60-90, Where do you fall?

Most of my decks have 90 cards exactly. I play mostly combat decks and some toolboxy decks. I heve only two decks, which have less than 90 cards and one is obf pre stealthbleed and second is giovanni powerbleed. In every other deck I tend to include some special module to spice otherwise boring strategy so 90 cards is what I end up with.

My actual average is 80-82. If I don't feel the need to cover eventualities then even less.
Tier 1 decks of 60-65 are decks I can only stare at wondering about what is possible in the world of V:tES ...

I find it curious to see 90-card toolbox decks. The biggest drawback to playing an unfocused deck is their unreliability, both in terms of the Theory of General Unreliability (you don't know what you're likely to draw next) and the Theory of Specific Unreliability (you need a specific card which you know is in your library, but you've no way of knowing when you'll draw it). Making libraries bigger rather than smaller exacerbates both of these problems.

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.

Ironically, my most unfocussed and toolbox-ish bleed deck is the only one where I have used Ashur Tablets as a mid-to-late game library management device. I was already planning to post it up because it is one of those decks that I find does far better than it should on paper. It seems to do best because it is not expected, keeps its secrets until you need to use them and seems non-threatening until far too late for you to enjoy the results.

I generally tend to bring back cards from the bleed module or the defence module, rarely the bloat module.

I generally don't feel bad about 90 card decks.

I'll sometimes have smaller decks, when either they don't cycle a lot or there are vital cards that I don't have a lot of (like, say, War Ghouls), but in general, I stick with 90. Yeah, all randomization theory indicates that smaller decks are better and more consistent. But I'm generally not building super focused decks (unless they are combat related, in which case, they often run out of cards, so being at 90 generally is a good idea anyway). I've been experimenting with 70-80 card decks recently, and am yet to find them wildly more effective than the 90 card decks. But that might just be 'cause they aren't good decks

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

It seems to do best because it is not expected, keeps its secrets until you need to use them and seems non-threatening until far too late for you to enjoy the results.

a/k/a The Jay Kristoff Factor.

How important have the Tablets been to the deck's functionality? Have you run into issues with other people beating you in the Tablets race?