Nowadays, due to the large online communities, and the participation of netdecking, PT's is getting flooded with 5 or 6 decks. It's survival of the luckiest, instead of survival of the fittest.
So... you think that people are getting through 8+ rounds, including some mirror matches, and the people who consistently get top 8 are just the 'luckiest' few out of hundreds?
I mean I do know how its feels to loose when you put that much time and resources in developing your own decks, but life is and has always been a road of falling down and standing up, by experiencing your own mistakes/faulty deckbuilding skills, you will learn to expedite more and more cards in your arsenal and eventually lift your play and build up to another level.
What do you do if, after a lot of testing, tweaking, and researching, you find that someone else's build is actually correct in every meaningful manner? Do you play another deck, deliberately diverge from the other list out of principle, or just not expose yourself to the information to avoid this risk? (Note: Most good netdeckers do make changes to sideboard and some of the non-core maindeck cards.)
You shouldn't keep copying the decks other figured out. It's one thing to copy someone's idea, and getting help from others by suggestion to improve your deck, it's another to let others do the work and rubs it in others faces.
If they're actually rubbing it into other people's faces, then that is just them being a jerk and is not related to netdecking.
Not offended, but I've been on both sides of the debate and have some fairly set views on the subject. I use deckcheck frequently, but generally amalgamate multiple lists or make some change to help out my matches against the locals. Still, sometimes I find a list that just looks and plays like it's correct.
I've also spent about 3 months tweaking a 5c Deathrender combo deck for T2 and took Violent Ultimatum to FNM last week.
Watching baddies fumble around with elf-ball is a train wreck. One guy locally grabbed that list, and the only reason he did well was because people wouldn't make him play it out. (Pro-tip: Always make them play it out.)
Even though net-decking is easy for anyone to do, it takes a skilled player to play the deck right. It has it's pros and cons. I have played many people who just pulled a Top 8 jund list from the net and completely flop when they play it.
I enjoy building my own. As I play things people will say "oh I know this deck" then ill play things and theyll be totally confused. if anything net decking has overall made players weaker thinking they can 100% predict decks and sb for cards that arent in the deck. hilarious.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:
Affinity
EDH:
Rhys (Tokens)
Karrthus (Dragons)
Bruna (Auras OP)
I think when people say they're having a debate about netdecking vs homebrew, they're *actually* having a conversation about using the cards you have vs buying your deck.
The fact of the matter is that if you're a casual player that has 500 cards, you're almost certainly not going to be able to build a deck that's going to be able to compete with something that someone constructed by buying $50 of playsets on eBay.
I honestly couldn't care less where the deck that I'm playing against came from. I personally am not willing to go out and buy individual cards just to try to put together an "ideal" deck.
Does that result in weaker decks? Absolutely. Does that mean that I'd probably have a hard time at tournaments? Sure does. But the fact of the matter is that I largely play with friends, and most of them are either building from whatever they've got or using dual decks anyway.
If I were bringing Tier1 tourney decks to the table in that environment:
a) It would be no fun because there would be very few close games
b) Nobody would want to ever play me
So what did I get myself by sinking $100 on a tournament deck? Lousy games and no friends. Wow... great investment.
People get frustrated because there's no equivalent in the constructed tournament scene to "build a deck from what you've got." Of course that's what limited is for, but limited isn't really the same either. Them's the breaks though. If you want to compete for real, you have to spend cash. If you don't want to drop the cash, then constructed tournament play isn't for you.
Even here on this set I found an awesome thread about Ugwb landstill which I had never seen before and I decided to make it with a few tweaks to the build I saw. Never been happier.
The most important thing in my opinion is not to pilot a deck, but to change it up for things you like better/fit your metagame. If I wouldn't have netdecked I would have never discovered this completely awesome deck.
I'll put this bluntly. If a really cool, unique guy went up to a normal girl, and is ugly, he's weird. if he goes up and is hot, then he's cool and unique.
Standard
It's like watching grass grow, except it's ridculously expensive.
I think the biggest opponent to netdecking is the fact that simply copying anyones deck, whosever deck it may be, does, in some capacity limit your critical thinking skills.
Yes, you can copy a deck, and learn ints fundamentals, and your still learning how to play with it, and can absolutley increase your skill level. However, that being said, there is definite value in learning the method behind deck construction, things like investment, value, cost, ratio, probability, and a myriad of other factors, even meta-gaming. So, critics of netdecking have their points, and for those who have netdecked (myself included) but have also created our own decks (again myself included), there is something to be learned from each camp.
There is something to be said about working with what u have, and making it good. To do that is to have a truly innovative spark, talent, and an ability to recognize pattern, power and synergy, so it should be rewarded.
I think in the future, the bigger the cardpools get, the more creativity we'll see come to fruition.
I think the biggest opponent to netdecking is the fact that simply copying anyones deck, whosever deck it may be, does, in some capacity limit your critical thinking skills.
Yes, you can copy a deck, and learn ints fundamentals, and your still learning how to play with it, and can absolutley increase your skill level. However, that being said, there is definite value in learning the method behind deck construction, things like investment, value, cost, ratio, probability, and a myriad of other factors, even meta-gaming. So, critics of netdecking have their points, and for those who have netdecked (myself included) but have also created our own decks (again myself included), there is something to be learned from each camp.
There is something to be said about working with what u have, and making it good. To do that is to have a truly innovative spark, talent, and an ability to recognize pattern, power and synergy, so it should be rewarded.
I think in the future, the bigger the cardpools get, the more creativity we'll see come to fruition.
The problem is, is the time investment in that. Not that there is time investment, but rather, for me, a new player (5 weeks now-ish) learning all the cards and card combination's will take a significant amount of time. Surely much longer than 5-7 weeks.
When I started back up after a 13 year break, I still had an idea of the traditional archetypes that each color played. I started buildings decks of my own with the cards I had that fit those archetypes but weren't, obviously, optimal in anyway.
Soon I was going from mono to two color to tri color and I had the workings of a grixis control deck but was missing a lot of the stand-bys that are standard in the deck.
So I went online, to look up deck, lo and behold, there were decks that looked just like mine with some tweaks. So I tweaked my deck. I would have eventually gotten there on my own, but it would have taken me a much, much longer time, and a lot more money than just "net-decking".
Am I a lesser player now because I net-decked after I realized that I was on the right path anyway? I don't think so, I just took a shortcut in magic that most people take everyday in other activities without thinking twice about.
In an open metagame it's always better to go rogue, because you've tested your deck against the field, and they haven't tested theirs against yours...that gives you an edge if your deck is good enough (it wont be if you dont build the skills to make good decks)
but in a closed metagame (u/g madness, monoblack control in OBC)...well, there is a reason the metagame is closed, the decks are too good and it´s difficult to find answers,
I think netdecking has definitely negatively impacted critical thinking skills. I was at a tournament a couple of weeks ago and there were a couple of players who had netdecks and they were trying to share their iPhone so they could go to SCG's website to look up the cards they needed to fill a few open spots in their sideboard. If you can't even critically think that problem out, it's kind of sad.
when I want to win a ptq
when I have absolutely no grasp on the format
when I like the archetype and want to play it
when I need a quick deck for a tourney 2 days away
when I need a quick casual deck for less than 20$
Homebrewing:
when I want to have fun at fnm
when I feel I want to improve on a new archetype, or just plain vary it(IE, putting every elf I can find in my binder/collection and 24 forests together)
When Standart sucks or is plain out of my price range *coughjacecough*
when my friend tells me ''hey, i have 50$, can you build something for me?''
when I meet a new casual group
Mix of both:
When I build EDH
when I build my standart decks for serious FNM play
when I need some help finishing a deck (out of ideas, need a specific card, erc).
that's my view on the matter. Netdecking is a good phenomenon on the tourney scene, because it gives you a clear prediction of the meta. haterator decks with tollboxes and maindeck SB cards are born when the field plays too much of a specific archetype. recent example: spread 'em VS Jund.
I like to use net-decks to see if the ideas I come up with can compete with them and I usually find out that they can't. The only "problem" with net decks, as has been stated by others previously, is that net decks are tuned to the limits. The "hive mind" has made these about as good as they can and there's tweaks here and there you can do to get better results but the likelyhood that a lot of us are going to come up with anything better is small.
I'm not saying we should throw in the towel, but not everyone can be the best at what we all do. Most of us will never see the interactions necessary to go that much further. So in that regard even netdecking doesn't guarentee a win but does raise your chances.
I used to hate it too, but I've garnered an appreciation for it over time. There's too many different ways to make a 75 card deck, it's nice to know that you can research a format, and then build and tweak a deck and know that you won't get obliterated at a tournament. This is, in my opinion, even more important in narrower formats* like block and type 2 since there is less room for surprise, so optimization needs more attention.
*My reasoning here is that in a wide open format like Vintage, assuming a deck has sufficient power and appropriate staples the actual unique path to victory COULD blind-side an opponent. I had personal success with a homemade Pox deck in a couple of type-1 tournies simply because nobody was ready for it, I still lost (career record is like 3-5 for matches), but I wasn't laughed out of the place either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I think EDH would be more fun for the majority of participants if players just showed eachother their decks rather than actually playing games out."
I do not look down on netdecking, but I don't like people who just copypasta decks. I am currently assembling a Red Deck Wins, and by reading the forums and looking at other people's decklists, I have formulated my own opinions on what I thought was good and bad. I gained a lot of insight about my own deck that I would not have had if I had not netdecked.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing
Standard: Esper Control | UWR Flash --- Modern: Melira Pod | Splinter Twin
Lately I just want to try new things, so I rummage through the casual threads and occasionally hit a list I want to try myself. This time, it was Lux-Locke.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Seven Knights gathered under a single banner, but soon came to learn one more would join their cause.
I remember Patrick Chapin on the Magic Show talking about this issue and he does have a point however netdecking helps you adjust to what's being played in the metagame, learning deck ratios, "countering" what's being played to give yourself an advantage, and getting a feel of the game in general.
If you want to see where netdecking is at it's worst look no further than
Yu-Gi-Oh!, there's so many netdecks (or "cookie cutters" as Yu-Gi-Oh! likes to call it) and lack of creativity in that TCG it's ridiculous. But I've also noticed that netdecking is also relevant in other TCG/CCG's as well including Pokemon.
In the Pokemon TCG usually decks are Rogue before they become Netdecks, most decks are and what makes the Pokemon TCG unique in that aspect is that there's alot of decks that are just as good as Tier 1 or 2 decks that are played and the main reason they don't get enough play is due to not being competitive enough.
Sure there's a line of creativity in Magic and sadly I don't see it that much in Standard nowadays before M10 changed the game forever. Now for EDH and Kitchen Table Casual sure I see plenty of ideas, synergies, and Johnny Combos galore and it would be nice to see a deck in Standard that was original like Dragonstorm was when Time Spiral block was still Standard legal.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
I personally look down upon it. I get many deck ideas online, actually, rephased, card synergies from new sets or things I find interesting. I then look at decklists and develop my own, and test, test, test, till I find it either
1. works, then take it to FNM
2. doesn't work, and find another.
For me, its a deckbuilding process. I brought a homebrew to a casual T2, and swept a guy's MassPoly 2-0. The next week, he copied mine, added Gideon, and claimed his was better. He's also a cocky jerk, but those people are playing to win, as he saw my deck was cheap and it could post results. I have no respect for people like that.
Or the fact the last FNM i went to before the rotation had 50% of everyone running U/W control variants. Alot of people around here either like the deck, or netdecked/copied it to get DCI points and win. I don't appreciate the copying to win, again.
People can do what they want, but I just get tired of playing against whatever's hot in a FNM. Went to one last night, shock and awe, Blue/White control dominated, same as the last time, and the time before that. It's boring, and turns the game into nothing but a predictable mess. It also tends to be the kid with the most money who netdecks, and it's yet to have been otherwise. Not saying anything bad about rich people, lol. Just saying, if you have the money, and netdeck and aren't a complete idiot, you're likely to dominate and that's all there is to it.
I always enter with homebrew decks, sometimes do ok, sometimes not. I've yet to win though, but I tend to do better in drafts, which is why I enjoy limited more. I'd love to enter a FNM one night and see people actually trying to think, trying to do something new, but I never will. It's why I'll stay a dominate casual/limited player, because you just can't expect your average competative magic player to actually try to make their own deck. It's a rarity, aside from the creators of the top decks of course. I applaud them, they did a great job, and are what other players should actually try to be, instead of just coming off as an imitator. I'm in the habit of making my own decks, and I intend to keep it that way.
Winning off your own steam just feels better than going online, taking a deck list, and playing it. It does take skill to pilot, but I'd imagine it takes a lot more to actually create a top deck. That said, these are only my views, and I've given up on trying to convince people and take them to my side, lol.
Also, I am NOT dissing "semi-net deckers" who tweak decks. That's improving on design and if you succesfully tweak it, shows that you know what you're doing. I'm referring to guys who straight up copy lists and do nothing else but play with that same version. In YGO, I use to by starter decks/structure decks and tweak them to my specifications. I put my mark on the deck, and that's what I just want to see with other players.
I've been against netdecking since i started magic way back in tempest. While i am a hardcore casual player with little desire for play outside the kitchen table/ FNM's. At fnm's i get tired of playing flavor of the month decks you know...the card for card for card pro tour decks. While they're fairly easy to predict whats going to happen that just means a loss of fun.
I'm not against taking a deck idea and changing it around-semi radically. I like(d) to play vamps but instead of the monoblack i ran b/r off the bat and loved it.
Now there are the unavoidables that there are just obvious choices of cards like in vampires that running nocturnus, gatekeeper, and a few other choice cards are basically a must in order for the deck to run smoothly. If you wanna run a deck that excludes one of them by all means. Running Jace TMS in blue is essentially a must just because it makes the deck all that more powerful.
One thing i belive that gives netdecks a bad rap are the people who follow from trend to trend as if they're following the paris hilton's of magic. Especially the ones who don't know how to run the deck and win or lose and have an air of arrogance around them because they run the best deck. Thoes people are a dime a dozen unfortunatly...
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!!!
I'm against netdecking, I feel it shows weakness in the player. If you have to copy a deck exactly card for card from the pro tour, then it proves you are not a good deck builder.
However there are many defined deck archetypes that people are using. I feel that taking the basic idea and making it your own is acceptable. It may even give you an advantage, because people won't expect what your playing.
what am I supposed to do in a well defined constructed format?
Play a bad deck just for the sake of not "netdecking"?
I'm sure some people are really thinking players and just pull a list, but unless the format is brand new everyone is going to know what all the good decks are.
If you aren't playing one of those decks you are likely not going to do very well.
I'm all for creativity, but thinking you are going to create a great deck in a constructed format that the best players in the world have already worked on is just ridiculous.
I've played some rouge decks over the years, but a fairly similar had likely been discussed someone and its very likely someone else was playing the deck too.
As many good players has said "one wins tournaments". Though for you that thing you only go rogue deck builders, don't you think at least one other person playing magic has already tried your idea? making it not rogue. And most of the time a lot of the "rogue" deck builders just use it as an excuse. I have heard things like "I'm playing battlegrace angel over baneslayer becasue she works better with my theme of exalted", let me inform you that this was at a 5k ;).
Edit: Binary your gonna regret this thread real fast...
oh and I'm expecting real soon
While I agree that its unlikely that any "good" combination is original to the deck builder in question, I disagree that it doesn't make it rogue you might use a combo that someone else has thought of but in a different deck theme, or situation. that is innovation which is entirely rogue. personally I would prefer to come in third with my rogue deck than win using another person's work
I'm against netdecking, I feel it shows weakness in the player. If you have to copy a deck exactly card for card from the pro tour, then it proves you are not a good deck builder.
However there are many defined deck archetypes that people are using. I feel that taking the basic idea and making it your own is acceptable. It may even give you an advantage, because people won't expect what your playing.
I completely agree Trapezoid, how hard is it to copy, paste, print and go down to your local card shop to get a winning deck? I spend several hours minimum running through practice runs with any new deck I'm designing. From trying to think of where it needs improvement, where it will run into problems and the deck types its likely to get its can handed to it, but it's totally worth the time I spent. I want to build my skill up toward the pro tour, but I'm not sure whether I would be flattered or depressed if someone used one of my d-lists
I love Magic and I always will, but I think netdecking kind of shows where the game has evolved a weakness. I don't understand why Wizards would design a rotation or a Meta that makes people favor a certain color or deck style. Originally, I felt that all colors were created equal and a good deck of any color was just as good as a good deck of another color, but the game seems to have gone in a route that favors certain colors (Blue, White, sometimes Black) during certain periods.
If there was more equality among cards and colors we would see more unique decks. I don't see many people having the desire or need to build decks for purposes other than trying to win as much as possible. I used to see people centering decks around a variety of concepts: kooky ideas, subtle thematic interaction, flavorful Legends, epic stories, etc. Now it has become a sort of Science of refining the meta into what cards will be statistically most effective against another rather than letting the essence of the individual cards lead the design.
I love Magic and I always will, but I think netdecking kind of shows where the game has evolved a weakness. I don't understand why Wizards would design a rotation or a Meta that makes people favor a certain color or deck style. Originally, I felt that all colors were created equal and a good deck of any color was just as good as a good deck of another color, but the game seems to have gone in a route that favors certain colors (Blue, White, sometimes Black) during certain periods.
If there was more equality among cards and colors we would see more unique decks. I don't see many people having the desire or need to build decks for purposes other than trying to win as much as possible. I used to see people centering decks around a variety of concepts: kooky ideas, subtle thematic interaction, flavorful Legends, epic stories, etc. Now it has become a sort of Science of refining the meta into what cards will be statistically most effective against another rather than letting the essence of the individual cards lead the design.
I'm sorry but this is completely naive and almost impossible to succeed with. Unless every color has the exact same cards, there is ALWAYS going to be a better color/deck. It has nothing to do with net decking, its just how games work.
So... you think that people are getting through 8+ rounds, including some mirror matches, and the people who consistently get top 8 are just the 'luckiest' few out of hundreds?
What do you do if, after a lot of testing, tweaking, and researching, you find that someone else's build is actually correct in every meaningful manner? Do you play another deck, deliberately diverge from the other list out of principle, or just not expose yourself to the information to avoid this risk? (Note: Most good netdeckers do make changes to sideboard and some of the non-core maindeck cards.)
If they're actually rubbing it into other people's faces, then that is just them being a jerk and is not related to netdecking.
I've also spent about 3 months tweaking a 5c Deathrender combo deck for T2 and took Violent Ultimatum to FNM last week.
Watching baddies fumble around with elf-ball is a train wreck. One guy locally grabbed that list, and the only reason he did well was because people wouldn't make him play it out. (Pro-tip: Always make them play it out.)
I think that homebrew is much better than netdecking if you can take it to the next level and build a truly competitive deck.
Modern:
Affinity
EDH:
Rhys (Tokens)
Karrthus (Dragons)
Bruna (Auras OP)
The fact of the matter is that if you're a casual player that has 500 cards, you're almost certainly not going to be able to build a deck that's going to be able to compete with something that someone constructed by buying $50 of playsets on eBay.
I honestly couldn't care less where the deck that I'm playing against came from. I personally am not willing to go out and buy individual cards just to try to put together an "ideal" deck.
Does that result in weaker decks? Absolutely. Does that mean that I'd probably have a hard time at tournaments? Sure does. But the fact of the matter is that I largely play with friends, and most of them are either building from whatever they've got or using dual decks anyway.
If I were bringing Tier1 tourney decks to the table in that environment:
a) It would be no fun because there would be very few close games
b) Nobody would want to ever play me
So what did I get myself by sinking $100 on a tournament deck? Lousy games and no friends. Wow... great investment.
People get frustrated because there's no equivalent in the constructed tournament scene to "build a deck from what you've got." Of course that's what limited is for, but limited isn't really the same either. Them's the breaks though. If you want to compete for real, you have to spend cash. If you don't want to drop the cash, then constructed tournament play isn't for you.
The most important thing in my opinion is not to pilot a deck, but to change it up for things you like better/fit your metagame. If I wouldn't have netdecked I would have never discovered this completely awesome deck.
Yes, you can copy a deck, and learn ints fundamentals, and your still learning how to play with it, and can absolutley increase your skill level. However, that being said, there is definite value in learning the method behind deck construction, things like investment, value, cost, ratio, probability, and a myriad of other factors, even meta-gaming. So, critics of netdecking have their points, and for those who have netdecked (myself included) but have also created our own decks (again myself included), there is something to be learned from each camp.
There is something to be said about working with what u have, and making it good. To do that is to have a truly innovative spark, talent, and an ability to recognize pattern, power and synergy, so it should be rewarded.
I think in the future, the bigger the cardpools get, the more creativity we'll see come to fruition.
The problem is, is the time investment in that. Not that there is time investment, but rather, for me, a new player (5 weeks now-ish) learning all the cards and card combination's will take a significant amount of time. Surely much longer than 5-7 weeks.
When I started back up after a 13 year break, I still had an idea of the traditional archetypes that each color played. I started buildings decks of my own with the cards I had that fit those archetypes but weren't, obviously, optimal in anyway.
Soon I was going from mono to two color to tri color and I had the workings of a grixis control deck but was missing a lot of the stand-bys that are standard in the deck.
So I went online, to look up deck, lo and behold, there were decks that looked just like mine with some tweaks. So I tweaked my deck. I would have eventually gotten there on my own, but it would have taken me a much, much longer time, and a lot more money than just "net-decking".
Am I a lesser player now because I net-decked after I realized that I was on the right path anyway? I don't think so, I just took a shortcut in magic that most people take everyday in other activities without thinking twice about.
Rules Advisor: 9/5/11
Old, sparsely updated because of above: Trade with me!
Weirdly, standard has been BAD since JTMS was banned, it hasn't been fun, nor healthy since.
but in a closed metagame (u/g madness, monoblack control in OBC)...well, there is a reason the metagame is closed, the decks are too good and it´s difficult to find answers,
when I want to win a ptq
when I have absolutely no grasp on the format
when I like the archetype and want to play it
when I need a quick deck for a tourney 2 days away
when I need a quick casual deck for less than 20$
Homebrewing:
when I want to have fun at fnm
when I feel I want to improve on a new archetype, or just plain vary it(IE, putting every elf I can find in my binder/collection and 24 forests together)
When Standart sucks or is plain out of my price range *coughjacecough*
when my friend tells me ''hey, i have 50$, can you build something for me?''
when I meet a new casual group
Mix of both:
When I build EDH
when I build my standart decks for serious FNM play
when I need some help finishing a deck (out of ideas, need a specific card, erc).
that's my view on the matter. Netdecking is a good phenomenon on the tourney scene, because it gives you a clear prediction of the meta. haterator decks with tollboxes and maindeck SB cards are born when the field plays too much of a specific archetype. recent example: spread 'em VS Jund.
I'm not saying we should throw in the towel, but not everyone can be the best at what we all do. Most of us will never see the interactions necessary to go that much further. So in that regard even netdecking doesn't guarentee a win but does raise your chances.
*My reasoning here is that in a wide open format like Vintage, assuming a deck has sufficient power and appropriate staples the actual unique path to victory COULD blind-side an opponent. I had personal success with a homemade Pox deck in a couple of type-1 tournies simply because nobody was ready for it, I still lost (career record is like 3-5 for matches), but I wasn't laughed out of the place either.
Currently Playing
Standard: Esper Control | UWR Flash --- Modern: Melira Pod | Splinter Twin
If you want to see where netdecking is at it's worst look no further than
Yu-Gi-Oh!, there's so many netdecks (or "cookie cutters" as Yu-Gi-Oh! likes to call it) and lack of creativity in that TCG it's ridiculous. But I've also noticed that netdecking is also relevant in other TCG/CCG's as well including Pokemon.
In the Pokemon TCG usually decks are Rogue before they become Netdecks, most decks are and what makes the Pokemon TCG unique in that aspect is that there's alot of decks that are just as good as Tier 1 or 2 decks that are played and the main reason they don't get enough play is due to not being competitive enough.
Sure there's a line of creativity in Magic and sadly I don't see it that much in Standard nowadays before M10 changed the game forever. Now for EDH and Kitchen Table Casual sure I see plenty of ideas, synergies, and Johnny Combos galore and it would be nice to see a deck in Standard that was original like Dragonstorm was when Time Spiral block was still Standard legal.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
1. works, then take it to FNM
2. doesn't work, and find another.
For me, its a deckbuilding process. I brought a homebrew to a casual T2, and swept a guy's MassPoly 2-0. The next week, he copied mine, added Gideon, and claimed his was better. He's also a cocky jerk, but those people are playing to win, as he saw my deck was cheap and it could post results. I have no respect for people like that.
Or the fact the last FNM i went to before the rotation had 50% of everyone running U/W control variants. Alot of people around here either like the deck, or netdecked/copied it to get DCI points and win. I don't appreciate the copying to win, again.
GB [Primer][Competitive][Stax][Combo] Meren of Clan Nel Toth 95% RETIRED
UW [Primer][Competitive][Combo][Stax] Brago, King Eternal RETIRED
BR Rakdos, Lord of Riots (75%)
G Titania - 75%
W SRAM - Welcome to the cheeri0s jam 95%
U Teferi - stax 100%
R Neheb - janky mono red eggs combo 90%
B Gonti - 50% valuetown
I always enter with homebrew decks, sometimes do ok, sometimes not. I've yet to win though, but I tend to do better in drafts, which is why I enjoy limited more. I'd love to enter a FNM one night and see people actually trying to think, trying to do something new, but I never will. It's why I'll stay a dominate casual/limited player, because you just can't expect your average competative magic player to actually try to make their own deck. It's a rarity, aside from the creators of the top decks of course. I applaud them, they did a great job, and are what other players should actually try to be, instead of just coming off as an imitator. I'm in the habit of making my own decks, and I intend to keep it that way.
Winning off your own steam just feels better than going online, taking a deck list, and playing it. It does take skill to pilot, but I'd imagine it takes a lot more to actually create a top deck. That said, these are only my views, and I've given up on trying to convince people and take them to my side, lol.
Also, I am NOT dissing "semi-net deckers" who tweak decks. That's improving on design and if you succesfully tweak it, shows that you know what you're doing. I'm referring to guys who straight up copy lists and do nothing else but play with that same version. In YGO, I use to by starter decks/structure decks and tweak them to my specifications. I put my mark on the deck, and that's what I just want to see with other players.
I'm not against taking a deck idea and changing it around-semi radically. I like(d) to play vamps but instead of the monoblack i ran b/r off the bat and loved it.
Now there are the unavoidables that there are just obvious choices of cards like in vampires that running nocturnus, gatekeeper, and a few other choice cards are basically a must in order for the deck to run smoothly. If you wanna run a deck that excludes one of them by all means. Running Jace TMS in blue is essentially a must just because it makes the deck all that more powerful.
One thing i belive that gives netdecks a bad rap are the people who follow from trend to trend as if they're following the paris hilton's of magic. Especially the ones who don't know how to run the deck and win or lose and have an air of arrogance around them because they run the best deck. Thoes people are a dime a dozen unfortunatly...
Not a fan or supporter of New Magic
However there are many defined deck archetypes that people are using. I feel that taking the basic idea and making it your own is acceptable. It may even give you an advantage, because people won't expect what your playing.
what am I supposed to do in a well defined constructed format?
Play a bad deck just for the sake of not "netdecking"?
I'm sure some people are really thinking players and just pull a list, but unless the format is brand new everyone is going to know what all the good decks are.
If you aren't playing one of those decks you are likely not going to do very well.
I'm all for creativity, but thinking you are going to create a great deck in a constructed format that the best players in the world have already worked on is just ridiculous.
I've played some rouge decks over the years, but a fairly similar had likely been discussed someone and its very likely someone else was playing the deck too.
While I agree that its unlikely that any "good" combination is original to the deck builder in question, I disagree that it doesn't make it rogue you might use a combo that someone else has thought of but in a different deck theme, or situation. that is innovation which is entirely rogue. personally I would prefer to come in third with my rogue deck than win using another person's work
I completely agree Trapezoid, how hard is it to copy, paste, print and go down to your local card shop to get a winning deck? I spend several hours minimum running through practice runs with any new deck I'm designing. From trying to think of where it needs improvement, where it will run into problems and the deck types its likely to get its can handed to it, but it's totally worth the time I spent. I want to build my skill up toward the pro tour, but I'm not sure whether I would be flattered or depressed if someone used one of my d-lists
If there was more equality among cards and colors we would see more unique decks. I don't see many people having the desire or need to build decks for purposes other than trying to win as much as possible. I used to see people centering decks around a variety of concepts: kooky ideas, subtle thematic interaction, flavorful Legends, epic stories, etc. Now it has become a sort of Science of refining the meta into what cards will be statistically most effective against another rather than letting the essence of the individual cards lead the design.
[Clan Flamingo]
I'm sorry but this is completely naive and almost impossible to succeed with. Unless every color has the exact same cards, there is ALWAYS going to be a better color/deck. It has nothing to do with net decking, its just how games work.
My twitter account: @Kengy5
My blog about cube:
Slaughter Cry