Hi, I'm Shingo Suzuki, also known as Suzushin.
My earlier article on the characteristics of MTG's colors still seems to attract readers, which I'm grateful for. As a follow-up, I'd like to write about building an actual deck around a concept.
Once you understand the colors, the next question is how to turn that knowledge into a deck. You can reason from color combinations, but the approach I'll describe is more instinctive.
What does building around a concept mean?
I think there are several approaches to deck building: using an established tournament archetype as a model, or methodically finding synergies between cards, for example.
Starting with a concept is a little different from either. You first decide on an image—“I want this card to be the star,” or “I want to play this way”—then add and remove cards to realize it.
The defining feature is starting with what you want to do, rather than prioritizing win rate or efficiency.
That means the result isn't necessarily a strong deck. Even so, the pleasure of turning “I want to use this” into something playable is the main appeal for me.
It started with wanting to use one card
I didn't start with a whole-deck strategy. The trigger was simply wanting to use Enigma Drake.
As I thought about building around it, I realized Guttersnipe's two damage might be surprisingly useful. I chose these two as the core: cast a succession of instants, deal two damage at a time with Guttersnipe, then attack with a large Enigma Drake.
The colors are blue and red, a combination called Izzet. If both caught your interest in the color article, you might enjoy this pairing.
I deliberately chose Enigma Drake as the main threat. Honestly, I'd like more Drakes too. But among the cards I'd looked at when writing this article, I hadn't found another Standard-legal Drake I wanted for this deck, so I couldn't expand that part as I'd like.
The order I built it in
Once I had the concept, I chose cards in this order:
- Fix the core cards: Four copies each of Enigma Drake and Guttersnipe.
- Choose support: Add inexpensive card draw and burn spells.
- Adjust lands last: Put the mana base in order.
Choosing the two central cards first, rather than planning all 60 at once, made things easier. Worrying too much about overall balance immediately tends to stop me in my tracks.
After identifying your colors, starting with one or two favorite cards is another way to build. For me, “I want to play this card” was a better way to stay motivated to the end than reasoning alone.
Honestly, it has weaknesses
That may sound neat, but I should be honest about the flaws.
It's weak against aggressive decks. Holding up instants tends to slow my early development, and fast decks can overwhelm me.
In actual games, the win rate hasn't been great. There's plenty of room to tune it. I often fall behind on board, so next I'd like to try adding some cheap creatures or adjusting the proportion of removal.
I know the weaknesses but haven't fixed them yet. It's not a glamorous state to share publicly. Still, these were things I only noticed by playing, so I've decided not to hide them.
What I'd like to try next
This Izzet Drakes deck isn't finished. Addressing its weaknesses against fast starts and board development is the next challenge.
I'll try inexpensive creatures to strengthen early defense, or revise the removal ratio to handle aggressive decks, and make adjustments gradually.
Even from the same desire to play Enigma Drake, different changes should give the deck a different character. If I make progress, I'll write a follow-up.
If you also build decks around a concept, I'd love to hear which cards you start with.