite an issue if you're in a somewhat isolated area in terms of "local card pool" when someone tries to load up on "staples", draining the supply and unintentionally keeping others from being able to build their own decks. Ideally this would be a nonissue as the supply could just meet the demand but the-powers-that-be don't work quite like that when it comes to releasing cards... and the exact situation will turn it from being a total non-issue (globally one person doing this means nothing) to a big problem (again, isolated local card pool as one or a few players doing this - I've seen it happen).

If it really does seem like a big deal you might be doing some stuff to over complicate things. Make sure you're not using different sleeves for different decks sounds like a good idea to help tell things apart but its usually a waste of money and more trouble than it is worth. Now make some obvious placeholder "cards". They should literally stick out a bit because you're supposed to see them, yank them out of the deck, read what needs to be added back in... and add it. Just make them small enough to fit in whatever container you've got for your decks. The real hard part is taking 30 seconds at the end of a game to yank your shared cards out to keep them separate or adding another 30 seconds (so a minute total) to getting your next deck ready when you switch.

More effort, but for most of us not when you factor in the cost.

 

[Pikachu6319]

Personally I do like the idea of up keeping multiple decks. Of course the reality of it far outweights the desire. That's a lesson learned from yugioh where spells and traps are generally more expensive than any trainer card.

The only exceptions fall under specific cards, like blacksmith and fiery torch which means little outside a fire deck.

 

[Zing]

I don't share cards between decks and only keep four of each card in my collection. I have noticed that I can't have as many decks as I have ideas, though. I currently have six decks going. I only own XY and on.

 

[Maximinn]

This isn't really much of an issue.

Unless you're keeping multiple decks up for multiple players, just accept that yes you will need to share cards between decks and in fact it is assumed you are doing this.

Unless you're on the PTCGO, anyway.

It can be quite an issue if you're in a somewhat isolated area in terms of "local card pool" when someone tries to load up on "staples", draining the supply and unintentionally keeping others from being able to build their own decks. Ideally this would be a nonissue as the supply could just meet the demand but the-powers-that-be don't work quite like that when it comes to releasing cards... and the exact situation will turn it from being a total non-issue (globally one person doing this means nothing) to a big problem (again, isolated local card pool as one or a few players doing this - I've seen it happen).

If it really does seem like a big deal you might be doing some stuff to over complicate things. Make sure you're not using different sleeves for different decks sounds like a good idea to help tell things apart but its usually a waste of money and more trouble than it is worth. Now make some obvious placeholder "cards". They should literally stick out a bit because you're supposed to see them, yank them out of the deck, read what needs to be added back in... and add it. Just make them small enough to fit in whatever container you've got for your decks. The real hard part is taking 30 seconds at the end of a game to yank your shared cards out to keep them separate or adding another 30 seconds (so a minute total) to getting your next deck ready when you switch.

More effort, but for most of us not when you factor in the cost.

I really overstated it when I said "one of the biggest downsides". I really meant "one mild inconvenience". It's never annoyed me to the point where I wouldn't want to play or anything. I just noticed that it wasn't a problem in magic and wondered what everyones thoughts were.

I've heard of people taking 3+ decks to tournaments so they can choose based on the meta and wondered if it was common to have multiple playsets of staples to allow this.

 

[Jaaaaay]

I keep building multiple decks to PTCGO where playsets are all shared. Shelling out lots of cash to have mutliple playsets of Supporters and items for different decks seems like a waste of money (Unless you are building with other people in mind)

 

[crann777]

Eh, if a staple card is $0.25 or less I try to keep on hand enough to build 2 decks at a time. If it's an expensive staple like N I'll either print off proxies or pick up a playset of World Championship versions on the cheap. Still need to swap some cards about when it comes time for a tournament, but not much. Still doesn't keep me from walking around with ~4 decks of various levels of completion at any given time...

 

[Otaku]

I really overstated it when I said "one of the biggest downsides". I really meant "one mild inconvenience". It's never annoyed me to the point where I wouldn't want to play or anything. I just noticed that it wasn't a problem in magic and wondered what everyones thoughts were.

I've heard of people taking 3+ decks to tournaments so they can choose based on the meta and wondered if it was common to have multiple playsets of staples to allow this.

Why isn't it a problem in Magic: The Gathering again? While I don't play none of the people I talk to with it act like there aren't staples. There is also the opposite angle; because so many cards are shared, it is easier to build multiple decks (via card sharing).

 

[fleshrum]

Why isn't it a problem in Magic: The Gathering again? While I don't play none of the people I talk to with it act like there aren't staples.

The faction system in that game ensures that a card that is universally good for a particular color's strategy will not necessarily fit with another color's strategy and vice versa. The sheer volume of cards with similar effects in a given color or color combo means that there is rarely a scarcity of the effect, just of the specific cause. Finally, the game is mostly a balance of costs and effects, and as a result, whether an inferior-costed version of the same effect is a good or bad choice is dependent on the people with whom you play.
I think staple only applies in M:tG to competitive (i.e. sanctioned) play. There are always, ALWAYS other options in that game to meet the end goal, and if you are playing in what most players call the "kitchen table" setting, playing for efficiency is seen as detrimental to the experience.

 

[Otaku]

I think staple only applies in M:tG to competitive (i.e. sanctioned) play.

Which is where I'm confused:

I play Magic very, very casually and, despite having a fraction of the cards I have in Pokemon, I have easily been able to build 3 decks and could have done more if I had more sleeves/boxes.

The premise of this thread (and I realize that you fleshrum are not Maximinn XD) seems almost like it is comparing competitive Pokémon to casual M:tG. If you're keeping it casual, you could probably get buy with singles or doubles of a lot of the more important Supporters (for example) and then run more of the less important ones and finally some of the ones that just don't cut it in the competitive formats but are fine for "causal" play. If you're not obsessed with optimizing the Supporter engine, you can get buy with things like two each of Colress, N, Professor Birch, Professor Sycamore, Shana to build two "casual" decks where as a single competitive one would require one or two Colress and probably then run four N and four Professor Sycamore (in both cases, plus other Supporters/similar cards).

Edit: I do get that M:tG has more Type specific cards of importance, but fundamental mechanical differences between TCGs strike me as something that should be recognized and then set aside for this discussion.

 

[fleshrum]

I do get that M:tG has more Type specific cards of importance, but fundamental mechanical differences between TCGs strike me as something that should be recognized and then set aside for this discussion.

Okay, uh, think of it this way.

Spoiler

In Magic I have a card that discards my hand and refills it (Wheel of Fortune). This is a good effect because card advantage is good. The card costs 2R (two generic mana and one red mana). Several scenarios can arise:
1. I want this effect, but I'm not using red mana in my deck.
2. I want this effect, but I think it costs too much.
3. I want this effect, but I can't afford a copy of the card because it is $600 on the secondary card market.
In all cases, the desirable effect that fits into most deck strategies cannot be used by the player without a drastic change in outlook or bank account balance.
The player has a couple of options to counter these problems:
1. Play a similar card from a different color,
2. Play a similar card with a lower cost,
3. Play a cheaper card (see #2).
In Pokémon, I have a card that discards my hand and refills it. This is a good effect because card advantage is good. The card can be played in any deck. The scenario is:
1. I want this effect. I can play this card. I should play this card.
There is never a reason not to include the card in a deck you are using (in various quantities and rogue decks notwithstanding). While the alternatives are basically the same (play a similar or more easily acquired card) mechanical differences are key to the discussion because a situation in which a given card is a good choice in a given deck is 1/5 as likely or less in a game with 5+ factions. This is especially true if each of those factions approaches the game's ultimate goal with a slightly different strategy, which further decreases card crossover. Consider that alongside the fact that most good Supporters in PTCG have nigh-universally desirable effects, making the list of staples that aren't type- or strategy- specific very long.

The above example, Sycamore, has been printed in 2 of the 4 XY sets and 5 of the 8 XY decks--and its regional counterpart, Prof. Birch's Observations, is in 2 of the 4 ORAS decks. This ensures that new players have consistent access to this effect. While wheel effects still exist in M:tG, NONE are costed as aggressively or function as consistently as the original. Accessibility/scarcity is important, but mechanics (tempered by popularity and secondary market price) dictate this availability. This applies to casual- and competitive-minded players of either game.

I think so anyway. I say this because you wouldn't catch me dead not running 4+ wheel effects in a Pokémon deck. Always have, always will. If I only have four Sycamore, that means I can only have one functioning deck at a time. Why do I only have four? I didn't buy many packs of XY and singles of it are WAY too expensive for colorful cardboard. desirable mechanic < market price due to popularity
But, maybe that is just me!

 

[Otaku]

Edit: I do get that M:tG has more Type specific cards of importance, but fundamental mechanical differences between TCGs strike me as something that should be recognized and then set aside for this discussion.

Okay, uh, think of it this way.

Yeah... even I'm not sure what I was trying to say with that last bit I edited in. >.> Let me try again.

Pokémon (the TCG) and Magic: the Gathering have a lot in common but also many differences. When comparing and contrasting the two, one must do exactly that: compare the like bits to the like bits, notice how different the different bits are from each other, and adjust accordingly.

Maximinn stated that he (not you or I) plays Magic: the Gathering "very, very casually". I was trying to suggest if that is the case, he should be comparing decks built for very, very casual Pokémon play. Since he also emphasized "having a fraction of the cards I have in Pokemon" that doesn't sound like he's just being casual in the "this is a functional, optimized deck but the focus isn't quite good enough to win tournaments", hence my suggestion that if we apply the same standard to Pokémon decks, you're going to avoid some of the issue of requiring as many sets of multiple staples... because if you're going that casual you can make do without them.

Even though the price difference is... what a dollar versus $600? It still applies... and shows that this was "apples and oranges". Building a competitive Pokémon deck using the top cards is expensive. Doing the same for Magic: the Gathering? Even more so!

 

[fleshrum]

Yeah... even I'm not sure what I was trying to say with that last bit I edited in. >.> Let me try again.

Pokémon (the TCG) and Magic: the Gathering have a lot in common but also many differences. When comparing and contrasting the two, one must do exactly that: compare the like bits to the like bits, notice how different the different bits are from each other, and adjust accordingly.

Maximinn stated that he (not you or I) plays Magic: the Gathering "very, very casually". I was trying to suggest if that is the case, he should be comparing decks built for very, very casual Pokémon play. Since he also emphasized "having a fraction of the cards I have in Pokemon" that doesn't sound like he's just being casual in the "this is a functional, optimized deck but the focus isn't quite good enough to win tournaments", hence my suggestion that if we apply the same standard to Pokémon decks, you're going to avoid some of the issue of requiring as many sets of multiple staples... because if you're going that casual you can make do without them.

Even though the price difference is... what a dollar versus $600? It still applies... and shows that this was "apples and oranges". Building a competitive Pokémon deck using the top cards is expensive. Doing the same for Magic: the Gathering? Even more so!

OH I see, okay.
The price of that card in particular was not the focus though, its old and happens to be a lot. It is a similar effects to common PTCG Supporters, which is why I brought it up.

It is easier to build several different decks in M:tG at the casual level than it is to build several Pokémon decks at the competitive level, which is true if this thread is anything to go by. But what does that actually mean?
This is why I tend to get hung up on the casual/competitive idea. I don't buy singles, I don't have a deck that runs EXs, and I don't play in tournaments (only random battle on TCGO + with friends IRL). Does that make me casual or competitive? If you then discovered that I run a deck that I designed and tested for hours and that can consistently deal 300 damage on turn three or four, with a carefully selected army of supporters and items... am I competitive now?
In Magic it gets even worse because there are SO many formats to choose from. Does drafting at Friday night events make you a competitive player? You are competing for prizes in a cutthroat environment. I do that weekly, but I wouldn't describe myself as a "competitive" player, because my goal is to draft something innovative rather than something guaranteed to win. Then I sell the in-demand cards and give the rest to a random passerby. Every week. Casual?

Whatever your judgement, you are right Otaku: comparing a deck designed to win at the expense of interaction to one designed to interact despite the game result isn't really fair.

(I'm trying to make a comment relevant to OP here but I already answered in my last post so...)

 

[TuxedoBlack]

Until you are ready to actually commit to building a certain deck, I'd suggest using proxies. Color scans of the actual card images placed in front of a blank/energy/etc. etc. card works quite well for me during the play testing phase. At tournament time, build the deck taking cards from other decks if need be.