{"ops":[{"insert":"Philosophy:"},{"attributes":{"header":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\tI am very very slowly working my way to the 32 deck challenge. The rules I set are that all I will not build two decks of the same color(s), which puts some importance on the individual decks to me and they have to near perfectly fit their color(s). I don't totally mean color(s) though...What I really mean is:\n My goal is to build decks that not only fit the shard, guild, or color but more importantly the \"group type\". By group type I mean the basis and reason of their larger sociological identity, \"agreed\" upon goals, the means under which they gather, and the role and importance of how their names play into this. Some examples are cult, legion, senate, clan, or just creatures/characters operating under the same conditions (ie: All living under a city trying to survive).\nWhen you play these decks the player should feel as though they are operating their way to a win by the means of the, ethos, temper, ideals, help of the color(s) philosophy, and definitely group type they are playing with. This is due to a set/setting being created by the deck. This is achieved by prioritizing flavorful cards, homogeneous* spells/plays/creatures, and choosing identical and corresponding land art in the mana base. We gotta do that last step if we are going to be looking at them the whole game (hopefully). Plus they tie into the next paragraph.\nRoleplaying is generally not an interest of mine, but the reason magic is so dope is because the roleplaying is thrust upon you by design of the decks while you take a much more passive role. The cards you are looking at for the whole game (lands) and spells cast are the setting/home and/for the literal options the \"group type\" would take. The passive role is created due to the player only being able to take those two options. These decks are designed to capitalize on that concept and/or effect!\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"*Homogeneous to group type AND set/setting ie...no/minimal pie breaking or even group type breaking. Example: I am less concerned with a dinosaur deck including swords for them to hold or fun jank than I am about a group hug rakdos deck or white goblins deck. Group hug is not rakdos ideals and white does not align with the goblin tribe's ideals."},{"insert":"\n\nDeck Building:"},{"attributes":{"header":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\tThe name I give decks is very important to me. I often build decks by first picking the color, shard, or guild and then picking a name/title to pick a commander that fits that name/title. These titles/names often come from what I imagine a character in that group type literally saying or a quote that represents an important philosophy that group type embodies in some way.\nNone of my decks come from deck lists and very minimal EDHrec is used when building. After the deck has been played a number of times and the editing process begins, I then start including cards that I see on deck building websites or hear about from podcasts. I also don't goldfish. Never have... No good reason. I think I like the slow way.\n"},{"attributes":{"header":3},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Other:"},{"attributes":{"header":3},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"I have been playing magic for three years and black/white are my favorite colors.\nAll decks are owned in paper"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Red tags = Card not owned in paper"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Purple tag = Thinking of taking the card out"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Gold tags = Card is never coming out"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Orange tag = Card moving to another deck"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"}]}