I really don't see a problem with netdecking, as long as you understand the card choices that the original creator of the deck made. It seems silly to sleeve up 75 cards and not have a clue why Card A is a 4-of, why Card B is a singleton, etc.
Whenever I am interested in a specific archetype, I look up a successful list and attempt to deduce the logic behind the quantity and location (MD or SB) or a certain card. From there I make my own tweaks based on preference, metagame, and the slightly innovative side of me...
playing with the best cards doesnt make you a cheater, unskilled. its like saying yea i like hitting things with rocks, so you bring a rock and get pissed off at the other guy who brings a ak-47 to fight you because its the better choice. like if my turn one is mountain into chain lightning im automatically netdecking burn. goyf is a net deck, maybe they are just good cards and peopel should end thier whiny *****ing and realize maybe they need more effective cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
currently playing:
legacy: Doomsday, Dredge, BUG (shard less and still)
modern: storm, woo dredge, U-tron
EDH: maelstrom wanderer, Gisela, krenko, lazav, sharrum, sheoldred/xiahou dun, norin the wary, Thrax, Mimeoplasm, GW legends
See, i feel like we should all define what specifically netdecking is.
Here, ill give you a life example. During my first delve into competitive magic (been playing casual for a very long time) I noticed that the new Elspeth and Venser was coming out. Now, nothing was really stated about the cards except venser would be u/w and elspeth would be w. Just coming into the game, i got really excited about u/w walkers. So, i picked myself up two copies of JTMS (bought one, traded for one). Developed from running ajani, gideon, jace, to gideon jace jace to gideon jace jace venser. And there were so many different things that i needed to change about the deck in time. I only ran 3 removal spells, and had 14 counters. It just wasnt working. So i started to ask questions, asked people online what they would change, asked people at my LGS what they would change, if they had any advice, and i got really really good advice. Would people consider netdecking posting your deck online and asking for some good advice? Well, if so, im a netdecker. But does that mean that asking someone at your LGS for advice is just as bad as netdecking? apparently so. I think that by creating the shell of your deck yourself is the way to go about it, and then to constantly critique your own deck. After constant critique, i went from a 23rd place finisher to winning fnms, and have no regrets for my "netdecking".
The only problem I have with it is when you're going to a casual magic game to play casual magic and one guy finds a bunch of top tier tournament decks and brings those.
A friend of mine does this. The rest of us (8 other guys ) just ignore him more and more and he wonders why. We told him we don't have a problem with netdecking it's just what he's netdecking. We play casual magic for fun...not turn 3 beat down win or turn 3 lock decks. There are plenty of fun casual decks he can netdeck. That's fine. But he chooses to bring decks that win on turn 3 with an infinite loop combo or some such fun-killing combo.
I do not mind people who netdeck usually because eight out of ten times they will not know the deck as well as someone who builds from a scratch base.
Getting ideas is great, but hardline copying every time a new deck of the month hits is just pathetic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Selling domain "walkingtheplanes.com"- PM me with serious inquiries.
Thanks to Sioux for the Sig! ^v^The Hooded Pumpkin's Trading Patch^v^ Deck Tech:
i just started playing magic and really tried hard to create my own deck , in the end i tried a wall deck using doran and it came out great. After i made it i had found out many others have also tried this , its almost impossible to create a deck without having a similarity with somebody.
When you're playing in a tournament, you unfortunately have to play the best cards. That's just the way it is. I love to be creative when it comes to my casual decks, but I also like to see what other card combinations people have come up with over the years.
Whenever I am playing in a more competitive environment (think anything "above" a FNM), I usually research some decks out there and find one that I'm comfortable with piloting.
I may not use the deck CARD for CARD, but I'll generally use a good majority of it. Yeah it is "netdecking" but big deal. When it comes to "I just have to win" you have to take what works and what doesn't in any given environment.
As for what I generally do when I build decks "on my own". If I don't get an idea from the cards themselves, I'll look around and if I see a cool deck idea, I'll go in and make it my own with little tweaks here and there. I do this with EDH a lot. As I'm kind of "new" to the format, I don't want to reinvent the wheel. Besides, its always a good way to make a "shopping list" when you're looking through what other people have done.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just want people who redraft to admit this:
"I can't draft objectively unless I am able to guarantee that I receive at least 3 rares. I am also better than most average/new players so I want to make sure that I get the best rares and they end up with worse ones. I care more about the monetary value of cards than actually playing the game for decent prizes."
I'm not against net-decking at all, unless you claim the deck you coped is yours.
Other than that, having a deck that's been proven successful is great as a learning tool and base, especially if you're new to an archetype or format. And, a lot of the time, more so in Standard and Block where very few decks are competitively viable, you can't help but have a similar idea to somebody. If that somebody else had that idea and did well with it, but you've been doing poorly with the idea, there's no harm im checking out their build and either playing it yourself (usually with some minor playstyle tweaks). Even if you didn't have the idea, and if you just want a solid deck to run at a tournament, there's still no problem with net-decking.
However, I'm all for creativity and unique ideas, as those personal creations can become fine-tuned competitive decks. I think that if you want to improve as a player, you really need to consider both, and not just one or the other.
Well for me netdecking would destroy the fun of magic. Building a deck is 90% of the fun for me. Remove the creativity and you remove my reason to play. I've never once netdecked and highly doubt I ever will. ☺☺☺☺ netdecking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
Well for me netdecking would destroy the fun of magic. Building a deck is 90% of the fun for me. Remove the creativity and you remove my reason to play. I've never once netdecked and highly doubt I ever will. ☺☺☺☺ netdecking.
That's fine for you, but there are players out there who simply play to win and/or earn money. Those players will net-deck and they'll still have fun when/if they win.
Nonetheless, I still feel that you can learn a bit from both and shouldn't exclude either.
Deck building is what this game is all about. sitting at home, making sweet interactions is what makes magic...well magic. The game is about exploring ideas and creativity.
Net decking is for people who do not care about that and just go for the gold. Keep this in mind though: If we all were net deckers including the pros, where would the decks come from? Nowhere.
For example, I had an Eldrazi ramp deck from home before it was a "big deal". As soon as primeval came out. I made it. It was G/W but still very effective and had a "wow!" aspect to it. people around me started toying with the idea. Over time through testing with various others and noticing decks that were placing high at events I continually edited it. Now we have the "mono Green Eldrazi" netdeck you see today. You can say I sort of net decked components. From an outsider's perspective I may seem to be a simple net decker since now my list is MGE.
My overall comment: These big decks start with someone's idea. Why not you try an idea and build yourself? It could be the next big thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:
Affinity
EDH:
Rhys (Tokens)
Karrthus (Dragons)
Bruna (Auras OP)
My overall comment: These big decks start with someone's idea. Why not you try an idea and build yourself? It could be the next big thing.
You can call most any deck out there a "net deck".. Really you can. Just because you have convinced yourself that "building a deck" > "finding a deck on teh internets" doesn't mean you can't just be accused of it, even if it only resembles a deck in one or two cards.
For me, the fun of Magic is in playing cool games with cool interactions or playing a game around with my friends.
When I build decks, I usually build around cool themes or ideas of cards that I think might be cool to play together.
When I want to WIN, I go online and find a deck, buy it, playtest it, go to tourney with it.
It really all depends if we are talking about how competitive you want to be or how casual you want to be. If you are playing at a kitchen table and you windmill slam a two card combo that wins you the game, chances are you won't be playing with that group long (unless you guys are into that sort of thing.) But if you go to a tournament and you play Bears.dec you're going to be laughed at and pretty much owned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just want people who redraft to admit this:
"I can't draft objectively unless I am able to guarantee that I receive at least 3 rares. I am also better than most average/new players so I want to make sure that I get the best rares and they end up with worse ones. I care more about the monetary value of cards than actually playing the game for decent prizes."
I have been known to netdeck, back when I used to grind a lot and wanted to win... no matter how much money it took me to do it. After I stopped playing, and sold whatever cards I had, I just kinda lost interest for a while. Now I've come back to playing M:TG, but only during booster drafts for FNM. I find that booster drafting gives me nostalgia of being competitive, but also helps me hone my skills as far as Limited goes.
I enjoy building my decks from drafting, and gives other players plus myself the opportunity for originality and knowing that we're evenly matched... rather than "depending" on the deck to do the job for us. Playing Limited seems to create more player interaction than anything I had seen before.
Eventually I'll get back into Type 2 Constructed, but only when I have money to build a tier 1 deck, and I'll continue to draft as well. I can only get better as a player, not worse.
Netdecking is fine with me, but I don't like to do it. It's not I'm against playing good decks, I would just have a thousand times more fun playing a good deck that I thought of. I still do it once in a while if I can't get anything to work.
Playing the game is fun; some people have too many criteria for having fun.
personally, im againt blatant net decking. especially the netdeckers that are just downright terrible...which quite frankly makes up a majority of the netdecking community. Nothing angers me worse than a scrub with money and a cookie cutter net deck with no personal tweaks and thinking they're the cat's pajamas.
That being said, everyones definition of "netdeck" is relative...to some it is the archtype...to others (and me) it is the list. Also, i think netdecking in standard is alot different than in legacy. Even Legacy decks tend to have quite a few personal tweaks because people have to understand them to be good, standard dosent need it, ytou dont even to know how to understand the meta, let alone be good, to do good in standard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you see someone playing a control deck, the following strategy is considered acceptable: 1) Slowly reach upward 2) Grab your opponent firmly by the throat 3) Squeeze 4) ???? 5) Profit...and a fountain of red Kool Aid!!!
That being said, everyones definition of "netdeck" is relative...to some it is the archtype...to others (and me) it is the list. Also, i think netdecking in standard is alot different than in legacy. Even Legacy decks tend to have quite a few personal tweaks because people have to understand them to be good, standard dosent need it, ytou dont even to know how to understand the meta, let alone be good, to do good in standard.
Actually, if you do a bit of lurking in a Legacy forum discussion on a recent big tournament (where High Tide placed well, though Goblins won out), you'll find out that evidence points to the idea that one doesn't have to be familiar with his/her deck or the meta to do well.
Netdecking or not, I just play the game to have fun. If the fun factor just so happens to overlap with a tourney deck, I'll take ideas from that tourney deck. But, I never 100% copy a deck. I add my own additions to it and attempt to improve it. Not because Copy/Paste decks are stupid, it's just because I don't find it fun.
As for somebody who 100% copies a deck?...That's also fine with me. I don't judge either way. I lost two times at FNM last week to the same RUG decks and I just took my loss. In my eyes, if the guy beats me, he has bragging rights either way hahah. He can rub it in too! He just needs to remember I'm gonna return the favor when I win
Overall, people shouldn't care if the deck is original or not. If it's a played out deck, then good! You have a head start and you know what the scheme is. If the guy copied it and has no chemistry with the cards,then that's even better for you! Just worry about yourself, everybody has their own reasons for playing.
OHGODWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS
I belive that netdecking is good when you will make it your own. When you just copypasta without actually evolving it, then your just cheating. However, if you netdeck to test a certain mechanich but don't feel like building it yourself and just wanna havee fun, or you're trawling for ideas or new cards, then it should be encouraged.
Well, without net decking, I would have never discovered kuldotha red or UB permission, two of the most fun decks I've ever made. Granted, I refuse to use card for card the actual deck, because I don't approve of running someone else's list.
So, I guess I favor a balance between netdeck and rogue. I will change at least 8 cards from a net deck before I run it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It's crazy if you think about it. The God of the universe -creator of pine needles and nitrogen, galaxies and E-minor- loves us with a radical, unconditional, self-sacrificing love. And what is our response? We go to church, sing songs, and try not to cuss." -Chan
To a point there has always been "net decking", you just had to wait for the next copy of inquest. I dont think "copying" a core deck idea and making it your own is a bad thing. The internet has sped up the process, and to a point maybe people have given up on looking for more home brewed responses to a deck, and just copy the decks that are winning.
No matter what, if you copy a deck, your going to deal with local problems. Every side board or what you maybe playing in the main deck and sideboard should be some what different due to your local gaming network. Hopefully your playing against people that are looking for ways to beat your deck or add stuff to their side board to give you a hard time.
I can remember when I 1st thought of the idea of land destruction. My deck was annoying but not a winner. Than someone said get Ice storms, look at sinkholes, duals are better. Now that was just a group of gamers looking at an idea and brainstorming to make it better, but that isnt any different than what happens on this forum. After some investments and trials, my type 1 land destroyer was much improved and one of our top players said, now if you dont have 7 ways to win, your not going to get out of swiss rounds. Again more brainstorming, and my deck became a force to recken with. To a point that some of the people who game me advice on how to fix it, created their own to comabt my mine.
If all your going to do is copy a deck card by card, buy the singles and just grind it out, will you win, maybe, will you have fun? If you limit your card base that you cant make changes cause all you did was buy singles for a single deck, your local gamers hopefully will be smart enough to create ways to make your teir 1 deck copy, even less fun to play with cause now your not able to force wins cause you have out spent people on singles of the month.
the op has a point that, yeah some cards just synergystically go well together and intelligent players are likly to pick up on synergies that other intelligent players pick up on.
my first "junk" deck was prior to me knowing the existence of junk as an archetype was just what I considered a hybrid jund / naya deck and ran blightning, birds, lotus cobra, pulse, knight of the reliquary, emeria angel, ob nix, baneslayer, duress, lightning bolt, and path and a boatload of fetches. why did i play this deck in the first place? i liked the naya shard concept of fat creatures (I think I even used uril and woolly lol), and I really liked blighting and maelstrom pulse, and even prior to playing competitively I loved the flavor of the wbg "shard" and I was really excited to use ob nixilis with kotr, to finally be able to use my fav colors all in one deck was awesome. was it good deck? it could have been better. did i figure out the core cards that belong in junk "on my own"? more or less. I posted the deck up and someone pointed me to the baneslayer junk thread, and I read and participated in the discussions, and looked at winning lists, and so forth. I eventually dropped the red from my deck for ease of mana base, and tried some of the other cards out that were being played. was I netdecking by changing my deck around based on discusions online? yes and no. my deck was influenced by others' views, arguments, and testing results, however it was never identical because I did my own testing which led to me picking certain cards over others, I had my views, and disagreed with some of the arguments.
I really don't think that there is even much of a debate here. there is value to individual creativity and using your intelligence to see and implement card synergies on your own, as their is value to communal feedback and trying things out that others do. we do not do things in a self-sufficient vaccum. even professional players who trailblaze new decks learned strategies and play styles and card synergies to look for from other players in their learning experience.
I prefer to strike a balance. I enjoy deck building and playing home made lists, but I also enjoy learning from people who are better than me and getting insight from the decks of others. I generally will not copy decks card for card because to me that is not fun and it is bad playing because of the fact that each list is tailored towards what the player concieved as the metagame for that particular event, but I do accept that certain deck archetypes have invariant card sets which will be nearly identical (budget aside). I expect to see every junk list in legacy to run tarmogoyf, knight of the reliquary, and dark confidant, because, well, they are just the best creatures of those colors.
But there are always new archetypes to be made and while most of us aren't pros and will probably not trailblaze a new archetype or deck style on our own, not trying your own lists, even competitively, you are in my view shortcutting yourself as a player. But this is because I value and enjoy the challenge of deckbuilding; whereas someone may well not like the deckbuilding aspect, but he or she may well think that playing magic is still the best thing in the world and he or she may love winning. More power to that person if they optimize their experience by playing the cool looking list that won at the last ptq. Will I enjoy losing to that person? Not really, but they have to play to please themselves first and foremost.
To a point there has always been "net decking", you just had to wait for the next copy of inquest.
lol inquest. those were the days. i still rememeber them listing elder druid as the honorable mention card in ice age! How about duelist? The articles (and art) were pretty good in that mag. I still have this really neat scythe cut out from the mag taped above my bedroom door, done by one of the artists who I think did an alliances deadly insect. Style looks very similar.
Getting mad about netdecking is ridiculous. Player skill is such a HUGE part of this game, even with most (comparatively) simple aggro decks, that a new player cannot simply netdeck their way to tournament victory.
Netdecking is useful for those of us who simply don't have time to sift through the entire library of MtG cards finding the best for a particular mechanic or strategy. There are many cards that are strictly better than others and it's nice to be able to go online and see "Oh okay, that's the best way to achieve this strategy." It's nice to be able to create your own deck but I have no problem with netdecking
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Whenever I am interested in a specific archetype, I look up a successful list and attempt to deduce the logic behind the quantity and location (MD or SB) or a certain card. From there I make my own tweaks based on preference, metagame, and the slightly innovative side of me...
legacy: Doomsday, Dredge, BUG (shard less and still)
modern: storm, woo dredge, U-tron
EDH: maelstrom wanderer, Gisela, krenko, lazav, sharrum, sheoldred/xiahou dun, norin the wary, Thrax, Mimeoplasm, GW legends
Here, ill give you a life example. During my first delve into competitive magic (been playing casual for a very long time) I noticed that the new Elspeth and Venser was coming out. Now, nothing was really stated about the cards except venser would be u/w and elspeth would be w. Just coming into the game, i got really excited about u/w walkers. So, i picked myself up two copies of JTMS (bought one, traded for one). Developed from running ajani, gideon, jace, to gideon jace jace to gideon jace jace venser. And there were so many different things that i needed to change about the deck in time. I only ran 3 removal spells, and had 14 counters. It just wasnt working. So i started to ask questions, asked people online what they would change, asked people at my LGS what they would change, if they had any advice, and i got really really good advice. Would people consider netdecking posting your deck online and asking for some good advice? Well, if so, im a netdecker. But does that mean that asking someone at your LGS for advice is just as bad as netdecking? apparently so. I think that by creating the shell of your deck yourself is the way to go about it, and then to constantly critique your own deck. After constant critique, i went from a 23rd place finisher to winning fnms, and have no regrets for my "netdecking".
The only problem I have with it is when you're going to a casual magic game to play casual magic and one guy finds a bunch of top tier tournament decks and brings those.
A friend of mine does this. The rest of us (8 other guys ) just ignore him more and more and he wonders why. We told him we don't have a problem with netdecking it's just what he's netdecking. We play casual magic for fun...not turn 3 beat down win or turn 3 lock decks. There are plenty of fun casual decks he can netdeck. That's fine. But he chooses to bring decks that win on turn 3 with an infinite loop combo or some such fun-killing combo.
Getting ideas is great, but hardline copying every time a new deck of the month hits is just pathetic.
Selling domain "walkingtheplanes.com"- PM me with serious inquiries.
Thanks to Sioux for the Sig!
^v^ The Hooded Pumpkin's Trading Patch ^v^
Deck Tech:
UDagon's Fish N ChipsU
I may not use the deck CARD for CARD, but I'll generally use a good majority of it. Yeah it is "netdecking" but big deal. When it comes to "I just have to win" you have to take what works and what doesn't in any given environment.
As for what I generally do when I build decks "on my own". If I don't get an idea from the cards themselves, I'll look around and if I see a cool deck idea, I'll go in and make it my own with little tweaks here and there. I do this with EDH a lot. As I'm kind of "new" to the format, I don't want to reinvent the wheel. Besides, its always a good way to make a "shopping list" when you're looking through what other people have done.
Watch Play Read
Twitter
Other than that, having a deck that's been proven successful is great as a learning tool and base, especially if you're new to an archetype or format. And, a lot of the time, more so in Standard and Block where very few decks are competitively viable, you can't help but have a similar idea to somebody. If that somebody else had that idea and did well with it, but you've been doing poorly with the idea, there's no harm im checking out their build and either playing it yourself (usually with some minor playstyle tweaks). Even if you didn't have the idea, and if you just want a solid deck to run at a tournament, there's still no problem with net-decking.
However, I'm all for creativity and unique ideas, as those personal creations can become fine-tuned competitive decks. I think that if you want to improve as a player, you really need to consider both, and not just one or the other.
Basic #33:
-Game not finished.
GHS Mafia:
-Game not finished.
Trade Update: Sending all trades on Monday.
That's fine for you, but there are players out there who simply play to win and/or earn money. Those players will net-deck and they'll still have fun when/if they win.
Nonetheless, I still feel that you can learn a bit from both and shouldn't exclude either.
Basic #33:
-Game not finished.
GHS Mafia:
-Game not finished.
Trade Update: Sending all trades on Monday.
Deck building is what this game is all about. sitting at home, making sweet interactions is what makes magic...well magic. The game is about exploring ideas and creativity.
Net decking is for people who do not care about that and just go for the gold. Keep this in mind though: If we all were net deckers including the pros, where would the decks come from? Nowhere.
For example, I had an Eldrazi ramp deck from home before it was a "big deal". As soon as primeval came out. I made it. It was G/W but still very effective and had a "wow!" aspect to it. people around me started toying with the idea. Over time through testing with various others and noticing decks that were placing high at events I continually edited it. Now we have the "mono Green Eldrazi" netdeck you see today. You can say I sort of net decked components. From an outsider's perspective I may seem to be a simple net decker since now my list is MGE.
My overall comment: These big decks start with someone's idea. Why not you try an idea and build yourself? It could be the next big thing.
Modern:
Affinity
EDH:
Rhys (Tokens)
Karrthus (Dragons)
Bruna (Auras OP)
You can call most any deck out there a "net deck".. Really you can. Just because you have convinced yourself that "building a deck" > "finding a deck on teh internets" doesn't mean you can't just be accused of it, even if it only resembles a deck in one or two cards.
For me, the fun of Magic is in playing cool games with cool interactions or playing a game around with my friends.
When I build decks, I usually build around cool themes or ideas of cards that I think might be cool to play together.
When I want to WIN, I go online and find a deck, buy it, playtest it, go to tourney with it.
It really all depends if we are talking about how competitive you want to be or how casual you want to be. If you are playing at a kitchen table and you windmill slam a two card combo that wins you the game, chances are you won't be playing with that group long (unless you guys are into that sort of thing.) But if you go to a tournament and you play Bears.dec you're going to be laughed at and pretty much owned.
Watch Play Read
Twitter
I enjoy building my decks from drafting, and gives other players plus myself the opportunity for originality and knowing that we're evenly matched... rather than "depending" on the deck to do the job for us. Playing Limited seems to create more player interaction than anything I had seen before.
Eventually I'll get back into Type 2 Constructed, but only when I have money to build a tier 1 deck, and I'll continue to draft as well. I can only get better as a player, not worse.
Playing the game is fun; some people have too many criteria for having fun.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=353661
with not enough cards, it is hard to test and test and test.
Buy List
Best Online Store for your MTG needs!!!
That being said, everyones definition of "netdeck" is relative...to some it is the archtype...to others (and me) it is the list. Also, i think netdecking in standard is alot different than in legacy. Even Legacy decks tend to have quite a few personal tweaks because people have to understand them to be good, standard dosent need it, ytou dont even to know how to understand the meta, let alone be good, to do good in standard.
Not a fan or supporter of New Magic
Actually, if you do a bit of lurking in a Legacy forum discussion on a recent big tournament (where High Tide placed well, though Goblins won out), you'll find out that evidence points to the idea that one doesn't have to be familiar with his/her deck or the meta to do well.
As for somebody who 100% copies a deck?...That's also fine with me. I don't judge either way. I lost two times at FNM last week to the same RUG decks and I just took my loss. In my eyes, if the guy beats me, he has bragging rights either way hahah. He can rub it in too! He just needs to remember I'm gonna return the favor when I win
Overall, people shouldn't care if the deck is original or not. If it's a played out deck, then good! You have a head start and you know what the scheme is. If the guy copied it and has no chemistry with the cards,then that's even better for you! Just worry about yourself, everybody has their own reasons for playing.
I belive that netdecking is good when you will make it your own. When you just copypasta without actually evolving it, then your just cheating. However, if you netdeck to test a certain mechanich but don't feel like building it yourself and just wanna havee fun, or you're trawling for ideas or new cards, then it should be encouraged.
The Great Creature Token Project
So, I guess I favor a balance between netdeck and rogue. I will change at least 8 cards from a net deck before I run it.
"It's crazy if you think about it. The God of the universe -creator of pine needles and nitrogen, galaxies and E-minor- loves us with a radical, unconditional, self-sacrificing love. And what is our response? We go to church, sing songs, and try not to cuss." -Chan
Avatar from Xenoninja and Sig by Skizzik_NZ
-Current Decks
:symb::symu:U/B Permission:symu::symb:
:symr:Ragin' Varments:symr:
:symr::symu:Pyrotrap/Polymorph:symu::symr:
No matter what, if you copy a deck, your going to deal with local problems. Every side board or what you maybe playing in the main deck and sideboard should be some what different due to your local gaming network. Hopefully your playing against people that are looking for ways to beat your deck or add stuff to their side board to give you a hard time.
I can remember when I 1st thought of the idea of land destruction. My deck was annoying but not a winner. Than someone said get Ice storms, look at sinkholes, duals are better. Now that was just a group of gamers looking at an idea and brainstorming to make it better, but that isnt any different than what happens on this forum. After some investments and trials, my type 1 land destroyer was much improved and one of our top players said, now if you dont have 7 ways to win, your not going to get out of swiss rounds. Again more brainstorming, and my deck became a force to recken with. To a point that some of the people who game me advice on how to fix it, created their own to comabt my mine.
If all your going to do is copy a deck card by card, buy the singles and just grind it out, will you win, maybe, will you have fun? If you limit your card base that you cant make changes cause all you did was buy singles for a single deck, your local gamers hopefully will be smart enough to create ways to make your teir 1 deck copy, even less fun to play with cause now your not able to force wins cause you have out spent people on singles of the month.
my first "junk" deck was prior to me knowing the existence of junk as an archetype was just what I considered a hybrid jund / naya deck and ran blightning, birds, lotus cobra, pulse, knight of the reliquary, emeria angel, ob nix, baneslayer, duress, lightning bolt, and path and a boatload of fetches. why did i play this deck in the first place? i liked the naya shard concept of fat creatures (I think I even used uril and woolly lol), and I really liked blighting and maelstrom pulse, and even prior to playing competitively I loved the flavor of the wbg "shard" and I was really excited to use ob nixilis with kotr, to finally be able to use my fav colors all in one deck was awesome. was it good deck? it could have been better. did i figure out the core cards that belong in junk "on my own"? more or less. I posted the deck up and someone pointed me to the baneslayer junk thread, and I read and participated in the discussions, and looked at winning lists, and so forth. I eventually dropped the red from my deck for ease of mana base, and tried some of the other cards out that were being played. was I netdecking by changing my deck around based on discusions online? yes and no. my deck was influenced by others' views, arguments, and testing results, however it was never identical because I did my own testing which led to me picking certain cards over others, I had my views, and disagreed with some of the arguments.
I really don't think that there is even much of a debate here. there is value to individual creativity and using your intelligence to see and implement card synergies on your own, as their is value to communal feedback and trying things out that others do. we do not do things in a self-sufficient vaccum. even professional players who trailblaze new decks learned strategies and play styles and card synergies to look for from other players in their learning experience.
I prefer to strike a balance. I enjoy deck building and playing home made lists, but I also enjoy learning from people who are better than me and getting insight from the decks of others. I generally will not copy decks card for card because to me that is not fun and it is bad playing because of the fact that each list is tailored towards what the player concieved as the metagame for that particular event, but I do accept that certain deck archetypes have invariant card sets which will be nearly identical (budget aside). I expect to see every junk list in legacy to run tarmogoyf, knight of the reliquary, and dark confidant, because, well, they are just the best creatures of those colors.
But there are always new archetypes to be made and while most of us aren't pros and will probably not trailblaze a new archetype or deck style on our own, not trying your own lists, even competitively, you are in my view shortcutting yourself as a player. But this is because I value and enjoy the challenge of deckbuilding; whereas someone may well not like the deckbuilding aspect, but he or she may well think that playing magic is still the best thing in the world and he or she may love winning. More power to that person if they optimize their experience by playing the cool looking list that won at the last ptq. Will I enjoy losing to that person? Not really, but they have to play to please themselves first and foremost.
lol inquest. those were the days. i still rememeber them listing elder druid as the honorable mention card in ice age! How about duelist? The articles (and art) were pretty good in that mag. I still have this really neat scythe cut out from the mag taped above my bedroom door, done by one of the artists who I think did an alliances deadly insect. Style looks very similar.
Netdecking is useful for those of us who simply don't have time to sift through the entire library of MtG cards finding the best for a particular mechanic or strategy. There are many cards that are strictly better than others and it's nice to be able to go online and see "Oh okay, that's the best way to achieve this strategy." It's nice to be able to create your own deck but I have no problem with netdecking