Hi, everyone,
I’d like to put forth not a decklist, but a ‘meta-decklist’ – essentially a guide for people who want to create decklist/guides that really get people into the driver’s seat. Let’s talk about what people who are looking at decklists care about.
- They want to know how the deck performs_.
- They want to know if/how they can build the deck.
- They want to know how to play the deck.
And optionally… - They want to know why the deck performs.
Point 1 is pretty simple: when you post a deck, either
A) make it really clear that you’re theorycrafting, either with a disclaimer or, preferably in my mind, by using the [theorycrafting] tag and possibly even putting it in the title, or
B) post a screenshot of your match history showing at least several games with the deck, or some other similar in-game proof of the deck’s performance.
Point 2 can be complex, because it means you, as the creator, have to understand exactly what part of the deck is the core, and which cards are part of a ‘swappable’ subset, and which cards are tech. Let me elaborate.
I started a project for Hearthstone a long time ago, where I broke every single major deck in the meta down, and I realized when I was done that every single deck had between 17 and 23 cards that had to be there for the deck to function. But think about it – that means that every single deck also had between 7 and 13 cards that were optional.
I firmly believe that it is to the benefit of everyone if, when you post a decklist you intend to be ‘official’ or to be played by lots of people, you examine your deck and consider which cards are ‘core’ and which aren’t. But keep in mind that in some cases, the ‘optional’ cards are swappable only for other cards with a similar function – like Spelljammer, Sojourner, and Blaze Hound, or Dank Nemesis, Pandora, and Archon Spellbinder.
And then of course there’s the tech cards – the cards that you can and should switch out to match your personal meta. Hollow Grovekeeper, Crossbones, Rust Crawler, and similar tech cards should be noted, and it should also be noted whether or not the specific card also fills an important secondary role (i.e. if your 2x Rust Crawler also serve to bring your 2-drop count up to a reasonable number, the player needs to know that so they don’t switch them out for 2x Hollow Grovekeeper and then not understand why they lose to every aggro deck they play.)
Finally, if you’re writing a budget deck, you might want to include some information about how the deck could ‘level up’ as you get enough spirit to craft more expensive cards. Just be sure you don’t lose the identity/playstyle of the deck as you expound on the upgrading process, or you’ll end up guiding people into a deck they suddenly aren’t as comfortable with. 
Point 3 means at the minimum laying out a few optimal lines of play for the deck. Not necessarily opening lines of play; many decks don’t really care which 2-drop they splat down on turn 1. But the really game-swinging lines of play players should save cards for. This can (and should) include big combos like Frosthorn Rhyno + Spirit of the Wild (never assume your reader understands something like that, always explain it), but should also include whole lines of play if those lines are independent of the opponent’s actions.
For example, at the moment, it’s quite wise for some Lyonar decks to save one Owlbeast Sage for turn 6 so that on turn 7 they can drop Scientist into Aegis Shield for 2 draws, +health, and an Owlbeast (usually) that can’t be targeted for death. There are also obviously many options for solid lines of play in Swarm Abyssian, for example, and players should again know whether or not they should drop that Shiro Puppydragon on turn 1, or save it for the Bloodmoon Priestess+Darkfire Sacrifice-on-Sarlac combo that’s coming up on turn 3 (or whether to save that Sacrifice to put down a Vorpal Reaver on turn 2 and the Puppydragon to buff the Reaver’s-Dying-Wish Wraithlings, or, or, or…)
Point 4 is the most optional, but since I’m accustomed to writing decklists for new players (“Accustomed,” he says, like he’s done this at any point since like April), I find it quite vital to explain more or less the ‘game theory’ reason why the deck is solid – is it a tempo deck? Ramp? Control? What does control even mean in Duelyst? At the very least, you should include a sentence that uses the standard ‘summary’ of the deck type (Aggro/Tempo/Control/Combo/Midrange) and explains which cards exemplify that typology.
Generally speaking, when I’m writing, I go 1–> 4 --> 2 --> 3, but that’s just me. The important part is that, if you want to make a decklist that truly engages and excites your readerbase, you include at least some form of answer to the four major questions that a player will have upon encountering your decklist for the first time.
Thank you for reading that enormous wall of text, and I hope that this makes the Decklists section as awesome as it can be.