60-90, Where do you fall?

70-80, I pretty much hang around. I find 90 too weighty, even for combat, and too prone to a bad flow screwing you.

I have been known to build always 90-card decks in the past. Which more often than not did not work, because all of the funky stuff I wanted to include.
Lately, I'm leaning more to 70-75 card decks, which has worked out great for me. Granted those are not combat decks, but more trickdecks or stealth-something.
I had huge success with a Nakthorheb Enticement deck and a Nakthorheb Chamelion-Killer deck, both at 70 cards.
I have a Baali/Weenie Auspex Constant Revolution deck at 62, which I'm currently tuning, but looks good.

All in all, 90 card decks seem to be a bit unwieldy to me right now.

In general, if, by the end of the game where you made a GW, you still have plenty of cards left in your library, you should cut the deck down. B)

Kushiel wrote:

Since Ashur Tablets were printed, I've been mildly surprised not to see more 60-card toolbox decks which rely on Tablets to tune their library during play. My guess is that a lot of the decks which deploy Tablets are focused on enabling multiple MPAs per turn, thereby making it moot to play Tablets if you're only able to put one into play per turn.

I have seen Ashur Tablets in a "Girls will find..." variant with about 60-70 cards. Did work ok.

However, I believe the reason why there aren't more Ashur Tablet decks (or decks trying to use them for getting the cards they want) is that the card is in short supply and only slowly trickling into tier 1 decks.

On JOL, yes.
In social, no.

"The Jay Kristoff" Factor I've always called "Playing Harmless". Stunned my prey last night with that deck by turning around and bleeding them for 12 in a turn after rarely bleeding for more than 2... He was lucky he managed to block one of the actions or it would have been a VP for me.

I'll post it in the deck clinic.

I declare myself fan of the french school of deck building( reduced, focused & bitter), which states that decks in general should not have more than 80 cards.
When I first make a deck I set a card limit depending on the strategy, following this guideline:

1) Bleed 70
2) Political 65
3) Block 75
4) Combat 80
5) Allies 65
6) Toolbox 80
7) Mixed strategies: Highest strategy limit +0/+5
8) With tricks/combos +0/+5
9) Ashurized -10//-15 ( without liquidation)

Afterwards I try to smooth the deck, increasing or reducing it, searching for the harmonic proportions that make a deck flow well and at the same time have enough resources.
This is one of my ways of selecting card range. The other way is to make a superfocused 60 card deck, looking for the absolute synthesis of what this deck should make. First I make the deck, aferterwards I set appart what is not absolutely essential until I reach 60. Finally I add some cards/silver bullets and make some minor changes. This strategy is a shameless copy from players like Jay Kristoff or Iñaki Jiménez... and it works.
It drives me really crazy to see people making decks with 90 cards, without playing liquidation or infernal pursuit, playing ashur tablets.It´s a totally non-sense !!!!

My tuned decks tend to be less than 90 cards, but are not necessarily less than 90. In decks that cycle well and are well-rounded(i.e. my Malk/!malk w/pre bleed/vote deck) I have about 90 cards. I think that these decks can be successful with any number of cards, but if you find there are cards you need all the time either put more copies in or cut out part of the deck. When selecting what size to build a deck, it is useful to consider what your metagame is. If you face a lot of intercept, making ~90 card stealth bleed decks is appropriate. If no one ever tries to block you, cut about 20 cards to get those governs without needing to discard like mad.