I think people say they only 'play for fun' because 'playing to win' takes effort, and they'd rather not spend that effort
So people who play for fun only do so because they are actually bad players ? I hope that's not what you meant.
People play games all the time, and lose without throwing a fit. Games ARE about fun to a lot of them.
I like winning as much as the next guy but I won't buy a Black Lotus, even if I had the money for it, just to win more games against my friends. And Vintage tournaments wouldn't interest me much either.
Regarding netdecking, the only time I used a combo I saw on the net as the main combo of my deck (Quillspike + Devoted Druid), I got bored with the deck after about 2 games. So, yeah, I'd rather make my own stuff, even if it ends up being not very good or original. Of course, I still have a look at comments about the cards. Sometimes I find better cards, or better synergies that way. But I won't copy a whole deck, nor make a deck's mechanic based on that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese visual kei heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: http://www.onmyozatheatre.com
So people who play for fun only do so because they are actually bad players ? I hope that's not what you meant.
People play games all the time, and lose without throwing a fit. Games ARE about fun to a lot of them.
Implying that people that play to win throw a fit when they lose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
Complaining about card prices accomplishes nothing. Read some Medina articles, learn to trade better, don’t act like the only way to do ANYTHING in this game is to price out decks and buy every single you ever need.
I play to win. In order to win i use the best tools that i have avaliable, that is, among other things decks that i see on the internet. My playgroup, on the other hand uses decks that are pretty much all homebrew. I win more than half of my games against them, and because of this they are reluctant to play with me. So, as someone who does take ideas (i don't copy card-for-card) from the internet i think that playing the best deck against homebrew isn't always the way to go.
However, since i do play higher level decks, my knowlege of the game and deckbuilding has increased, and i am able to build decent decks on my own and pilot them better.
I love deck building, so I do not want to net deck. I don't mind playing against net decks per se, but I find it the height of hubris when I see someone act mighty and innovative when they run a copy/paste deck and brag or talk smack like they accomplished something amazing. If they are fun to play then I like seeing how my rogue deck stacks up to the "pro level" deck they downloaded.
Logic like that made some players complain when I used Doran against them. "Oh, you just changed some cards around." "All I did" was completely change the mana base to abuse Murmering Bosk and Fetchlands, and added Loam Lion, Suffer the Past, Stoneforge, and run Summoning Pact in the SB. Apparently ignoring everyone else, but coming to the same conclusion is still netdecking.
*The next time they say they are innovative, try to entertain the simple fact that they might not be lying. It's Standard, there is only so much room for inovation. They might have just came to the same conclusion that the Pro's did on there own. I do the same thing all the time. Suprisingly enough, that doesn't make me a netdecker. "Cunning Sparkmage and Basilisk Collar works so well together! And I have Stoneforge to search it up!"
**It's too bad that most players don't understand what Netdecking is. Using Card Combination A in deck doesn't make you a Netdecker. You know how many times players have called me a netdecker for using Doran + Treefolk Harbringer? They completely ignore the fact that I use it because it is the most obvious conclusion for a deck based around Doran, and assume that I am "netdecking" because I am making my deck the best I can. If you call me a netdecker, I take it as an insult. I'm sorry that you are bringing Casual.dec to the table, and can't handle that you opponent is using competative strategies. If you want to be competative, you will find that "the best" solutions are a limited bunch.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
Logic like that made some players complain when I used Doran against them. "Oh, you just changed some cards around." "All I did" was completely change the mana base to abuse Murmering Bosk and Fetchlands, and added Loam Lion, Suffer the Past, Stoneforge, and run Summoning Pact in the SB. Apparently ignoring everyone else, but coming to the same conclusion is still netdecking.
*The next time they say they are innovative, try to entertain the simple fact that they might not be lying. It's Standard, there is only so much room for inovation. They might have just came to the same conclusion that the Pro's did on there own. I do the same thing all the time. Suprisingly enough, that doesn't make me a netdecker. "Cunning Sparkmage and Basilisk Collar works so well together! And I have Stoneforge to search it up!"
**It's too bad that most players don't understand what Netdecking is. Using Card Combination A in deck doesn't make you a Netdecker. You know how many times players have called me a netdecker for using Doran + Treefolk Harbringer? They completely ignore the fact that I use it because it is the most obvious conclusion for a deck based around Doran, and assume that I am "netdecking" because I am making my deck the best I can. If you call me a netdecker, I take it as an insult. I'm sorry that you are bringing Casual.dec to the table, and can't handle that you opponent is using competative strategies. If you want to be competative, you will find that "the best" solutions are a limited bunch.
QFT, Yamikiri.
Homebrew deckbuilding is great fun, but some of the strict "anti-netdeckers" are so elitist. It's true that most people use the internet to find ideas for good deckbuilding. The word "Netdecking" should be abolished.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:bicycle::bicycle::teamwork::bicycle::bicycle:
Modern: GRB Jund RGB Legacy: B The Gate B U Mermaids & Ninja Faeries U Vintage: BBB Dark Depths featuring Bob and friends BBB Elder Dragon Highlander: URR Jhoira of the Eldrazi ApocalypseRUU
Truth be told people who get frustrated and call you a netdecker are usually just bad players who are frustrated about losing. I find it amazing that I could be playing in the jund colors and some one call me a netdecker despite the lotus cobra and primeval titans chillin on the field. Just ignore it because sooner or later they are going to come to the realization that standard doesn't have that many card choices and that there are several different varients of the same deck.
Not to burst your bubble, but the jund colors + green titan, while not having won any big events yet, has been a commonly discussed build since the card was revealed... at least in the general area where I live. Perhaps your opponent lives in a similar area and called you a netdecker when a bandwagon comment might have been what he was trying to think of. Aside from that, yes, people tend to throw that word around.
Yamikiri - if it's that easy for you to develop pro decks without any outside influence, perhaps you should go... pro? I won't defend someone calling you a netdecker but if you manage to make a deck from scratch that looks exactly like a list your buddy saw online, there should be some kind of word for that since netdecker doesn't seem to fit there.
People play magic for a bunch of different reasons, some as a creative outlet, some play for the social contact, and some just play to win.
What happened to letting people play the way they want instead of forcing YOUR ideals on them? Just let people play the way they want to play. Everyone thinks they know what is best for the game, yet there are 20 different opinions on what that best thing is so it's impossible for everyone to agree.
Just let it be and find your own playgroup of "original" players instead of complaining about the ways other people are enjoying the game.
So true
People act like this debate is a centuries old war and your forced to take a side. Apparently there are the "Heathens" who dare netdeck and the "Saints" who dare to homebrew.
I maybe a Melthos who enjoys the Mechanical and Flavor Spectrums of this game but that doesn't mean I don't want to win at times as well. Nobody likes being the cannon fodder in a FMN tournament.
Does that make me hypocritical on both views of this? Was it so wrong I netdecked RDW around 2007 to try doing better with a deck I could understand well that it may gain me the ire of my peers? Yet I show up the next week with my own "Janky" homebrewed Treefolk deck, should that make me gain some prestigious medal for not netdecking?
This might as well be a gang war between two factions.
What I tend to see as I read these posts is a ton of judging coming from both sides of the argument.
IE- Netdeckers are pathetic as they cannot come up with anything themselves. They need someone to win a tournament and establish a deck in order to commit to it.
Or the other direction. Homebrew players are just scrubs or noobs who cannot make good decks and so make accusations after losing to good decks.
The fact is both of the accusations is situationally true. There are homebrew guys who get angry because they lose to tournament decks and there are netdeckers who heavily peruse online discussion as a crutch because they want to win more and they cannot do it on their own.
My first experience with a netdecker was awhile back during Odyssey and Torment where a younger player who had played poorly made decks for awhile one day came in with strong tier 1 deck. It didn't crush my homemade deck but was definitely more efficient and faster so I was winning a third of the time. This whole argument comes up from the annoyance of those situations.
Anyway, I care much less now. Personally I never netdeck because I want my decks to be as completely my own creation as possible. That does not mean I expect to win tournaments because I also avoid top tier cards. I like to pull as much as possible out of lower tier cards as possible. Trying to break ooze garden is much more enjoyable than trying to break baneslayer. That does not mean I expect someone playing a tournament level white deck to avoid baneslayer or other well known tricks.
The real problem is the people who want to have their cake and eat it too. Homebrew is riskier. Homebrewers should understand that they are lowering their chances of winning by refusing what is basically free playtesting knowledge. You aren't going to win as often with the same ammount of effort. So suck it up and don't be a sore loser.
Netdeckers are taking a shortcut. You aren't putting the same level of effort in to obtain your finished product. In many cases, you are taking a 90-95% finished concept and just rearranging the pillows on the couch. You are going to get less credit for the deck, so you are just going to have to be ok with that.
Fact is none of these things accurately determine how good of a player you are. Netdeckers could be good players or could be ok players with good decks. Homebrewers could be handicapping themselves or they could just be bad.
Moral of the story. Value judgments are pointless. Don't troll. We are all playing a child's card game which automatically makes us less cool.
I feel like I'm netdecking with my White Weenie deck; it's homebrewed, but it looks so similar to other White Weenie decks that a new opponent might call it a netdeck. =\
I feel like I'm netdecking with my White Weenie deck; it's homebrewed, but it looks so similar to other White Weenie decks that a new opponent might call it a netdeck. =\
Why should that matter? It's your deck thatyou made! Who cares if some opponent accuses you of something that isn't even a bad thing if used properly?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
Complaining about card prices accomplishes nothing. Read some Medina articles, learn to trade better, don’t act like the only way to do ANYTHING in this game is to price out decks and buy every single you ever need.
I'm a self admitted "Netdecker"... granted... my definition might vary from others.
Quite simply, I don't have a group of people to build and test with where I currently live like I did before, outside of the FNM competition who I'd honestly rather not know the intimate workings of every deck I go to play.
I was out of the game for a few years, got back in as Rise was new, did a couple drafts/sealed to get my feet wet, and when it came time for Standard, I simply listened to the complaints about Jund and decided... well... looks like I'm building Jund! I never had any delusions that this somehow made me a better player or anything, I was using it to bridge the gap. Then again, I was walking into a field of Nayas, U/W Controls, an appearance of Esper Control, Vamps etc... which are all essentially Netdecks too.
Now I'm working on 3 new decks, and in a way I still consider them net decks since... well.. they're being developed here on the net and a lot of ideas are shared/borrowed, but it's more of a collaboration than simply checking tournament results, seeing that X Deck won this event, or placed top 8 in these events etc.. and building it. Even when I built Jund I put my own flare in it.
Ultimately... I don't care if you're running something completely rogue, or the flavor of the month... my concern is how does MY deck stack up against the Meta. If you're going to netdeck, that simply provides me resources for insight into how to best prepare for you.
One of my favorite decks I've ever built was Ahnk-Tide. It was an obvious combination, as mentioned previously in this thread. The 2 cards screamed out to be put together, behind a bunch of defense to enable it to go off... so I built it... showed up at the next local tourney, picked up the latest Mag to read while waiting for the event to start... and sure enough... there was an article in which about 80% of my deck was sitting.
Sometimes... multiple people have the same good idea at the same time in completely different parts of the country/world.
The Pro's aren't the ONLY ones who saw Sparkmage and Collar and realized how powerful it could be. Anyone with a little insight into deck building and combos saw those 2 cards and immediately wanted to pair them up.
Diz makes a good point about concurrent deck design. Just like with evolution, sometimes, given similar environments and niches things will evolve similarly and the same holds true of deck design. Also most people who saw the combo of Prodigal Pyromancer and Gorgon's Flail in M10 would have seen the same synergy here.
I usually like to puzzle out combos on my own but I'm relatively new to the game so if I find a combo with old cards that I couldn't possibly know about sometimes I'll take the deck and test the idea if I can. Most times I'll take a pro deck or something as a jumping off point even if the only thing I keep from the deck are the ratios.
The only two net decks i used were Standard Dredge, which i pieced together last few weeks for fun and also Turboland, the only reason i used Turboland (which i've already broken down and taken to pieces) was because i tried my homebrew Avenger deck a few months ago (B/R Ramp) and it was not compeditive oustside fun/muliplayer/causal.
Now after many months, almost 1 year, i've got to the level to build my own decks which are actually functional against T2 decks.
My Grixis deck evolved purely from the store and friends. I never once net decked it. Not even for ideas. I built it from playing monoblack, then B/U then B/U/R my own build then listened to peoples advice (why a set of bolts is better than terminate) then i went to post my deck online for critque and it was moved into grixis thread lol. The store experience was a form of net decking, taking advice and asking people for help, i can't however be blamed for it because "I" made it.
I have always found building your own deck helps you see what works and what doesnt, it builds your playing skills and building skills from the ground up. Net decking helps you for inspiration and more often than not to copy paste ideas.
Neither is bad but i know which one is more fun.
The best use netdecking for me has been playing fun decks (i will never copy T1 decks) or finding synergies that you never would have found.
If 100 people conspire to build a house deck and they put the time and energy into making it we salute the effort and they can play that deck without critisism. Net decking is just lazy and easy, its a form of plagarism. But It's also useful. For ideas, help or reading forums to find out what the problems are and what the best decks consist of to try to find outs against them. Net decking is important. I dont usally do it and i dont enjoy the majoirty of people playing net decks but i dont want it to stop. It means i dont have to play against every deck to know what im facing. When my homebrew deck beats a 700-800 dollar tapout deck with a set of Jaces im happy.
Given up magic because a)its a waste of money b)it sucks the joy out of life c)im doing more interesting things than tapping pieces of plastic that have no intrinsic value.
I encourage you to do the same. Instead of FNM try Friday Night Something Spontaneous. Instead of thousands of hours and dollars on plastic imagine it with a significant other or friends sharing something meaningful. I randomly typed a new password, so bon voyage itches i encourage you to follow suit! Cheers
Logic like that made some players complain when I used Doran against them. "Oh, you just changed some cards around." "All I did" was completely change the mana base to abuse Murmering Bosk and Fetchlands, and added Loam Lion, Suffer the Past, Stoneforge, and run Summoning Pact in the SB. Apparently ignoring everyone else, but coming to the same conclusion is still netdecking.
*The next time they say they are innovative, try to entertain the simple fact that they might not be lying. It's Standard, there is only so much room for inovation. They might have just came to the same conclusion that the Pro's did on there own. I do the same thing all the time. Suprisingly enough, that doesn't make me a netdecker. "Cunning Sparkmage and Basilisk Collar works so well together! And I have Stoneforge to search it up!"
**It's too bad that most players don't understand what Netdecking is. Using Card Combination A in deck doesn't make you a Netdecker. You know how many times players have called me a netdecker for using Doran + Treefolk Harbringer? They completely ignore the fact that I use it because it is the most obvious conclusion for a deck based around Doran, and assume that I am "netdecking" because I am making my deck the best I can. If you call me a netdecker, I take it as an insult. I'm sorry that you are bringing Casual.dec to the table, and can't handle that you opponent is using competative strategies. If you want to be competative, you will find that "the best" solutions are a limited bunch.
I am not sure how you got that impression from my post. I said copy/paste not color and combo. If I run a RGB deck people say "Jund" because that is the shard. No problem. If I run the identical deck that showed up at a top 8 or whatever that is what I would call "net decking". If I rub it in your face and act like I am Mr. brilliant strategy guy because cascade is powerful then I see an element of the hubris I mentioned.I also get ideas for decks and combos form the internet that is not what I referred to that is more networking than netdecking IMO.
People who go out of their way to bash net decking, and only build homebrew decks, don't win. Watch a pro tour.
Consider this, all the pro decks had to be built at one time, so building your own deck isn't bad. You might even create a new pro deck. On the other hand I have nothing against net decking.
I don't hate netdecking per se although I do have a bias against it. I will build along ideas or tropes and honestly there are only so many of them out there. However I, like many other posters, get very annoyed when someone copies a deck and acts like they are some great deck inventor. Yes, winning can be a lot of fun but you also should consider how the other player feels. Unless we, as a magic community, are ok with winning no matter the cost then that is something to think about. I am not talking about how you do at a PTQ but rather at an FNM. Does it do good things for the game and for local game stores when the only people not running planeswalker control are the ones who can't afford it?
I do wonder how many people don't netdeck because they can't afford the pieces. For example maybe the reason they go rouge is not out of creativity but rather because $160 playsets of cards is far beyond their price range so they are trying to find a cheaper way to play and still have fun.
Really though the complaint about netdecking I think comes from people misevaluating what type of deck should be played where. Sure you CAN play the latest version of Super friends or some other pricey deck at your local FNM but how many times do players ask themselves if they SHOULD. Do you HAVE to run the latest version of super friends or can you turn it down or try running some new, interesting tech in it? I had a RDW build going for a while at my FNM but after seeing how disgusted my opponents were after playing against it I stopped. Why? Because there was no reason to play a deck that kicked the snot out of them. I had to ask myself not if I can run it but if I really should.
So I try my own "rouge" decks. Rouge in the sense that I will go into the developing standard section of the site and try out some of the weirder builds. Then I will mess with them and see where that goes.
So, in short, sure I can see people wanting to win by any means possible but honestly I'm not sure what that does to their meta. Sure some metas can take that and if it has no detriment all the more power to them. Where i play though people are leaving and the FNM is getting smaller as the "power level" of the decks increases. More and more I am finding myself sitting across from the latest LSV build and wondering if the person running it understands what his/her deck is doing to the meta as a whole. This is something I think that should be considered and taken into account. What netdecking does to the meta, other players and how much fresh blood is in the game.
It's an excellent aide to supplement your own testing and ideas. It gives you a good idea of what to expect from the meta. And it is far too easy to lean on as a substitute for actually doing the work and researching, testing, etc. You can get by on it, if the test isn't too hard. But you're never going to go anywhere big just on what you gained from it.
People assume that the home-brewer is always at a disadvantage to the net-decker. While that may be true most of the time, it is not true all of the time. Where do you think the next big thing always comes from?
Net-decking is a justifiable crutch to use if you lack the time, skill, or desire to develop the next best thing. Even though the decklist is somebody else's, the three points from every match win are still yours.
I've home-brewed and net-decked for the past 16 years. I would much rather play a home-brew than a net-deck, and I do so at a better than 9:1 ratio. I fall back on net-decks only when nothing I've built seems to work in play-testing. It's worked out very well for me.
I've lately talked with some players about card choices for their particular decks, and specifically the idea of "netdecking". I hold strong views about this, and I've found that, for the most part, the term "netdecking" is thrown around as an insult towards players who win with deck archetypes that are known.
There is a term that I've come up with: card-selection entropy. To demonstrate the idea, let's look at two cards. First, Grizzly Bears and Ashcoat Bear. If you *had* to pick one of those two cards for a deck that you were building, which one would you choose? I would hope that most of you would know to choose the Ashcoat Bear. It plainly has more utility value in the game. With a Grizzly, you are forced to play it at sorcery speed, leaving no element of surprise. With the Ashcoat, you can wait until the opponent decides to attack with their creature and pull a surprise block, sometimes even killing their creature and playing yours, giving you card advantage.
Now how about the Ashcoat Bear and Muscle Sliver? This one is trickier. The Muscle Sliver is better, even though the Muscle Sliver is essentially the same card as a Grizzly Bear. Why is this? The answer is deck synergy. The Aschoat Bear doesn't really have any possible synergies with other cards, only some single-card utility. The Muscle Sliver, however, can be put into a deck with other slivers, and suddenly you not only have a "Grizzly Bear", but a "Gaea's Anthem" on a body.
As you look at card choices for decks, over time you will find some cards are simply better than others. They can sometimes be obviously better, because of their mana cost, extra abilities, and so on. Other times it might be a bit more subtle, being better because they hold more synergy with other cards available.
I have a pauper (all common) deck that is based around the card Mystical Teachings. I use Havenwood Wurm as my win condition. Why wouldn't I use Trolls of Tel-Jilad? It costs roughly the same, has the same power and toughness. Sure, it doesn't trample, but it can regenerate. The reason is simple: I can use Teachings to get the Wurm. The card has synergy. Simply by deciding to make the deck abuse how good the card Mystical Teachings is to tutor up whatever instant I need to answer an opponent's threat, my win condition was chosen for me. I would be hard pressed to find a better one.
So that brings us to netdecking. What is netdecking? Some might consider it as looking up a deck on the internet and building it, with some modifications. Others might only consider it as looking it up and copying it, card for card. Would it make a difference if someone told you the list, rather than looking it up on the internet? I had a friend that was trying to make a deck that used Animate Dead to bring fatties from the graveyard into play. I have a good portion of the Magic cards memorized (nearly all of them) and suggested that he used Buried Alive, Exhume, Reya Dawnbringer and so on. And he builds it, nearly the entire list I give him, card for card. Yet this same person will cry "netdecker" at any player using Bloodbraid Elf and Savage Lands in the same deck.
The truth is, I gave him that list of cards because they were some of the most efficient cards, both mechanically and synergistic-ally, for what he was trying to build. I didn't need to look them up, but you can be sure that there are plenty of other people who used those same cards for that same reason: because they belong there. The same goes for the tier 1 decks in any given format, and for tier 2 and tier 3, and so on. Bloodbraid Elf belongs just about any deck running red and green right now. Savage Lands belongs in any deck run the Jund colors. Jace the Mind Sculptor belongs in virtually every deck running blue in Standard, as does Elspeth in white, Vampire Nocturnus and Bloodghast in any vampire deck, Crystalline Sliver in a sliver deck, and so on.
This is card-selection entropy. It doesn't matter what format you play, or what deck you decide to build. There are certain cards that will be staples in that deck, and it doesn't matter if you look to the internet, friends, magazines, and so on, for help or not. They will not change the facts as to what cards are most efficient. A player can simply decide to play the better cards, both mechanically and synergistic-ally, or not. For the most part, people are playing one of two things: a deck that someone else has probably already built (with minor changes), or a pile of random cards, chosen on a whim.
I've lately talked with some players about card choices for their particular decks, and specifically the idea of "netdecking". I hold strong views about this, and I've found that, for the most part, the term "netdecking" is thrown around as an insult towards players who win with deck archetypes that are known.
*SNIP*
This is card-selection entropy. It doesn't matter what format you play, or what deck you decide to build. There are certain cards that will be staples in that deck, and it doesn't matter if you look to the internet, friends, magazines, and so on, for help or not. They will not change the facts as to what cards are most efficient. A player can simply decide to play the better cards, both mechanically and synergistic-ally, or not. For the most part, people are playing one of two things: a deck that someone else has probably already built (with minor changes), or a pile of random cards, chosen on a whim.
Wow, what an amazing post. You really hit the nail on the head with this one! While I do get the majority of my ideas from the 'net, I don't ever copy straight card-for-card what everyone else is playing. I like to change up the deck a bit, adjust it to my playstyle and meta, and then go to town. I was called a "frickin' net-decker" because I played T1 Mountain into Goblin Guide. I'm sorry! Is there a better T1 play for RDW? Am I supposed to play Arid Mesa, crack it for a Mountain, then play Burst Lightning or something?
I have nothing against people that build decks straight off a net-list. Some people, myself included, are great players, theorycrafters, and/or rules gurus, but lack the skills to create a good deck from the ground up. I don't think either type of player is worse than the other, and I honestly fail to see how anyone else would think so. What is wrong with sacrificing a little bit of creativity and originality if you're more likely to win? If you're not going to have fun playing a netdeck, then by all means go rogue! However, why people get so upset that someone is playing a deck that they didn't actually build is beyond me.
I try to build all my decks myself but still be competitive during my local FNM. A bit M11 came out I built a standard discard deck using Burning Inquiry and Liliana 's Caress. It worked pretty well against my friends.
I was ready to take it to a FNM, then wizards decides to post up my decklist on Daily MTG and show it to everybody. When I get there everyone thought I was just another netdecker. Made me mad.
Anyway, I don't mind people who netdeck. I just find it more fun to win with a deck you know you put hard work into building.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If the world was perfect, it wouldn't be.
-Yogi Berra
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So people who play for fun only do so because they are actually bad players ? I hope that's not what you meant.
People play games all the time, and lose without throwing a fit. Games ARE about fun to a lot of them.
I like winning as much as the next guy but I won't buy a Black Lotus, even if I had the money for it, just to win more games against my friends. And Vintage tournaments wouldn't interest me much either.
Regarding netdecking, the only time I used a combo I saw on the net as the main combo of my deck (Quillspike + Devoted Druid), I got bored with the deck after about 2 games. So, yeah, I'd rather make my own stuff, even if it ends up being not very good or original. Of course, I still have a look at comments about the cards. Sometimes I find better cards, or better synergies that way. But I won't copy a whole deck, nor make a deck's mechanic based on that.
http://www.onmyozatheatre.com
BelzDecks: Check out my current decks !
BelzCards: Look at all the neat cards I made up !
Implying that people that play to win throw a fit when they lose.
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
I play to win. In order to win i use the best tools that i have avaliable, that is, among other things decks that i see on the internet. My playgroup, on the other hand uses decks that are pretty much all homebrew. I win more than half of my games against them, and because of this they are reluctant to play with me. So, as someone who does take ideas (i don't copy card-for-card) from the internet i think that playing the best deck against homebrew isn't always the way to go.
However, since i do play higher level decks, my knowlege of the game and deckbuilding has increased, and i am able to build decent decks on my own and pilot them better.
Logic like that made some players complain when I used Doran against them. "Oh, you just changed some cards around." "All I did" was completely change the mana base to abuse Murmering Bosk and Fetchlands, and added Loam Lion, Suffer the Past, Stoneforge, and run Summoning Pact in the SB. Apparently ignoring everyone else, but coming to the same conclusion is still netdecking.
*The next time they say they are innovative, try to entertain the simple fact that they might not be lying. It's Standard, there is only so much room for inovation. They might have just came to the same conclusion that the Pro's did on there own. I do the same thing all the time. Suprisingly enough, that doesn't make me a netdecker. "Cunning Sparkmage and Basilisk Collar works so well together! And I have Stoneforge to search it up!"
**It's too bad that most players don't understand what Netdecking is. Using Card Combination A in deck doesn't make you a Netdecker. You know how many times players have called me a netdecker for using Doran + Treefolk Harbringer? They completely ignore the fact that I use it because it is the most obvious conclusion for a deck based around Doran, and assume that I am "netdecking" because I am making my deck the best I can. If you call me a netdecker, I take it as an insult. I'm sorry that you are bringing Casual.dec to the table, and can't handle that you opponent is using competative strategies. If you want to be competative, you will find that "the best" solutions are a limited bunch.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
QFT, Yamikiri.
Homebrew deckbuilding is great fun, but some of the strict "anti-netdeckers" are so elitist. It's true that most people use the internet to find ideas for good deckbuilding. The word "Netdecking" should be abolished.
:bicycle::bicycle::teamwork::bicycle::bicycle:
Modern:
GRB Jund RGB
Legacy:
B The Gate B
U Mermaids & Ninja Faeries U
Vintage:
BBB Dark Depths featuring Bob and friends BBB
Elder Dragon Highlander:
URR Jhoira of the Eldrazi ApocalypseRUU
Yamikiri - if it's that easy for you to develop pro decks without any outside influence, perhaps you should go... pro? I won't defend someone calling you a netdecker but if you manage to make a deck from scratch that looks exactly like a list your buddy saw online, there should be some kind of word for that since netdecker doesn't seem to fit there.
So true
People act like this debate is a centuries old war and your forced to take a side. Apparently there are the "Heathens" who dare netdeck and the "Saints" who dare to homebrew.
I maybe a Melthos who enjoys the Mechanical and Flavor Spectrums of this game but that doesn't mean I don't want to win at times as well. Nobody likes being the cannon fodder in a FMN tournament.
Does that make me hypocritical on both views of this? Was it so wrong I netdecked RDW around 2007 to try doing better with a deck I could understand well that it may gain me the ire of my peers? Yet I show up the next week with my own "Janky" homebrewed Treefolk deck, should that make me gain some prestigious medal for not netdecking?
This might as well be a gang war between two factions.
IE- Netdeckers are pathetic as they cannot come up with anything themselves. They need someone to win a tournament and establish a deck in order to commit to it.
Or the other direction. Homebrew players are just scrubs or noobs who cannot make good decks and so make accusations after losing to good decks.
The fact is both of the accusations is situationally true. There are homebrew guys who get angry because they lose to tournament decks and there are netdeckers who heavily peruse online discussion as a crutch because they want to win more and they cannot do it on their own.
My first experience with a netdecker was awhile back during Odyssey and Torment where a younger player who had played poorly made decks for awhile one day came in with strong tier 1 deck. It didn't crush my homemade deck but was definitely more efficient and faster so I was winning a third of the time. This whole argument comes up from the annoyance of those situations.
Anyway, I care much less now. Personally I never netdeck because I want my decks to be as completely my own creation as possible. That does not mean I expect to win tournaments because I also avoid top tier cards. I like to pull as much as possible out of lower tier cards as possible. Trying to break ooze garden is much more enjoyable than trying to break baneslayer. That does not mean I expect someone playing a tournament level white deck to avoid baneslayer or other well known tricks.
The real problem is the people who want to have their cake and eat it too. Homebrew is riskier. Homebrewers should understand that they are lowering their chances of winning by refusing what is basically free playtesting knowledge. You aren't going to win as often with the same ammount of effort. So suck it up and don't be a sore loser.
Netdeckers are taking a shortcut. You aren't putting the same level of effort in to obtain your finished product. In many cases, you are taking a 90-95% finished concept and just rearranging the pillows on the couch. You are going to get less credit for the deck, so you are just going to have to be ok with that.
Fact is none of these things accurately determine how good of a player you are. Netdeckers could be good players or could be ok players with good decks. Homebrewers could be handicapping themselves or they could just be bad.
Moral of the story. Value judgments are pointless. Don't troll. We are all playing a child's card game which automatically makes us less cool.
Why should that matter? It's your deck thatyou made! Who cares if some opponent accuses you of something that isn't even a bad thing if used properly?
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
Quite simply, I don't have a group of people to build and test with where I currently live like I did before, outside of the FNM competition who I'd honestly rather not know the intimate workings of every deck I go to play.
I was out of the game for a few years, got back in as Rise was new, did a couple drafts/sealed to get my feet wet, and when it came time for Standard, I simply listened to the complaints about Jund and decided... well... looks like I'm building Jund! I never had any delusions that this somehow made me a better player or anything, I was using it to bridge the gap. Then again, I was walking into a field of Nayas, U/W Controls, an appearance of Esper Control, Vamps etc... which are all essentially Netdecks too.
Now I'm working on 3 new decks, and in a way I still consider them net decks since... well.. they're being developed here on the net and a lot of ideas are shared/borrowed, but it's more of a collaboration than simply checking tournament results, seeing that X Deck won this event, or placed top 8 in these events etc.. and building it. Even when I built Jund I put my own flare in it.
Ultimately... I don't care if you're running something completely rogue, or the flavor of the month... my concern is how does MY deck stack up against the Meta. If you're going to netdeck, that simply provides me resources for insight into how to best prepare for you.
One of my favorite decks I've ever built was Ahnk-Tide. It was an obvious combination, as mentioned previously in this thread. The 2 cards screamed out to be put together, behind a bunch of defense to enable it to go off... so I built it... showed up at the next local tourney, picked up the latest Mag to read while waiting for the event to start... and sure enough... there was an article in which about 80% of my deck was sitting.
Sometimes... multiple people have the same good idea at the same time in completely different parts of the country/world.
The Pro's aren't the ONLY ones who saw Sparkmage and Collar and realized how powerful it could be. Anyone with a little insight into deck building and combos saw those 2 cards and immediately wanted to pair them up.
I usually like to puzzle out combos on my own but I'm relatively new to the game so if I find a combo with old cards that I couldn't possibly know about sometimes I'll take the deck and test the idea if I can. Most times I'll take a pro deck or something as a jumping off point even if the only thing I keep from the deck are the ratios.
You can check out my artwork here and here
The only two net decks i used were Standard Dredge, which i pieced together last few weeks for fun and also Turboland, the only reason i used Turboland (which i've already broken down and taken to pieces) was because i tried my homebrew Avenger deck a few months ago (B/R Ramp) and it was not compeditive oustside fun/muliplayer/causal.
Now after many months, almost 1 year, i've got to the level to build my own decks which are actually functional against T2 decks.
My Grixis deck evolved purely from the store and friends. I never once net decked it. Not even for ideas. I built it from playing monoblack, then B/U then B/U/R my own build then listened to peoples advice (why a set of bolts is better than terminate) then i went to post my deck online for critque and it was moved into grixis thread lol. The store experience was a form of net decking, taking advice and asking people for help, i can't however be blamed for it because "I" made it.
I have always found building your own deck helps you see what works and what doesnt, it builds your playing skills and building skills from the ground up. Net decking helps you for inspiration and more often than not to copy paste ideas.
Neither is bad but i know which one is more fun.
The best use netdecking for me has been playing fun decks (i will never copy T1 decks) or finding synergies that you never would have found.
If 100 people conspire to build a house deck and they put the time and energy into making it we salute the effort and they can play that deck without critisism. Net decking is just lazy and easy, its a form of plagarism. But It's also useful. For ideas, help or reading forums to find out what the problems are and what the best decks consist of to try to find outs against them. Net decking is important. I dont usally do it and i dont enjoy the majoirty of people playing net decks but i dont want it to stop. It means i dont have to play against every deck to know what im facing. When my homebrew deck beats a 700-800 dollar tapout deck with a set of Jaces im happy.
I encourage you to do the same. Instead of FNM try Friday Night Something Spontaneous. Instead of thousands of hours and dollars on plastic imagine it with a significant other or friends sharing something meaningful. I randomly typed a new password, so bon voyage itches i encourage you to follow suit! Cheers
I am not sure how you got that impression from my post. I said copy/paste not color and combo. If I run a RGB deck people say "Jund" because that is the shard. No problem. If I run the identical deck that showed up at a top 8 or whatever that is what I would call "net decking". If I rub it in your face and act like I am Mr. brilliant strategy guy because cascade is powerful then I see an element of the hubris I mentioned.I also get ideas for decks and combos form the internet that is not what I referred to that is more networking than netdecking IMO.
Consider this, all the pro decks had to be built at one time, so building your own deck isn't bad. You might even create a new pro deck. On the other hand I have nothing against net decking.
GGGOmnath, Locus of ManaGGG
Standard
RMyrboltR
I do wonder how many people don't netdeck because they can't afford the pieces. For example maybe the reason they go rouge is not out of creativity but rather because $160 playsets of cards is far beyond their price range so they are trying to find a cheaper way to play and still have fun.
Really though the complaint about netdecking I think comes from people misevaluating what type of deck should be played where. Sure you CAN play the latest version of Super friends or some other pricey deck at your local FNM but how many times do players ask themselves if they SHOULD. Do you HAVE to run the latest version of super friends or can you turn it down or try running some new, interesting tech in it? I had a RDW build going for a while at my FNM but after seeing how disgusted my opponents were after playing against it I stopped. Why? Because there was no reason to play a deck that kicked the snot out of them. I had to ask myself not if I can run it but if I really should.
So I try my own "rouge" decks. Rouge in the sense that I will go into the developing standard section of the site and try out some of the weirder builds. Then I will mess with them and see where that goes.
So, in short, sure I can see people wanting to win by any means possible but honestly I'm not sure what that does to their meta. Sure some metas can take that and if it has no detriment all the more power to them. Where i play though people are leaving and the FNM is getting smaller as the "power level" of the decks increases. More and more I am finding myself sitting across from the latest LSV build and wondering if the person running it understands what his/her deck is doing to the meta as a whole. This is something I think that should be considered and taken into account. What netdecking does to the meta, other players and how much fresh blood is in the game.
Sure, if winning is all that matters to you.
Signature courtesy of Rivenor and Miraculous Recovery
EDH Altered Cards by Galspanic (Seriously, this guy's awesome.)
My Pauper Cube
Tapped-Out Simulator
My Trade Thread
-Decks-
Commander:
GWR Rith, the Awakener RWG
U Kami of the Crescent Moon U (Flagship Deck)
BW Teysa, Orzhov Scion WB
Under Construction:
UBR Crosis, the Purger RBU
Cube:
WUBRGX Pauper XGRBUW
It's an excellent aide to supplement your own testing and ideas. It gives you a good idea of what to expect from the meta. And it is far too easy to lean on as a substitute for actually doing the work and researching, testing, etc. You can get by on it, if the test isn't too hard. But you're never going to go anywhere big just on what you gained from it.
I use it for skeletons. I have never copied a deck list with out changing ~8-12 cards in it. I just feel like scum for netdecking.
[Mafia Stats] Mafia MVP: 1/3 Basic #29,Co-[CCMV]
Net-decking is a justifiable crutch to use if you lack the time, skill, or desire to develop the next best thing. Even though the decklist is somebody else's, the three points from every match win are still yours.
I've home-brewed and net-decked for the past 16 years. I would much rather play a home-brew than a net-deck, and I do so at a better than 9:1 ratio. I fall back on net-decks only when nothing I've built seems to work in play-testing. It's worked out very well for me.
There is a term that I've come up with: card-selection entropy. To demonstrate the idea, let's look at two cards. First, Grizzly Bears and Ashcoat Bear. If you *had* to pick one of those two cards for a deck that you were building, which one would you choose? I would hope that most of you would know to choose the Ashcoat Bear. It plainly has more utility value in the game. With a Grizzly, you are forced to play it at sorcery speed, leaving no element of surprise. With the Ashcoat, you can wait until the opponent decides to attack with their creature and pull a surprise block, sometimes even killing their creature and playing yours, giving you card advantage.
Now how about the Ashcoat Bear and Muscle Sliver? This one is trickier. The Muscle Sliver is better, even though the Muscle Sliver is essentially the same card as a Grizzly Bear. Why is this? The answer is deck synergy. The Aschoat Bear doesn't really have any possible synergies with other cards, only some single-card utility. The Muscle Sliver, however, can be put into a deck with other slivers, and suddenly you not only have a "Grizzly Bear", but a "Gaea's Anthem" on a body.
As you look at card choices for decks, over time you will find some cards are simply better than others. They can sometimes be obviously better, because of their mana cost, extra abilities, and so on. Other times it might be a bit more subtle, being better because they hold more synergy with other cards available.
I have a pauper (all common) deck that is based around the card Mystical Teachings. I use Havenwood Wurm as my win condition. Why wouldn't I use Trolls of Tel-Jilad? It costs roughly the same, has the same power and toughness. Sure, it doesn't trample, but it can regenerate. The reason is simple: I can use Teachings to get the Wurm. The card has synergy. Simply by deciding to make the deck abuse how good the card Mystical Teachings is to tutor up whatever instant I need to answer an opponent's threat, my win condition was chosen for me. I would be hard pressed to find a better one.
So that brings us to netdecking. What is netdecking? Some might consider it as looking up a deck on the internet and building it, with some modifications. Others might only consider it as looking it up and copying it, card for card. Would it make a difference if someone told you the list, rather than looking it up on the internet? I had a friend that was trying to make a deck that used Animate Dead to bring fatties from the graveyard into play. I have a good portion of the Magic cards memorized (nearly all of them) and suggested that he used Buried Alive, Exhume, Reya Dawnbringer and so on. And he builds it, nearly the entire list I give him, card for card. Yet this same person will cry "netdecker" at any player using Bloodbraid Elf and Savage Lands in the same deck.
The truth is, I gave him that list of cards because they were some of the most efficient cards, both mechanically and synergistic-ally, for what he was trying to build. I didn't need to look them up, but you can be sure that there are plenty of other people who used those same cards for that same reason: because they belong there. The same goes for the tier 1 decks in any given format, and for tier 2 and tier 3, and so on. Bloodbraid Elf belongs just about any deck running red and green right now. Savage Lands belongs in any deck run the Jund colors. Jace the Mind Sculptor belongs in virtually every deck running blue in Standard, as does Elspeth in white, Vampire Nocturnus and Bloodghast in any vampire deck, Crystalline Sliver in a sliver deck, and so on.
This is card-selection entropy. It doesn't matter what format you play, or what deck you decide to build. There are certain cards that will be staples in that deck, and it doesn't matter if you look to the internet, friends, magazines, and so on, for help or not. They will not change the facts as to what cards are most efficient. A player can simply decide to play the better cards, both mechanically and synergistic-ally, or not. For the most part, people are playing one of two things: a deck that someone else has probably already built (with minor changes), or a pile of random cards, chosen on a whim.
Or, simply put, don't be a scrub.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Wow, what an amazing post. You really hit the nail on the head with this one! While I do get the majority of my ideas from the 'net, I don't ever copy straight card-for-card what everyone else is playing. I like to change up the deck a bit, adjust it to my playstyle and meta, and then go to town. I was called a "frickin' net-decker" because I played T1 Mountain into Goblin Guide. I'm sorry! Is there a better T1 play for RDW? Am I supposed to play Arid Mesa, crack it for a Mountain, then play Burst Lightning or something?
I have nothing against people that build decks straight off a net-list. Some people, myself included, are great players, theorycrafters, and/or rules gurus, but lack the skills to create a good deck from the ground up. I don't think either type of player is worse than the other, and I honestly fail to see how anyone else would think so. What is wrong with sacrificing a little bit of creativity and originality if you're more likely to win? If you're not going to have fun playing a netdeck, then by all means go rogue! However, why people get so upset that someone is playing a deck that they didn't actually build is beyond me.
Modern: Burn
Legacy: Burn
Casual: Treefolk Tribal
Commander: Mishra, Artificer Prodigy
I try to build all my decks myself but still be competitive during my local FNM. A bit M11 came out I built a standard discard deck using Burning Inquiry and Liliana 's Caress. It worked pretty well against my friends.
I was ready to take it to a FNM, then wizards decides to post up my decklist on Daily MTG and show it to everybody. When I get there everyone thought I was just another netdecker. Made me mad.
Anyway, I don't mind people who netdeck. I just find it more fun to win with a deck you know you put hard work into building.
-Yogi Berra