About Consistency and Creativity in Deck Building

+
I realised that my own deck creations tend to go tall. Here's an extreme example.
How tall do you personally want your units to go? Do you play decks that have a "tall strategy" e.g. by playing tall units in R1 in order to prevent removals or locks in R3?

Is consistency your main goal when it comes to deck building?
If that's not the case, what could be other reasons for limitations of your creativity?
 
Most of my favorite decks contain units that go tall -- and consistency is a major concern for me as I tend to be very unlucky with draws -- and a lot of the so-called consistency tools (deck thinning) just do not work for me because I don't draw the correct cards before they become bricks.

Up until PoP, I found I could usually build functional decks that distributed the "tallness" amongst several units -- that way I could avoid losing because a 50 point unit was removed or because I failed to draw my big card (or in my case, any of my four biggest) cards. But the Price of Power expansion introduced so many huge value strategies -- both single value and carry over -- that distributed strength no longer yields enough points.

But, I guess when you think about it, Gwent depends upon points to win. You either generate points by going tall, you generate points by going wide, or you focus on denying your opponent points. What other options are there? The successful decks seem to those that are able to safely hold points for sudden, big bursts that can't be countered, or can only be countered after they occur (and are hence protected by last say). This very much inhibits original deck building.
 
I really dislike decks that heavily rely on "consistency". I call them "one-trick ponies" and they almost tempt me to build an aggressive mill decks (but those are even worse since they are not decks to play, but to prevent people from playing, unlike interactive removal decks).
So I still built my decks the old-fashioned way - choosing an idea, then picking faction abilitity and a few (4 to 7) gold units for the deck's core, then adding cards to synergize with the core. My decks tend to works regardless of the draw, but of course they peak with a good hand.
Yet I still like to win, so my choice is limited by the current meta. I try not to build the metadecks, but sometimes end up pretty close to them.
 
I really dislike decks that heavily rely on "consistency". I call them "one-trick ponies" and they almost tempt me to build an aggressive mill deck…
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this comment. I think you interpret the word “consistency” differently than I do. To me, a consistent deck is simply one that is minimally dependent upon luck and plays soundly regardless of draw or opposition.

A “one trick pony” is quite the opposite — it demands one thing to occur to win and loses whenever that one thing does not occur. What am I misunderstanding? Can you elaborate?
 
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this comment. I think you interpret the word “consistency” differently than I do. To me, a consistent deck is simply one that is minimally dependent upon luck and plays soundly regardless of draw or opposition.

A “one trick pony” is quite the opposite — it demands one thing to occur to win and loses whenever that one thing does not occur. What am I misunderstanding? Can you elaborate?
Yes, I see how my comment can be confusing. "Consistency" just doesn't mean the same thing to me now as it did before.
I too try to build my decks to be consistent in the normal definition of the word - so they indeed perform at least adequately regardless of the draw. But in discussion regarding tutors' abundance I've encountered people using this word to describe the possibility to get exactly the card (or a few cards) they need every time. Think Viy decks. Those "over-consiostent" decks I call OTPs and their heavy reliance on Oneiro and other tutors made the word "consistency" lose its original meaning for me, becoming almost a swear word.
 
Top Bottom