Agent-almanac build-tcg-deck

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/build-tcg-deck" ~/.claude/skills/pjt222-agent-almanac-build-tcg-deck-35d3e9 && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: skills/build-tcg-deck/SKILL.md
source content

Build TCG Deck

Construct a trading card game deck from archetype selection through final optimization, following a structured process that works across Pokemon TCG, Magic: The Gathering, Flesh and Blood, and other major TCGs.

When to Use

  • Building a new deck for a specific tournament format or casual play
  • Adapting an existing deck to a changed meta-game
  • Evaluating whether a new card or set release warrants a deck change
  • Teaching someone the principles of deck construction
  • Converting a deck concept into a tournament-ready list

Inputs

  • Required: Card game (Pokemon TCG, MTG, FaB, etc.)
  • Required: Format (Standard, Expanded, Modern, Legacy, Blitz, etc.)
  • Required: Goal (competitive tournament, casual play, budget build)
  • Optional: Preferred archetype or strategy (aggro, control, combo, midrange)
  • Optional: Budget constraints (maximum spend, cards already owned)
  • Optional: Current meta-game snapshot (top decks, expected field)

Procedure

Step 1: Define the Archetype

Choose the deck's strategic identity.

  1. Identify the available archetypes in the current format:
    • Aggro: Win quickly through early pressure and efficient attackers
    • Control: Answer threats efficiently, win in the late game with card advantage
    • Combo: Assemble specific card combinations for powerful synergy or instant wins
    • Midrange: Flexible strategy that shifts between aggro and control as needed
    • Tempo: Gain resource advantage through efficient timing and disruption
  2. Select an archetype based on:
    • Player preference and playstyle
    • Meta-game positioning (what beats the top decks?)
    • Budget constraints (combo decks often need specific expensive cards)
    • Format legality (check ban lists and rotation status)
  3. Identify 1-2 primary win conditions:
    • How does this deck actually win the game?
    • What is the ideal game state this deck is trying to reach?
  4. State the archetype selection and win condition clearly

Expected: A clear archetype with defined win conditions. The strategy is specific enough to guide card selection but flexible enough to adapt.

On failure: If no archetype feels right, start with the strongest individual cards available and let the archetype emerge from the card pool. Sometimes the best deck is built around a card, not a concept.

Step 2: Build the Core

Select the cards that define the deck's strategy.

  1. Identify the core engine (12-20 cards depending on game):
    • The cards that directly enable the win condition
    • Maximum legal copies of each core card
    • These are non-negotiable — the deck doesn't function without them
  2. Add support cards (8-15 cards):
    • Cards that find or protect the core engine
    • Draw/search effects to improve consistency
    • Protection for key pieces (counters, shields, removal)
  3. Add interaction (8-12 cards):
    • Removal for opponent's threats
    • Disruption for opponent's strategy
    • Defensive options appropriate to the format
  4. Fill the resource base (game-specific):
    • MTG: Lands (typically 24-26 for 60-card, 16-17 for 40-card)
    • Pokemon: Energy cards (8-12 basic + special)
    • FaB: Pitch value distribution (balance red/yellow/blue)

Expected: A complete deck list at or near the minimum deck size for the format. Every card has a clear role (core, support, interaction, or resource).

On failure: If the deck list exceeds the format size, cut the weakest support cards first. If the core engine requires too many cards (>25), the strategy may be too fragile — simplify the win condition.

Step 3: Analyze the Curve

Verify the deck's resource distribution supports its strategy.

  1. Plot the mana/energy/cost curve:
    • Count cards at each cost point (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+)
    • Verify the curve matches the archetype:
      • Aggro: peaks at 1-2, drops sharply after 3
      • Midrange: peaks at 2-3, moderate presence at 4-5
      • Control: flatter curve, more high-cost finishers
      • Combo: concentrated at combo-piece costs
  2. Check color/type distribution (MTG: color balance; Pokemon: energy type coverage):
    • Can the resource base reliably cast cards on curve?
    • Are there color-intensive cards that need dedicated resource support?
  3. Verify card type balance:
    • Sufficient creatures/attackers to apply pressure
    • Sufficient spells/trainers for interaction and consistency
    • No critical category completely missing
  4. Adjust if the curve doesn't support the strategy

Expected: A smooth curve that lets the deck execute its strategy on time. Aggro plays out fast, control survives early, combo assembles on schedule.

On failure: If the curve is lumpy (too many expensive cards, not enough early plays), swap expensive support cards for cheaper alternatives. The curve is more important than any individual card.

Step 4: Meta-Game Positioning

Evaluate the deck against the expected field.

  1. Identify the top 5 decks in the current meta (use tournament results, tier lists)
  2. For each top deck, evaluate:
    • Favorable: Your strategy naturally counters theirs (score: +1)
    • Even: Neither deck has a structural advantage (score: 0)
    • Unfavorable: Their strategy naturally counters yours (score: -1)
  3. Calculate the expected win rate against the field:
    • Weight matchups by the opponent's meta share
    • A deck with 60%+ expected win rate against the top 5 is well-positioned
  4. If positioning is poor, consider:
    • Switching interaction cards to target the worst matchups
    • Adding sideboard (if the format allows) for unfavorable matchups
    • Whether a different archetype is better positioned

Expected: A clear picture of where the deck sits in the meta. Favorable and unfavorable matchups identified with specific reasons.

On failure: If meta data isn't available, focus on versatility — ensure the deck can interact with multiple strategies rather than being optimized for one matchup.

Step 5: Build the Sideboard

Construct sideboard/side deck for format-specific adaptation (if applicable).

  1. For each unfavorable matchup from Step 4:
    • Identify 2-4 cards that improve the matchup significantly
    • These should be high-impact cards, not marginal improvements
  2. For each card in the sideboard, know:
    • What matchup(s) it comes in against
    • What it replaces from the main deck
    • Whether bringing it in changes the deck's curve significantly
  3. Verify sideboard doesn't exceed format limits (MTG: 15 cards, FaB: varies)
  4. Ensure no sideboard card is only relevant against one fringe deck
    • Each sideboard slot should cover at least 2 matchups if possible

Expected: A focused sideboard that meaningfully improves the worst matchups without diluting the main strategy.

On failure: If the sideboard can't fix the worst matchups, the deck may be poorly positioned in the current meta. Consider whether the core strategy needs adjustment rather than sideboard patches.

Validation Checklist

  • Archetype and win conditions clearly defined
  • Deck meets format legality (ban list, rotation, card count)
  • Every card has a defined role (core, support, interaction, resource)
  • Mana/energy curve supports the strategy's speed
  • Resource base can reliably cast cards on curve
  • Meta matchups evaluated with specific reasoning
  • Sideboard targets the worst matchups with clear swap plans
  • Budget constraints satisfied (if applicable)

Common Pitfalls

  • Too many win conditions: A deck with 3 different ways to win usually does none of them well. Focus on 1-2
  • Curve blindness: Adding powerful expensive cards without checking if the deck can cast them on time
  • Ignoring the meta: Building in a vacuum. The best deck in theory loses to the most common deck in practice
  • Emotional card inclusion: Keeping a pet card that doesn't serve the strategy. Every slot must earn its place
  • Sideboard afterthought: Building the sideboard last with leftover cards. The sideboard is part of the deck, not an appendix
  • Over-teching: Filling the deck with narrow answers to specific decks instead of proactive strategy

Related Skills

  • grade-tcg-card
    — Card condition assessment for tournament legality and collection value
  • manage-tcg-collection
    — Inventory management for tracking which cards are available for deck building