Here is a statement that I can’t quite get my head around:
When new or intermediate players try to build a Corp deck, they often build around groups of cards that seem to go together. However, the way they form these groups is a bit off. They group cards by how they work rather than what they are for. They put a bunch of net damage ice in a deck without a clear idea of how they are using that damage. They build annoying servers full of Data Ravens, but have no way to force the runner to run through them. A good Corp deck has a clear path to victory, and every synergy in the deck moves it forward along that path.
The statement comes in this blog post by Abram Jopp.
It underscores to me how little I understand deck building still. This was confirmed for me when my local group held an online draft recently – a fun experience by the way. I got to see some of the decks my meta-mates constructed at our Tuesday night meet up. I was impressed by how well they had assembled decks with clear game plans and paths to victory. In my drafting, not having a good idea how to build a deck, I just tried to draft all the money and ice/breakers I could and hope I could come up with a playable deck once I was done with that.
I’m not sure when the switch flips for newer players where you begin to really grasp these things. It is clear to me there is a switch. I’m still searching for it.
Do you think the distinction Jopp makes about the way newer deck builders assemble decks is correct?
Did you have a moment when you felt like you figured out deck building?