As for someone like me, an adult player who just got into magic in the past 8ish months, net-decking certainly has its place. Without internet searching, it would be a very time consuming and frustrating (not to mention expensive) process to learn about and get the cards I want. I play with a group who has been playing since their youth, and has decades of experience above me.
I LOVE making my own decks, but I find that the biggest limiting factor is my lack of knowledge that certain cards actually even exist. Looking at decks on line gives me invaluable knowledge of certain cards as well as how they actually work. I have no collection of cards to just pull from to make decks, and to ask me to be a hard-core home brewer without taking some ideas offline to know what cards to buy is a financial and time consuming investment that I'm not willing to make. To classify as either a net-deck or home-brewed is an outdated black a white argument. There is some middle ground here, and I think I'm standing right on it.
I personally prefer to build my own decks - and see what things I can pull off on my own, but if there is a deck that exists that works, you bet I'd netdeck and build it to try it out, play with it for a bit.
Though I like going up against experimental decks, and other self-built decks, I don't hold it against anyone who net decks either.
I say this as someone really new to the game, but:
Personally, I find building my own stuff more fun. Whether it wins or not I don't mind, at least not now (I just care I have fun, really lol) and I don't really want to spend the money some pre-designed decks in lists cost. I'm happier with my sub-par creations and derpy games.
Besides, I find doing things for myself helps me learn more about (well, anything). So, maybe one day, I'll learn from enough mistakes and be able to create good decks that fit how I like to play.
It's usually a mix of both. I first pick the deck's engine, add the cards I feel fit best, then browse the web for similar decks, because normally, I'm not the first person to have a deck idea. Those lists, together with my insights from playtesting, help me to tune the deck to my needs.
I like doing both my netdecks I edit heavily and my new decks look very much like other decks with similar strategies. So what I am trying to say is that I don netdeck but take pride in making my own decisions and changing stuff around as I get satisfaction from my own creations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: RUGScapeshift[RUG...Occasionally with goyfs RUGTarmotwinRUG(RIP)
Legacy: UWxuwr miracles and stonebladeUWx
Commander: UWRShu Yun/Ruhan SmashUWR
At what point does someone's original creation become a netdeck if they borrow a few cards from some other deck?
And visa versa, at what point does someone's netdeck become their own creation if they add a few cards?
Do they need to be 80% original/borrowed to be declard as such? 90%? Can there be a definitive percent? Doesn't it depend on the deck? On the meta? It might even depend on the person and their ability to be creative. For some it comes easier than others.
I love brewing and being creative with deckbuilding, but if I see people (esp. who aren't inclined this way at all) find a one or two card swap in a netdeck and it really helps them out, then I'm usually still fairly impressed. Maybe I'm not as impressed as much as by some totally unique brew (as this is still subjective), but still impressed regardless
There are varying levels of creativity, and all of them should be honored if you really prize that sort of thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Until you have lived as a statue, do not talk to me of pigeons."
—Karn, silver golem
Low/no tier pride is a pretty ridiculous way to think.
If you beat someone using a popular/good deck with a "unique" deck, you get a false sense of accomplishment that you're better than them.
If someone beats your "unique" deck with a popular/good deck then they only beat you because they're using a known powerful strategy.
People desire this sense of security that either way they have a moral victory.
Play whatever you like, screw what someone else thinks about it.
Finding creative ways to win can be an enjoyable challenge in itself, much like a puzzle or a painting. It doesn't have to be about trying to prove you're better than anyone else. Maybe some people just like to solve problems and/or express themselves. Oftentimes, these kinds of people appreciate when others express themselves, too, even to their own win/loss detriment. People value different things.
(I suggest anyone who doesn't understand playing games creatively to pick up The Glass Bead Game, by Herman Hesse.)
Besides, plenty of people netdeck out of insecurity as well. You can't just hold it against people who get pissy about being a unique snowflake. Hearing people complain about how their deck is so good that they only loose because of bad luck and mana-screw is just as prideful as anything.
Pride is so often masked insecurity, regardless of the parties involved.
And yes, ultimately, "play whatever [deck] you like". That doesn't mean you can't consider other peoples' opinions; you just shouldn't let them dictate your own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Until you have lived as a statue, do not talk to me of pigeons."
—Karn, silver golem
I use (almost exclusively) weird home-brews/unusual variants for standard play. For me, deckbuilding is MTG, and therefore netdecking takes more than half the fun out of the game.
Making your own decks fosters an innate sense of what is and isn't good in the meta. You play against the same decks a lot and evolve interesting ways to beat them. Occasionally you completely smash an FNM with something weird that only wins BECAUSE lots of people net deck.
It doesn't take a ton of creativity or math skills or anything, just pay attention to what others are playing and build accordingly.
I used to be hyper-competitive and buy/trade for all the best cards and yes, I did win more often, but...
A) I spent WAY too much money
B) The games themselves became very boring, very fast
C) If I didn't win, I felt cheated because the stakes were so high
It all comes down to the three psychological profiles:
- Timmies want to experience the game
- Johnnies want to express themselves
- Spikes want to prove they can win
Finding creative ways to win can be an enjoyable challenge in itself, much like a puzzle or a painting. It doesn't have to be about trying to prove you're better than anyone else. Maybe some people just like to solve problems and/or express themselves. Oftentimes, these kinds of people appreciate when others express themselves, too, even to their own win/loss detriment. People value different things.
(I suggest anyone who doesn't understand playing games creatively to pick up The Glass Bead Game, by Herman Hesse.)
Besides, plenty of people netdeck out of insecurity as well. You can't just hold it against people who get pissy about being a unique snowflake. Hearing people complain about how their deck is so good that they only loose because of bad luck and mana-screw is just as prideful as anything.
Pride is so often masked insecurity, regardless of the parties involved.
And yes, ultimately, "play whatever [deck] you like". That doesn't mean you can't consider other peoples' opinions; you just shouldn't let them dictate your own.
I very much appreciate you presenting a reasonable alternative opinion to my own.
I was conveying the typical attitude I see, certainly not suggesting anyone who likes to make their own decks acts that way.
The main thing that irritates me is how easily some players disregard the actual playing of the game, and the sequences of plays/activations/interactions you have to make correctly for a deck/strategy to be effective.
I don't understand the rationale that using a popular card somehow makes you "worse" as a player or person. I just wish people would stop judging/belittling each other and just let people play the game how they want.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard:
Bident Layers B Devotion RG Devotion UW Control Modern:
Jund
UW Control
Combo Pod Legacy: DeathBlade RUG Delver BUG Control
It's nearly impossible to be competitive and not netdeck, since the best decks will generally be netdecks. A lot of the lists have been tuned to near-perfection, with only a few flex slots, and only a few viable cards that can fit into those slots. Unless you're a true innovator and found something new that will push the metagame (spoiler: not happening), your "original" ideas are likely awful and probably an inferior version of preexisting archetypes.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone feeling a sense of accomplishment when a deck they conceived without outside influence is able to hold up against the best, and if that makes up for having a worse win record because you play subpar decks, then go for it. Personally, I can sympathize - I think it's boring when people simply copy+paste decks, I think it's neat when people try new things / things they like even though they may not be competitive, and tuning for the meta is my least favorite part about deck selection/building.
You played JESUS?!?! I heard none of his guys stay in the graveyard, and once you think you have him beat he ALWAYS comes back to win within three turns. I like...WORSHIP him.
I like to do both, find an archetype I like, take the skeleton of it and alter it to either fit the cards I have or turn it into a different flavor of that archetype (usually Tribal. God I love Tribal).
Both are valid, play how ya wanna play. Its a game after all, fun is the primary goal. :-P
S'always fun to occasionally netdeck a powerful deck and just run something that feels mechanically tuned, also fun to brew up some hot steamin' jank to just have sweet interactions happen.
Thats whats so great about Magic, so many ways to play and enjoy. :-D
When you think about it, in Standard, there's only so many interactions that can happen between cards. Allied color decks are, for the most part, easy to handle because of obvious interactions between the colors, but with enemy colors you tend to have to work a bit harder to figure out which facets of the colors you want to have the biggest impact on your deck. Three color decks tend to be played by the most hardcore and wealthy people, as you have to really trim the fat to make them work.
I prefer to netdeck. It's just easier to look up what cards to use and to assemble the deck.
Net decking is lame and shows you have no casual side or creative side. I have major issues with people net decking that dont even play tournaments. wtf is the point?
One of the things I really like about MTGS is that the primers explain card choices and the interaction of cards in decks, as well as strategies for playing those decks. The threads then go on to discuss additions, substitutions, and replacements. If you follow the thread, you can develop an understanding for how the deck works. You can learn not just what cards go in that deck, but why those cards are used and how to make best use of them.
To me the difference between simply netdecking and using an established decklist or deck type skillfully comes down to that: Knowing the deck you're playing. I've seen a number of players at tournaments fail miserably with the top PTQ decks and I've seen players in the finals at PTQs with the craziest Rogue constructions.
High-level play is won on the back of good playing, not just good cards. There's nothing wrong with building off the ideas of others or using someone else's deck as long as you take the time to playtest and learn the ins and outs of the deck you're playing. I have a special fondness for rogue decks personally, but I don't harbor any grudges against people using decks developed by other people; unless they threw down money for cards they never learned how to play ... **** those people. They discourage new players while giving no contribution to the community. They don't even place well and are usually unsportsmanlike in defeat and treat judges and other players with hostility.
...says the former Level 1 Judge...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Modern has provided us a non-rotating format that is far more accessible than Legacy or Vintage, but still retains many of the qualities that people enjoy in those formats—such as a more stable metagame, the ability to play and tweak the same deck week after week, and simply a much more powerful card pool than Standard.”
- Sam Stoddard, “Developing Modern” (June 21, 2013) (by means of Sheridan Lardner, "Fixing Modern: Defining Format Mission (March 16, 2016))
The point is to win, and have fun doing it. I've heard the complaint about "netdecking" from people who say that it makes it so that it's not fun any more, and that true fun is in just playing the game for social reasons. While yes, I do enjoy the social aspect of the game, if those same people aren't playing to win, then how can they be so sore about losing?
The truth is that one of us is not better than all of us. The person who says that they are going to come up with some great deck to win all on their own is delusional, as the deck most likely already exists, and has most likely already been playtested extensively (or is being playtested extensively), and there is data or data is being compiled by those who are willing to work with others to make the deck better. Essentially, a person who cries netdecker is someone with illusions of grandeur who, when their pet deck can't win, they try to win with their self-righteousness based on an objective moral standard specifically constructed to make themselves look grand. "I can't beat you, but I'm better than you, because I'm me."
I should not be looked down on or thought less of because of how I enjoy the game, the same way people who enjoy the game a different way than mine should not be looked down on... because you are providing the prize support! Thank you!
I choose to netdeck and I play strictly to win. I have nothing to express. I am not creative. I am not looking to problem solve or do math or pull off interesting combinations. I crush.
My way is as much better than your way as yours is better than mine.
Edit - I would like to add that my friends Pat Chapin, Owen Tutenwald, LSV, and Martin Juza spend a lot of time play testing and analyzing cards and matchups. For them it is more than a hobby. I don't have that kind of time and honestly it would take me twice as long to figure out the things they come up with.
So I trust their research, and when they indirectly suggest to me what they think the best deck is I'd be crazy and arrogant not to listen. Sure, maybe I take their list and change a few cards to my liking. But am I going to spend the next 3 weeks blindly playtesting so I can come to the same conclusion?
That would be a very hyperbole way of looking at it, acid flashback.
I'll use myself as an example. I used to be an angry person, calling people who played decks that I'd seen before "netdeckers". In hindsight I realize that I was just angry because I was losing. I had an inflated sense of my own ability to come up with an entirely original deck that would just win. After playing a few years, I'd realize that one of two things would happen. Either one, my deck wouldn't work, and I'd have to admit to myself that it was just bad, or two, I'd find that someone else (usually a lot of other people) had already done what I was trying, and had done it better.
I realized that any random decently intelligent person could learn from their own mistakes in deck design and play, but the best designers and players learned from the mistakes and experiences of others. Where ignorance is the lack of knowledge, and isn't a bad thing, stupidity is the rejection of knowledge - Especially for the sake of an inflated self-esteem.
That doesn't mean that I don't still try to come up with some new design, or a redesign of an existing deck. Hell, I just took 10th at States this past weekend with my rogue version of a rogue deck, beating Blue Moon, RDW, and Affinity with ease (and I could have beat Pod and UR Tempo if I didn't make silly play mistakes). But I designed it the way I did thanks to what I've learned from other people. If I refused to learn from others then I would have likely showed up and payed my fee just to feel sorry for myself and excuse my refusal to learn from others to save my ego. But that wouldn't have made me a better player, or even a fun person to play with.
So people can name-call and use hyperbole all they want, but it won't make them win games in the end. It won't make people enjoy playing them. It won't make their community a fun one to play in, and it won't make them develop as a deck builder or player. All it serves to do is pad their ego.
I like deck building and I like winning with decks I have built.
but sometimes the format just doesn't let your brews stand a chance and you give up.
I have given up on brewing for standard. I had my brew I played it for years but its just aweful. I played it to the best it could be played and it was average. no one else could play the deck and knew the deck as well I do. I know its every piece and why its there and what it does and how to sideboard but all of that is meaningless when I just didn't have the power or synergy of the other decks in the format with giant weaknesses that simply didn't have answer to.
And so tomorrow I am playing a known deck.. I have given it my own spin.. which probably makes it worse.. but it was building the deck wwhen you have a week to get the missing pieces so I made do with what I had.
My problem is that decks are really expensive outside of standard. If I need to spend or trade 400+ dollars of value, I want something that is proven to win.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy
Death and Taxes Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
It is all about understanding the paradigm of rotations impact in the meta of the various formats.
First understand: Netdecking is a direct consequence of the logarithmic growth of competitive builds for any given constructed format of magic the gathering. The variables here are simple: time (where the format remains unchanged) and amount of cards in the given format (one could also say "how popular the format is", but lets assume we are talking about these four well known formats: Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage).
On Standard: standard is now going to rotate faster then before. This means that per rotation the dust of deck building will take longer time to settle, in relation to the time where it has pretty much settled. I know many do not like the new rotation model but the fact is this will value creativity and rogue deck building. However, there will always be results from the first tournaments that will significantly shape the remainder of each rotation via netdecking.
On Modern, Legacy and Vintage: these formats may get up to few playable cards in (minus bans) every new edition, but they host much larger sets of cards. This makes it so that the logarithmic curve of competitive playlists growth should theoretically take much longer to settle. Few new cards (like Dig through Time) may shake these formats a bit, but overall the dust will be more and more settled. The only way I can think of to fight this is by increasing the power level of cards (which seems to have been happening slowly over time). An interesting note is that in these eternal formats, the more cards the format contains, the less shaken it will be by new cards (because any so significant cards that would shake it too much would probably be too good for it).
My suggestions:
- If you would like to just compete, netdeck and adapt it to your meta. Become good at reading what other players are playing, what are the trends of tuning and play play play.
- If you would like to build decks yourself (without even inspiration from online lists) and have a fair chance at winning, play Limited (Drafts, Sealeds, Cubes, etc). Not sure about commander (never played it) but I could assume commander will be MUCH better for creative thinking given the 1-of limit.
- If you would like to build decks yourself and don't really care about winning, that's a very healthy thing to do but be ready to be rekt again and again by lists that have been built by highly experienced deck builders, tuned in the hands of masters across a span of big tournaments, and approved by whole communities.
Last note: I am, and I believe many players are or want to be, all of those three points, no matter how contradictory they may seem. The trick is to diversify. Play 1 or 2 constructed formats, play limited drafts and go to pre-releases, play casual with friends. In fact, it is my belief that "just with netdecking", you will take forever to become an actual better player.
Have fun!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
nonsense is the essence of existence
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I LOVE making my own decks, but I find that the biggest limiting factor is my lack of knowledge that certain cards actually even exist. Looking at decks on line gives me invaluable knowledge of certain cards as well as how they actually work. I have no collection of cards to just pull from to make decks, and to ask me to be a hard-core home brewer without taking some ideas offline to know what cards to buy is a financial and time consuming investment that I'm not willing to make. To classify as either a net-deck or home-brewed is an outdated black a white argument. There is some middle ground here, and I think I'm standing right on it.
UWRMiraclesRWU
Modern
UWRControlRWU
Standard
Ummm no...
Trade Thread
Though I like going up against experimental decks, and other self-built decks, I don't hold it against anyone who net decks either.
Personally, I find building my own stuff more fun. Whether it wins or not I don't mind, at least not now (I just care I have fun, really lol) and I don't really want to spend the money some pre-designed decks in lists cost. I'm happier with my sub-par creations and derpy games.
Besides, I find doing things for myself helps me learn more about (well, anything). So, maybe one day, I'll learn from enough mistakes and be able to create good decks that fit how I like to play.
To each their own, though.
L1 Judge
Modern:
RUGScapeshift[RUG...Occasionally with goyfs
RUGTarmotwinRUG(RIP)
Legacy:
UWxuwr miracles and stonebladeUWx
Commander:
UWRShu Yun/Ruhan SmashUWR
The guy who netdecked UB Faeries and took it to one of our casual get togethers was kind of a dick tho.
For reference, everyone else was running splashy Vorthos/Johnny decks.
Art is life itself.
netdecking 4 lyfe
At what point does someone's original creation become a netdeck if they borrow a few cards from some other deck?
And visa versa, at what point does someone's netdeck become their own creation if they add a few cards?
Do they need to be 80% original/borrowed to be declard as such? 90%? Can there be a definitive percent? Doesn't it depend on the deck? On the meta? It might even depend on the person and their ability to be creative. For some it comes easier than others.
I love brewing and being creative with deckbuilding, but if I see people (esp. who aren't inclined this way at all) find a one or two card swap in a netdeck and it really helps them out, then I'm usually still fairly impressed. Maybe I'm not as impressed as much as by some totally unique brew (as this is still subjective), but still impressed regardless
There are varying levels of creativity, and all of them should be honored if you really prize that sort of thing.
—Karn, silver golem
If you beat someone using a popular/good deck with a "unique" deck, you get a false sense of accomplishment that you're better than them.
If someone beats your "unique" deck with a popular/good deck then they only beat you because they're using a known powerful strategy.
People desire this sense of security that either way they have a moral victory.
Play whatever you like, screw what someone else thinks about it.
Bident Layers
B Devotion
RG Devotion
UW Control
Modern:
Jund
UW Control
Combo Pod
Legacy:
DeathBlade
RUG Delver
BUG Control
Standard
UR Control
Modern
Merfolk
Burn
Avacyn did nothing wrong!
Purify Innistrad!
#Purge
Finding creative ways to win can be an enjoyable challenge in itself, much like a puzzle or a painting. It doesn't have to be about trying to prove you're better than anyone else. Maybe some people just like to solve problems and/or express themselves. Oftentimes, these kinds of people appreciate when others express themselves, too, even to their own win/loss detriment. People value different things.
(I suggest anyone who doesn't understand playing games creatively to pick up The Glass Bead Game, by Herman Hesse.)
Besides, plenty of people netdeck out of insecurity as well. You can't just hold it against people who get pissy about being a unique snowflake. Hearing people complain about how their deck is so good that they only loose because of bad luck and mana-screw is just as prideful as anything.
Pride is so often masked insecurity, regardless of the parties involved.
And yes, ultimately, "play whatever [deck] you like". That doesn't mean you can't consider other peoples' opinions; you just shouldn't let them dictate your own.
—Karn, silver golem
Making your own decks fosters an innate sense of what is and isn't good in the meta. You play against the same decks a lot and evolve interesting ways to beat them. Occasionally you completely smash an FNM with something weird that only wins BECAUSE lots of people net deck.
It doesn't take a ton of creativity or math skills or anything, just pay attention to what others are playing and build accordingly.
I used to be hyper-competitive and buy/trade for all the best cards and yes, I did win more often, but...
A) I spent WAY too much money
B) The games themselves became very boring, very fast
C) If I didn't win, I felt cheated because the stakes were so high
It all comes down to the three psychological profiles:
- Timmies want to experience the game
- Johnnies want to express themselves
- Spikes want to prove they can win
I very much appreciate you presenting a reasonable alternative opinion to my own.
I was conveying the typical attitude I see, certainly not suggesting anyone who likes to make their own decks acts that way.
The main thing that irritates me is how easily some players disregard the actual playing of the game, and the sequences of plays/activations/interactions you have to make correctly for a deck/strategy to be effective.
I don't understand the rationale that using a popular card somehow makes you "worse" as a player or person. I just wish people would stop judging/belittling each other and just let people play the game how they want.
Bident Layers
B Devotion
RG Devotion
UW Control
Modern:
Jund
UW Control
Combo Pod
Legacy:
DeathBlade
RUG Delver
BUG Control
It's nearly impossible to be competitive and not netdeck, since the best decks will generally be netdecks. A lot of the lists have been tuned to near-perfection, with only a few flex slots, and only a few viable cards that can fit into those slots. Unless you're a true innovator and found something new that will push the metagame (spoiler: not happening), your "original" ideas are likely awful and probably an inferior version of preexisting archetypes.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone feeling a sense of accomplishment when a deck they conceived without outside influence is able to hold up against the best, and if that makes up for having a worse win record because you play subpar decks, then go for it. Personally, I can sympathize - I think it's boring when people simply copy+paste decks, I think it's neat when people try new things / things they like even though they may not be competitive, and tuning for the meta is my least favorite part about deck selection/building.
btw, I thought this was a decent recent article by Conley Woods on deck selection.
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=11058
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
So, +1 for brewing deck.
Although, looking at least to fetch ideas is perfectly fine. Even science projects have references
My 180 Modern Bordered Only Cube
Both are valid, play how ya wanna play. Its a game after all, fun is the primary goal. :-P
S'always fun to occasionally netdeck a powerful deck and just run something that feels mechanically tuned, also fun to brew up some hot steamin' jank to just have sweet interactions happen.
Thats whats so great about Magic, so many ways to play and enjoy. :-D
I prefer to netdeck. It's just easier to look up what cards to use and to assemble the deck.
To me the difference between simply netdecking and using an established decklist or deck type skillfully comes down to that: Knowing the deck you're playing. I've seen a number of players at tournaments fail miserably with the top PTQ decks and I've seen players in the finals at PTQs with the craziest Rogue constructions.
High-level play is won on the back of good playing, not just good cards. There's nothing wrong with building off the ideas of others or using someone else's deck as long as you take the time to playtest and learn the ins and outs of the deck you're playing. I have a special fondness for rogue decks personally, but I don't harbor any grudges against people using decks developed by other people; unless they threw down money for cards they never learned how to play ... **** those people. They discourage new players while giving no contribution to the community. They don't even place well and are usually unsportsmanlike in defeat and treat judges and other players with hostility.
...says the former Level 1 Judge...
- Sam Stoddard, “Developing Modern” (June 21, 2013) (by means of Sheridan Lardner, "Fixing Modern: Defining Format Mission (March 16, 2016))
How to Use Spoiler Tags
Starting Over: The Origins of the Mulligan Rule
Practical Approach to Slow Play
THE Guide to Aggro, Part 2: SWARM and TOOLBOX
THE Guide to Aggro, Part 3
THE Guide to Aggro, Part 4
These videos are by MTG Salvation Moderator Lantern!
Introduction to Tempo
Controlling Tempo
Elements of Tempo
Roadblocks to Tempo
How Not To Build A Deck - Tempo
Learn How To Sideboard, Dammit!
Mulligan's Island
The Art of the Mulligan
The Art of the Mulligan: Eight Case Studies
Fundamentals: The Mulligan
Some Mulligan Exercises
A Mulligan Is Worth Three Cards
The Mulligan Debate
Common Sense: The Art of the Mulligan
Who's The Beatdown?
3 Caves of Koilos
3 Eldrazi Temple
2 Fetid Heath
3 Godless Shrine
4 Ghost Quarter
3 Plains
3 Shambling Vent
2 Tectonic Edge
Artifacts (4):
4 Æther Vial
4 Path to Exile
Creatures (29):
3 Aven Mindcensor
3 Eldrazi Displacer
3 Fiend Hunter
4 Flickerwisp
4 Serra Avenger
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 Thought-Knot Seer
3 Tidehollow Sculler
3 Wasteland Strangler
3 Chalice of the Void
2 Dismember
2 Oblivion Ring
2 Rest in Peace
3 Stony Silence
3 Surgical Extraction
3 Flooded Strand
6 Island
3 Polluted Delta
3 Steam Vents
3 Sulfur Falls
Creatures (16):
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Snapcaster Mage
4 Stormchaser Mage
2 Gut Shot
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Mutagenic Growth
3 Spell Pierce
3 Twisted Image
3 Vapor Snag
Sorceries (8):
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Serum Visions
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Blood Moon
2 Dispel
1 Forked Bolt
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Repeal
2 Roast
1 Spell Snare
2 Spellskite
1 Vapor Snag
4 Bloodstained Mire
1 Clifftop Retreat
1 Copperline Gorge
5 Mountain
3 Sacred Foundry
2 Stomping Ground
4 Wooded Foothills
Creatures (14):
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
4 Goblin Guide
2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Atarka's Command
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Lightning Helix
3 Searing Blaze
Sorceries (8):
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
2 Deflecting Palm
4 Destructive Revelry
2 Kor Firewalker
2 Path to Exile
2 Rending Volley
3 Skullcrack
19 Forest
3 Treetop Village
Creatures (24):
4 Avatar of the Resolute
4 Dryad Militant
2 Dungrove Elder
4 Experiment One
4 Leatherback Baloth
2 Scavenging Ooze
4 Strangleroot Geist
4 Rancor
Instants (10):
3 Aspect of Hydra
4 Vines of Vastwood
3 Dismember
2 Choke
2 Gut Shot
2 Deglamer
2 Feed the Clan
2 Oxidize
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Skylasher
1 Unravel the Æther
The truth is that one of us is not better than all of us. The person who says that they are going to come up with some great deck to win all on their own is delusional, as the deck most likely already exists, and has most likely already been playtested extensively (or is being playtested extensively), and there is data or data is being compiled by those who are willing to work with others to make the deck better. Essentially, a person who cries netdecker is someone with illusions of grandeur who, when their pet deck can't win, they try to win with their self-righteousness based on an objective moral standard specifically constructed to make themselves look grand. "I can't beat you, but I'm better than you, because I'm me."
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
I choose to netdeck and I play strictly to win. I have nothing to express. I am not creative. I am not looking to problem solve or do math or pull off interesting combinations. I crush.
My way is as much better than your way as yours is better than mine.
Edit - I would like to add that my friends Pat Chapin, Owen Tutenwald, LSV, and Martin Juza spend a lot of time play testing and analyzing cards and matchups. For them it is more than a hobby. I don't have that kind of time and honestly it would take me twice as long to figure out the things they come up with.
So I trust their research, and when they indirectly suggest to me what they think the best deck is I'd be crazy and arrogant not to listen. Sure, maybe I take their list and change a few cards to my liking. But am I going to spend the next 3 weeks blindly playtesting so I can come to the same conclusion?
<spoiler>The answer is no, I am not.</spoiler>
I'll use myself as an example. I used to be an angry person, calling people who played decks that I'd seen before "netdeckers". In hindsight I realize that I was just angry because I was losing. I had an inflated sense of my own ability to come up with an entirely original deck that would just win. After playing a few years, I'd realize that one of two things would happen. Either one, my deck wouldn't work, and I'd have to admit to myself that it was just bad, or two, I'd find that someone else (usually a lot of other people) had already done what I was trying, and had done it better.
I realized that any random decently intelligent person could learn from their own mistakes in deck design and play, but the best designers and players learned from the mistakes and experiences of others. Where ignorance is the lack of knowledge, and isn't a bad thing, stupidity is the rejection of knowledge - Especially for the sake of an inflated self-esteem.
That doesn't mean that I don't still try to come up with some new design, or a redesign of an existing deck. Hell, I just took 10th at States this past weekend with my rogue version of a rogue deck, beating Blue Moon, RDW, and Affinity with ease (and I could have beat Pod and UR Tempo if I didn't make silly play mistakes). But I designed it the way I did thanks to what I've learned from other people. If I refused to learn from others then I would have likely showed up and payed my fee just to feel sorry for myself and excuse my refusal to learn from others to save my ego. But that wouldn't have made me a better player, or even a fun person to play with.
So people can name-call and use hyperbole all they want, but it won't make them win games in the end. It won't make people enjoy playing them. It won't make their community a fun one to play in, and it won't make them develop as a deck builder or player. All it serves to do is pad their ego.
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
but sometimes the format just doesn't let your brews stand a chance and you give up.
I have given up on brewing for standard. I had my brew I played it for years but its just aweful. I played it to the best it could be played and it was average. no one else could play the deck and knew the deck as well I do. I know its every piece and why its there and what it does and how to sideboard but all of that is meaningless when I just didn't have the power or synergy of the other decks in the format with giant weaknesses that simply didn't have answer to.
And so tomorrow I am playing a known deck.. I have given it my own spin.. which probably makes it worse.. but it was building the deck wwhen you have a week to get the missing pieces so I made do with what I had.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
Death and Taxes
Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron
Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
It is all about understanding the paradigm of rotations impact in the meta of the various formats.
First understand: Netdecking is a direct consequence of the logarithmic growth of competitive builds for any given constructed format of magic the gathering. The variables here are simple: time (where the format remains unchanged) and amount of cards in the given format (one could also say "how popular the format is", but lets assume we are talking about these four well known formats: Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage).
On Standard: standard is now going to rotate faster then before. This means that per rotation the dust of deck building will take longer time to settle, in relation to the time where it has pretty much settled. I know many do not like the new rotation model but the fact is this will value creativity and rogue deck building. However, there will always be results from the first tournaments that will significantly shape the remainder of each rotation via netdecking.
On Modern, Legacy and Vintage: these formats may get up to few playable cards in (minus bans) every new edition, but they host much larger sets of cards. This makes it so that the logarithmic curve of competitive playlists growth should theoretically take much longer to settle. Few new cards (like Dig through Time) may shake these formats a bit, but overall the dust will be more and more settled. The only way I can think of to fight this is by increasing the power level of cards (which seems to have been happening slowly over time). An interesting note is that in these eternal formats, the more cards the format contains, the less shaken it will be by new cards (because any so significant cards that would shake it too much would probably be too good for it).
My suggestions:
- If you would like to just compete, netdeck and adapt it to your meta. Become good at reading what other players are playing, what are the trends of tuning and play play play.
- If you would like to build decks yourself (without even inspiration from online lists) and have a fair chance at winning, play Limited (Drafts, Sealeds, Cubes, etc). Not sure about commander (never played it) but I could assume commander will be MUCH better for creative thinking given the 1-of limit.
- If you would like to build decks yourself and don't really care about winning, that's a very healthy thing to do but be ready to be rekt again and again by lists that have been built by highly experienced deck builders, tuned in the hands of masters across a span of big tournaments, and approved by whole communities.
Last note: I am, and I believe many players are or want to be, all of those three points, no matter how contradictory they may seem. The trick is to diversify. Play 1 or 2 constructed formats, play limited drafts and go to pre-releases, play casual with friends. In fact, it is my belief that "just with netdecking", you will take forever to become an actual better player.
Have fun!