Flesh and Blood has traditionally had relatively tight metagames, with realistically four to five choices. One consensus I’ve heard in the preparation of Pro Tour: Los Angeles is the width of the meta, and how players are spoilt for choice. In the wake of the Pro Tour, there certainly will be talk of what is the best deck.

In light of the most diverse metagame Flesh and Blood has ever seen, I’d like to discuss the methods of finding the deck you should be bringing to your next tournament!

Why Is Choosing a Deck Important?

No matter how good you are at Flesh and Blood, if you enter a tournament with the wrong deck, you begin with the odds stacked against you. Spending time finding advantages against your opponent before the game begins is key to success in a long tournament run.

Tier Lists

Firstly, I detest the notion of tier lists in Flesh and Blood. The game is too complex to simply sort heroes into a linear list of power. This is due to the strength of decks largely lying in their interaction with other decks and their mechanics. Each deck has its unique threats and weaknesses, and comparisons of raw efficiency rarely sum things down to how games are played.

This is especially the case in modern Flesh and Blood, where many decks are close to each other in efficiency, and hence power level, and differ from each other in how they interact. There are very few decks which have outright weaker game plans than others, and thus differ mostly in matchup spread. 

To simplify, a more effective way to view a deck is contextually to how it deals with threats, and how its own threats present to the opposition. One example is Illusionists demanding six power attacks to effectively answer their over-rate threats. This makes Brutes and Guardians uniquely positioned to handle that angle of attack. Another is access to Scowling Flesh Bag for Brutes to answer wide attackers from hand, hence answering Ninja effectively, less so Rangers. Of course, this is more complicated, and less prone to getting clicks, than a tier list.

In a broader sense, some decks tend to do well against certain archetypes compared to others. This has often been described to be similar to Rock-Paper-Scissors, where Decks A beat Deck B, Deck B beat Deck C, and Deck C beats Deck A.

So what are the Rock-Paper-Scissors of Flesh and Blood?

Rock

Rock is traditionally associated with force, and to me, that traditionally leans towards aggressive decks. Fai, Rising Rebellion, New Horizon Azalea, Ace in the Hole, and Kayo, Armed and Dangerous are the most generic aggressive decks that come to mind. They focus on causing as much damage as possible, utilizing their hands as efficiently as possible on offense. While they may utilize disruptive elements, the main threat of these decks is the raw damage they cause.

Paper

Paper decks use their disruption to throw Rock decks off their rhythm, out-valuing them this way. Bravo, Showstopper, Riptide, Lurker of the Deep, and Uzuri, Switchblade are decks that fall under Paper decks. They may struggle to utilize five-card hands, and aim to prevent an opponent’s plan with theirs to come out on top.

Scissors

Scissors decks use their unique properties to present difficult questions, causing Paper decks to struggle to answer. Big Dragon Dromai, Ash Artist, Rhinar, Reckless Rampage, and Teklovossen, Esteemed Magnate are examples. The lack of efficient aggressive game plans in Paper decks allow these decks to use unique hard-to-answer threats to overcome the defenses of Paper decks, whilst also being less affected by disruption. However, the lack of disruption these decks wield cause them to be soft to Rock decks, which ignore their questions by being efficient. 

While these descriptions do not encompass all strategies, with several outliers, most decks still have good and poor matchups. This makes tier lists unreliable at analyzing what’s a great choice. While decks rated well in a tier list might wield a great matchup spread, there is always room for innovation in hero choice or deckbuilding, to upset what is presumed the metagame top dogs.

So how should we select a deck for a tournament?

Metagame Analysis

Firstly, you have to determine your opponent. Not each individual opponent, but the tournament as a whole. The decks I’m considering for my ProQuest season are different from the ones for Calling: Phuket. I’d separate it to three different types of tournaments: locals, large open invite, and high level.

Given a local metagame, having spent sufficient time in the community you could guess what the demographics of your tournaments are. If there are proficient one-tricks that tend to dominate your local scene, it can’t hurt to pick a deck that stacks the game in your favor. In the east of Singapore, for example, I’d never play something weak to Illusionist.

At larger, open invite tournaments such as a Callings, things change, and a more general metagame needs to be prepared for. I might prefer a deck with a powerful proactive plan to ensure I can emerge from the wild west that is the Swiss. If you are attempting a run for Top 8, a winner’s metagame has to be considered as well. While it might initially look like an open field, a few decks tend to emerge in the top tables, and it’s important that your choice matches up well against those decks. 

Lastly, at an invitational tournament like the Pro Tour, these metagames are likely more insular and predictable, giving you room to choose more niche decks to target the popular deck. The Blitz metagame of Worlds: San Jose was very much a Rock-Paper-Scissors meta, a triangle of Iyslander, Prism hunting Iyslander, and Rhinar hunting Prism, with the occasional Chane.

Deck Candidates

Next is choosing a deck that deals with the metagame well from your repertoire. Identify what is popular in the metagame you’re targeting, and attack it. Find the weaknesses of the popular deck and exploit it with your deck choice. This can be done via innovations in deckbuilding, or by selecting an unconventional deck to exploit the metagame. Perhaps including Remembrance for a fatigue plan against a deck might be something that’s unexpected. Inertia Trap might be uniquely powerful in certain metagames as well. Using Maxx ‘The Hype’ Nitro to tackle a Guardian-heavy metagame maybe? Remember, what we’re all looking for here is an edge on the competition.

It’s important that you get familiar and capable with your deck, as Flesh and Blood rewards familiarity with wins. This happens via getting your reps in and testing to play your deck well, but also verifying your choice is valid.

The Fallacy of Testing

To find results in a field of variance, rigor and repetition is needed. However, in my opinion, that is impossible, and proper testing for Flesh and Blood is a myth.

Testing to find the statistics of a matchup rather than extraneous factors is almost impossible. Firstly, it’s a complex difficult game. A superior player often comes out on top, occasionally upsetting difficult matchups. This might cause difficulty in test games, as various players range in skill for different decks, and makes finding matchup percentages difficult if both players are not equally skilled. 

There are also many deck configurations, and while we like to sum up Flesh and Blood to their hero, changes of three to six cards in a deck can affect how a matchup turns out. One example is the innovation of Mask of the Pouncing Lynx in Katsu, the Wanderer, allowing for an insane explosion of power to cut the life short of decks traditionally able to block Katsu out and outvalue them. Or switching Warrior weapons to catch the opponent off-guard. While you may figure out how good one specific variation of a deck plays into another, curveballs can still be thrown.

Lastly, even if these are accounted for, the amount of games played needed to obtain substantial data is unreasonable. If you aim to play a hundred games of each matchup, it takes far too much time to be efficient, not accounting for the number of different opponents you may face. 

Thus, without rigor or repetition, what players rely on in testing is largely anecdotal.  They rely on how a certain card performed given the situation it was hypothetically good in, or deck in general in the matchup. They rely on their expertise with the game to guide their decisions to what really works, and that is fine.

What Should I Do Then?

To ensure my opinions are valid, I tend to put my deck to the test in wide and narrow environments. Wide refers to taking the deck against a wide field, be it online games, or at my locals; it helps verify that the deck’s plan functions consistently and smoothly. Next, if there are specific matchups needed, I go narrow. I contact friends who have experience in the matchup I’m preparing for, and jam a couple of games. It’s important that you discuss with your partner after the game what could have been played better, or alternatives in the deck that could swing the matchup.

Stand on the shoulders of giants, as it’s nearly impossible to have the time to master every deck in Flesh and Blood to the degree that a devoted player to one deck could have. The discussions you have are a far more time-effective method than rigorous testing for statistics in card games.

Conclusion

If the testing works out, and the metagame is as expected, your success is almost assured! I’ll be playing at Calling: Phuket, and if we happen to pair, do say hi! Have fun in the diverse modern era of Flesh and Blood, and have great games.

Further Reading:

The Benefits of Team Play in Flesh and Blood

Pro Flesh and Blood Players Tank, and You Should Too!

Is Flesh and Blood More Than Just a Math Game?