This bugs me. Most of my casual playgroup sees netdecking as 'cheating', yet no matter how much I tell them or explain to them that they aren't to be carbon copied and that they are there for you to get an idea on how specific cards work well and where you can build a base from, they won't accept it. I have built many of my decks through netdecking and these forums, most only using the base cards that support what I am trying to do. I also find looking into netdecks to be great for learning to identifying what your opponent is playing, and yet my playgroup still wonders how I can identify what they are going to do even if the deck is newly built.
How can I get my playgroup to actually accept netdecking as a thing and not something to be frowned upon?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
Nothing wrong with it. Depends on what your playgroup values. If you're playing at FNM then they need to understand that you're playing to win. Not everyone is a good designer, some are better players. Even considering that, it's humility when one can admit that other, more experienced designers will craft a better deck then you will.
If you're just playing kitchen table, then I'd recommend getting them used to a more competitive environment by playing solid decks, but at the end of the day it's better to get along then to be right. Most people improve when they play with better players.
In standard at least there is too few cards to really come up with a strategy that is unique. So you are generally just tweaking and refining the strategies that come up from the 10 - 15 cards of a given standard environment that are the most powerful.
That being said with Modern and Legacy that is not the case and that does have an appeal of its own.
In fact, there a ginormous thread somewhere in these forums discussing precisely that, and it has never run out of people that go "netdecking will be the death of magic!" types.
Acceptance of netdecking isn't something that you can logically convince someone that it is ok, since it's more of a "I _feel_ this is wrong" kind of thing. It's only when they move on out from the kitchen table and into competitve MtG will they begin to see things -- they will either become better players, or be crushed by competition and hold even harder to the belief that netdecking is wrong.
Play your (net)deck against them. If they get suspicious and ask if you copied it, deny it. If they find a decklist online that looks exactly like yours, say that you came up with the idea first. Or turn it around and question them, "what are you doing looking up decklists online? I thought you said netdecking was bad???"
How can they tell that you copied a decklist from other people and not the other way around (or if you coincidentally invented it the same time as the others)? That's right, they can't. So they have to play you anyway, or rage quit.
Honestly, if you're past playing Magic casually, then avoid the scrubs and seek out better opponents.
Frankly when people start expanding the definition of net-decking to include simply using the internet as a reference for what cards exist and which ones interact well together, I'm confused about how they expect you design a deck without "net-decking". Unless the rest of your playgroup is at the "here is a pile of random cards I happen to already own" casual level.
I suppose you could try pointing and laughing at them until they realize their position is ridiculous?
Thank you people. All your comments are making feel so much more mellow. All I did was put up a post in my group's casual page that links to a video that explains that net-decking isn't a bad thing, how it can help you build your deck and be a better magic player. The only people who commented on it are complaining that the video is more about people who want to play tournament level decks... Just frustrates me that's all they think about when they hear 'net-deck'.
Thank you people. All your comments are making feel so much more mellow. All I did was put up a post in my group's casual page that links to a video that explains that net-decking isn't a bad thing, how it can help you build your deck and be a better magic player. The only people who commented on it are complaining that the video is more about people who want to play tournament level decks... Just frustrates me that's all they think about when they hear 'net-deck'.
I especially like the comments from Taldier.
I might try your technique izzetmage.
Izzetmage's suggestion is the best. After all... if you actually deck test competively, you're non-net deck will turn into a "net deck" given enough time.
I'll tell you a story about my experience with "netdecking".
When I originally started (kitchen magic) I was a Timmy. I HATED net-decking with a passion. I thought netdeckers were awful people with no creativity.
This was back in the Zendikar Block. I was play testing a unique combo-esk competitive deck that I had called "Coupe Control". The basic idea of the deck was to get Garruk Wildspeaker and ramp into Martial Coup turn 4 followed by turn 5 overrun for the win. I think I may have tried to publish the idea on here back then.
Everyone told me the idea was stupid and I should just play bant. But I didn't want to netdeck... so I refused. I did; however, want to win. So I slowly started making tweaks to the deck to improve its competitiveness. The main problem with the combo, pyroclasm was in the format (and jund was BIG). So the combo of a turn 5 over run with 5+ 1/1s.... only worked about 30% of the time. So I started modifying the deck to make it more competitive for the meta. Ended up removing garruck and adding more mid-range creatures (KotR, Baneslayer Angel, etc.) I started adding blue for counter magic to stop spells like maelstorm pulse. Three months later... my deck turned into a carbon-copy of Mythic Bant (minus a few personal tweaks like using BtE).
I was frustrated to say the least. I wanted to create a 100% original deck... and it turned into mythic bant ._.
I came to the realization... perhaps people netdeck for two primary reasons: a) Limited time to play test. and B) If you actually play tested the deck you would come to the same general conclusion (minus tweaks for the meta).
Alright, in all seriousness, that was in jest. Since you don't like to play against those anti-netdecking guys, you should end things amicably and tell them "hey guys, I don't agree with you on netdecking, so I'm going to find other people who are cool with that" and part ways. No hard feelings. Finding a different playgroup might be a problem though.
IF you lie to them, you WILL end up burning your bridges if they decide to run a search. The only things you can decide for yourself are whether they're worth pissing off like that, and if you should just tell them nicely that you don't want to play under their squishy rules instead.
I would stop bringing it up if I were you. If your friends' convictions are anything like my friends' are, you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing them with words anyway.
I would try to let them discover the benefits of netdecking on their own if your playgroup if your playgroup is competitive. If they aren't, maybe you should try to brew a deck yourself. Building a casual Simic evolve deck with cards like Shambleshark and Elusive Krasis to play with against my more casual friends was some of the most fun I've had playing magic.
How can I get my playgroup to actually accept netdecking as a thing and not something to be frowned upon?
This is one of those stupid things where it's not worth your time or energy to argue it. "Netdecking" is a term that came into fashion 15~ years ago when Magic literature began to proliferate on websites. Before that, we had to wait on Scrye or Inquest Magazine every month and cross our fingers that some cool decks were listed. I can remember chipping in a couple bucks with a friend to buy a Brainburst.com subscription just so we could get articles and decklists by Kai Budde. It was a pretty big deal back then.
Netdecking is great for the game of Magic. It's vastly increased the quality of play and the level of competition. There is no idea in Magic that someone in your playgroup came up with that another player hasn't already tried. The only difference in "netdecks" and home brews is that the netdecks have been tuned by top notch players and the masses on forums like this one, and then end goal is to win in the most efficient way possible. If they don't get that, then just shrug and move on because you're not going to convince them otherwise, particularly when you're talking about casual players.
We have one very arrogant anti-netdeck advocate at our local FNM. He top 8'd a 100 player states championship tournament 4 years ago (his only remote claim to success), and ever since then has been ego tripping about how great his homebrews are, and how terrible the rest of us are for not designing our own decks. This is besides the fact that he rarely puts up better than a 3-2 finish at FNMs and bombs out during Limited events.
Some people just want to play. Some people want to win. Some people want to play the best decks possible, and some like playing with whatever cards they think are neat. Your position on these points is going to directly influence your opinion of using other people's decklists. That's really all there is to it.
I will say this: I keep my competitive decks for competitive events and off the kitchen table. My 2-3 friends from high school still like to play a few games every now and then, but they haven't played a competitive game in nearly 15 years. It would only ruin their fun for me to break out a T1 tournament deck when they're still playing their Psychatog brew from 2001. If your casual group isn't interested in getting more competitive, then I'd try to get something together a little more their speed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
I will say this: I keep my competitive decks for competitive events and off the kitchen table. My 2-3 friends from high school still like to play a few games every now and then, but they haven't played a competitive game in nearly 15 years. It would only ruin their fun for me to break out a T1 tournament deck when they're still playing their Psychatog brew from 2001. If your casual group isn't interested in getting more competitive, then I'd try to get something together a little more their speed.
This is what I personally do when I play with one of my other groups. They aren't "competitive" players and I enjoy having a place to play my goofy decks without being crushed. At heart I'm a Johnny/Timmy, I love big ridiculous effects. That attitude does guide my competitive deck building; I enjoyed myself more playing and tuning my Minotaur tribal deck or Trading Post deck then I do tuning and playing Boss Sligh.
I can appreciate how much better that build is, but I happily give up the fact that my homebrews will usually be more restricted, and thus less successful, in exchange for having more fun.
Among my group I like to think of myself as the Competitive Casual player; I can appreciate playing to win with a known deck but I am happiest when I'm pushing one of my brews to the limit. I firmly believe that for many players such as myself their are many Tier 1.5/2 quality decks that can compete, to an extent, with the top decks. I also feel that at least at my LGS FNM it is more forgiving so I am allowed to play those brews to some success.
I have no interest in PTQ/GP/ect. I imagine that if I attended a higher tier event someday I would bring a netdeck I have experience playing, or a homebrew that I've spent many, many hours testing and I have faith that it can be a rogue contender.
Sigh. I'm one of the people who commented on Brentane's post on facebook.
I also clarified that my problem isn't with netdecking. It's bringing decks clearly designed for tournaments to a casual setting. I am not familiar with the tourney scene, but, as examples:
I have been told that his cloudpost/eldrazi deck is based on a modern thing.
I know that Seething Song is banned in modern because Dragonstorm, and I played during Time Spiral, when someone apparently did quite well with a dragonstorm deck by not actually including any dragons in it, and just waiting for everyone to concede when he cast dragonstorm with a high enough storm count.
I know merfolk is a legacy deck of note.
While I don't know the specific details of these decks, I do know that the main parts of each deck are well known.
Furthermore, I am friends with him on this site, and there's a link at the top that show my friends posting history. He posts mostly in deck discussion threads about tourney decks. So, yes. I know he is netdecking. I don't know how much he has changed his deck from the posted ones, because frankly, I don't care.
My problem isn't with netdecking. I don't think anyone in our group has a problem with netdecking specifically. It's bringing tourney-quality decks to a casual setting. Other people have expressed this same concern. There are two people who have actually said stuff about his netdecking, and one of them only said stuff about when Brentane tried Izzetmage's idea in the past, claiming a deck was his own when it was 1 card different to a modern deck. Credit where credit is due...
When people are playing casual jank decks, the correct move is to bring along casual jank decks. Bringing along tourney quality decks is what you do when you want to ruin everyone's fun.
As far as the topic is concerned, I don't see anything wrong with netdecking or using any other source of information for deck construction. However:
When people are playing casual jank decks, the correct move is to bring along casual jank decks. Bringing along tourney quality decks is what you do when you want to ruin everyone's fun.
This is a legit point. Maintaining parity/near-parity with your playgroup is very important, at least if you want your group to keep playing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Maintaining parity/near-parity with your playgroup is very important
Speaking mainly from personal experience, if you are the most competitive guy in your group, maintaining parity will just make you miserable. On the other hand, repeatedly destroying them will make them miserable.
The solution is to find a more competitive group, or hoist your current group onto your shoulders and elevate them. The way to do this is to build decks that are just a little bit better than the rest. That way you win most of the time, but not always and not by such a wide margin that they feel bad. You want them to always think that victory is a few small tweaks away. When they level up their decks, you bring your own deck up another notch. This is hard work and time-consuming, though. Probably better to just find a more competitive group. Personally I can't stand the casual mentality of "my deck is bad so your deck should be bad too". I like to brew janky lists just as much as the next guy (maybe even more), but I want to play them against serious decks.
If that's the problem you're facing, you could always try restricting yourself. For example, can you win with a pauper deck? If not, what about a rare-less deck? Etc...
You don't, If more people would build there own decks there might be more tier 1 decks in standard . There was net decking before there was a network to deck from( Some of you are old enough to remember Inquest Magazine you had to wait for a month to see what decks were viable.
I don't have a problem with people who go to the internet to educate themselves about the game, but, I also have a lot of respect for those who blaze there own trail.
That isn't true. You don't have to netdeck. I play with my group, and I just put together a deck from what I have. I may ask for opinions on it, but that isn't the same as netdecking. Or at least I don't think it is. Unless netdecking is as broad as "using the internet for help with a deck", I'm sure there are many people who don't.
My problem isn't with netdecking. I don't think anyone in our group has a problem with netdecking specifically. It's bringing tourney-quality decks to a casual setting. Other people have expressed this same concern. There are two people who have actually said stuff about his netdecking, and one of them only said stuff about when Brentane tried Izzetmage's idea in the past, claiming a deck was his own when it was 1 card different to a modern deck. Credit where credit is due...
When people are playing casual jank decks, the correct move is to bring along casual jank decks. Bringing along tourney quality decks is what you do when you want to ruin everyone's fun.
That's the thing. They aren't 'tournament level' decks. Merfolk may be legal in Legacy, but it only has Daze. It has no Force of Wills. MY Elf deck was made casually, outside of competitive decklists and it only wins because no-one decides to kill the Hermit Druid, they think it's not a scary card. As for my Turbo Eldrazi, it was based off Modern Tron and old Pauper land base Cloudpost. It runs no Karn, and it's just a ramping control deck. Death and Taxes deck is missing $500 to be acceptable for a tournament and is not meant for Multiplayer play, it falls apart in multiplayer.
I take apart decks that can win turn 3 or before consistently and if the group cannot interact with it. As an example, I took apart Dragonstorm because it could kill 2 people on turn 3 95% of the time, and 2 more on turn 4. It was a fun deck and I loved how it worked, but it just was not fun because people would have to play counterspells to beat it, and the playgroup don't really play much blue. The only decks that I would consider tournament level viable would be my Modern RDW which I do not play in the group and my Legacy Affinity which I do not play in the group because it is to fast.
All my decks are just my collection I have collected over time through trades. Most of my decks have cost less than $100 to put together because of this. As for 'casual jank', I don't keep hold of mediocre cards if I have a card that does the same thing but better.
Wizards print good rares, players complain about cash grab. They print underwhelming rares, players complain that the cards suck. They spoil the best cards first, players complain about the insane prices of preorders. They spoil the meh cards first, players complain that this is the worst set ever.
So. I think I understand now.
As far as these forums are concerned, WotC can never do anything good because:
Card that is new and probably good = "pushed"
Card that is new and probably bad = "EDH/casual fodder"
Card that is a reprint = "lazy"
Card that is a better version of an older card = "power creep"
Card that is a weaker version of an older card = "worthless"
I'm personally not the kind of person to netdeck, but that's because I mainly play Standard and draft. I enjoy more "wild west" formats where you are constantly playing with new and untested cards. And in both cases, you aren't punished for trying out new stuff since it's so easy to trade the cards that underperformed for other ones. But if you play more Modern and Legacy, I can't blame you for netdecking since the cards are so expensive and hard to come by, you might as well make sure the deck you are building works (even my own Modern deck was netdecked.)
You can simply explain that different people enjoy the game in different ways, some like to collect cards, some like to build decks, and some just want to play the game. It's going to be hard to convince them that they should start netdecking since some people enjoy deckbuilding a lot (myself included,) but you should really tell them not to disrespect you only because you enjoy certain aspects of the game in a different way.
I don't consider it netdecking. It's just my friends LSV, Pat Chapin, Martin Juza, and Owen Tutenwald sharing their decklists with me and giving me some advice on card selection.
The pros and SCG grinders playtest a lot more than me. And they are much better at evaluating cards and analyzing matchups. I don't have any delusions that I can do it better or that they are wrong. I will gladly accept their research as fact and go from there. I would be very upset if I playtested 8 hours a day for 3 weeks and came up with the same conclusions.
I don't have a problem with the people who playtest video games to make sure they are bug free and then share their product with me. I definitely do not want to play the bugged out version.
@OP: Beat them bloody with their own severed limbs until they acquiesce...figuratively in game of course...:)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
. I also find looking into netdecks to be great for learning to identifying what your opponent is playing, and yet my playgroup still wonders how I can identify what they are going to do even if the deck is newly built.How can I get my playgroup to actually accept netdecking as a thing and not something to be frowned upon?
U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
EDH:
G Ezuri, Renegade Leader, Fighting for Rivendell
WU Brago, King Eternal, Long Live the King
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon, Worship the Dragon
If you're just playing kitchen table, then I'd recommend getting them used to a more competitive environment by playing solid decks, but at the end of the day it's better to get along then to be right. Most people improve when they play with better players.
That being said with Modern and Legacy that is not the case and that does have an appeal of its own.
In fact, there a ginormous thread somewhere in these forums discussing precisely that, and it has never run out of people that go "netdecking will be the death of magic!" types.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/334927-netdecking-vs-creating-your-own-deck
Acceptance of netdecking isn't something that you can logically convince someone that it is ok, since it's more of a "I _feel_ this is wrong" kind of thing. It's only when they move on out from the kitchen table and into competitve MtG will they begin to see things -- they will either become better players, or be crushed by competition and hold even harder to the belief that netdecking is wrong.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Play your (net)deck against them. If they get suspicious and ask if you copied it, deny it. If they find a decklist online that looks exactly like yours, say that you came up with the idea first. Or turn it around and question them, "what are you doing looking up decklists online? I thought you said netdecking was bad???"
How can they tell that you copied a decklist from other people and not the other way around (or if you coincidentally invented it the same time as the others)? That's right, they can't. So they have to play you anyway, or rage quit.
Honestly, if you're past playing Magic casually, then avoid the scrubs and seek out better opponents.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
I suppose you could try pointing and laughing at them until they realize their position is ridiculous?
I especially like the comments from Taldier.
I might try your technique izzetmage.
U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
EDH:
G Ezuri, Renegade Leader, Fighting for Rivendell
WU Brago, King Eternal, Long Live the King
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon, Worship the Dragon
Izzetmage's suggestion is the best. After all... if you actually deck test competively, you're non-net deck will turn into a "net deck" given enough time.
I'll tell you a story about my experience with "netdecking".
When I originally started (kitchen magic) I was a Timmy. I HATED net-decking with a passion. I thought netdeckers were awful people with no creativity.
This was back in the Zendikar Block. I was play testing a unique combo-esk competitive deck that I had called "Coupe Control". The basic idea of the deck was to get Garruk Wildspeaker and ramp into Martial Coup turn 4 followed by turn 5 overrun for the win. I think I may have tried to publish the idea on here back then.
Everyone told me the idea was stupid and I should just play bant. But I didn't want to netdeck... so I refused. I did; however, want to win. So I slowly started making tweaks to the deck to improve its competitiveness. The main problem with the combo, pyroclasm was in the format (and jund was BIG). So the combo of a turn 5 over run with 5+ 1/1s.... only worked about 30% of the time. So I started modifying the deck to make it more competitive for the meta. Ended up removing garruck and adding more mid-range creatures (KotR, Baneslayer Angel, etc.) I started adding blue for counter magic to stop spells like maelstorm pulse. Three months later... my deck turned into a carbon-copy of Mythic Bant (minus a few personal tweaks like using BtE).
I was frustrated to say the least. I wanted to create a 100% original deck... and it turned into mythic bant ._.
I came to the realization... perhaps people netdeck for two primary reasons: a) Limited time to play test. and B) If you actually play tested the deck you would come to the same general conclusion (minus tweaks for the meta).
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Alright, in all seriousness, that was in jest. Since you don't like to play against those anti-netdecking guys, you should end things amicably and tell them "hey guys, I don't agree with you on netdecking, so I'm going to find other people who are cool with that" and part ways. No hard feelings. Finding a different playgroup might be a problem though.
IF you lie to them, you WILL end up burning your bridges if they decide to run a search. The only things you can decide for yourself are whether they're worth pissing off like that, and if you should just tell them nicely that you don't want to play under their squishy rules instead.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
I would try to let them discover the benefits of netdecking on their own if your playgroup if your playgroup is competitive. If they aren't, maybe you should try to brew a deck yourself. Building a casual Simic evolve deck with cards like Shambleshark and Elusive Krasis to play with against my more casual friends was some of the most fun I've had playing magic.
This is one of those stupid things where it's not worth your time or energy to argue it. "Netdecking" is a term that came into fashion 15~ years ago when Magic literature began to proliferate on websites. Before that, we had to wait on Scrye or Inquest Magazine every month and cross our fingers that some cool decks were listed. I can remember chipping in a couple bucks with a friend to buy a Brainburst.com subscription just so we could get articles and decklists by Kai Budde. It was a pretty big deal back then.
Netdecking is great for the game of Magic. It's vastly increased the quality of play and the level of competition. There is no idea in Magic that someone in your playgroup came up with that another player hasn't already tried. The only difference in "netdecks" and home brews is that the netdecks have been tuned by top notch players and the masses on forums like this one, and then end goal is to win in the most efficient way possible. If they don't get that, then just shrug and move on because you're not going to convince them otherwise, particularly when you're talking about casual players.
We have one very arrogant anti-netdeck advocate at our local FNM. He top 8'd a 100 player states championship tournament 4 years ago (his only remote claim to success), and ever since then has been ego tripping about how great his homebrews are, and how terrible the rest of us are for not designing our own decks. This is besides the fact that he rarely puts up better than a 3-2 finish at FNMs and bombs out during Limited events.
Some people just want to play. Some people want to win. Some people want to play the best decks possible, and some like playing with whatever cards they think are neat. Your position on these points is going to directly influence your opinion of using other people's decklists. That's really all there is to it.
I will say this: I keep my competitive decks for competitive events and off the kitchen table. My 2-3 friends from high school still like to play a few games every now and then, but they haven't played a competitive game in nearly 15 years. It would only ruin their fun for me to break out a T1 tournament deck when they're still playing their Psychatog brew from 2001. If your casual group isn't interested in getting more competitive, then I'd try to get something together a little more their speed.
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
This is what I personally do when I play with one of my other groups. They aren't "competitive" players and I enjoy having a place to play my goofy decks without being crushed. At heart I'm a Johnny/Timmy, I love big ridiculous effects. That attitude does guide my competitive deck building; I enjoyed myself more playing and tuning my Minotaur tribal deck or Trading Post deck then I do tuning and playing Boss Sligh.
I can appreciate how much better that build is, but I happily give up the fact that my homebrews will usually be more restricted, and thus less successful, in exchange for having more fun.
Among my group I like to think of myself as the Competitive Casual player; I can appreciate playing to win with a known deck but I am happiest when I'm pushing one of my brews to the limit. I firmly believe that for many players such as myself their are many Tier 1.5/2 quality decks that can compete, to an extent, with the top decks. I also feel that at least at my LGS FNM it is more forgiving so I am allowed to play those brews to some success.
I have no interest in PTQ/GP/ect. I imagine that if I attended a higher tier event someday I would bring a netdeck I have experience playing, or a homebrew that I've spent many, many hours testing and I have faith that it can be a rogue contender.
I also clarified that my problem isn't with netdecking. It's bringing decks clearly designed for tournaments to a casual setting. I am not familiar with the tourney scene, but, as examples:
I have been told that his cloudpost/eldrazi deck is based on a modern thing.
I know that Seething Song is banned in modern because Dragonstorm, and I played during Time Spiral, when someone apparently did quite well with a dragonstorm deck by not actually including any dragons in it, and just waiting for everyone to concede when he cast dragonstorm with a high enough storm count.
I know merfolk is a legacy deck of note.
While I don't know the specific details of these decks, I do know that the main parts of each deck are well known.
Furthermore, I am friends with him on this site, and there's a link at the top that show my friends posting history. He posts mostly in deck discussion threads about tourney decks. So, yes. I know he is netdecking. I don't know how much he has changed his deck from the posted ones, because frankly, I don't care.
My problem isn't with netdecking. I don't think anyone in our group has a problem with netdecking specifically. It's bringing tourney-quality decks to a casual setting. Other people have expressed this same concern. There are two people who have actually said stuff about his netdecking, and one of them only said stuff about when Brentane tried Izzetmage's idea in the past, claiming a deck was his own when it was 1 card different to a modern deck. Credit where credit is due...
When people are playing casual jank decks, the correct move is to bring along casual jank decks. Bringing along tourney quality decks is what you do when you want to ruin everyone's fun.
This is a legit point. Maintaining parity/near-parity with your playgroup is very important, at least if you want your group to keep playing.
Art is life itself.
Speaking mainly from personal experience, if you are the most competitive guy in your group, maintaining parity will just make you miserable. On the other hand, repeatedly destroying them will make them miserable.
The solution is to find a more competitive group, or hoist your current group onto your shoulders and elevate them. The way to do this is to build decks that are just a little bit better than the rest. That way you win most of the time, but not always and not by such a wide margin that they feel bad. You want them to always think that victory is a few small tweaks away. When they level up their decks, you bring your own deck up another notch. This is hard work and time-consuming, though. Probably better to just find a more competitive group. Personally I can't stand the casual mentality of "my deck is bad so your deck should be bad too". I like to brew janky lists just as much as the next guy (maybe even more), but I want to play them against serious decks.
I don't have a problem with people who go to the internet to educate themselves about the game, but, I also have a lot of respect for those who blaze there own trail.
That's the thing. They aren't 'tournament level' decks. Merfolk may be legal in Legacy, but it only has Daze. It has no Force of Wills. MY Elf deck was made casually, outside of competitive decklists and it only wins because no-one decides to kill the Hermit Druid, they think it's not a scary card. As for my Turbo Eldrazi, it was based off Modern Tron and old Pauper land base Cloudpost. It runs no Karn, and it's just a ramping control deck. Death and Taxes deck is missing $500 to be acceptable for a tournament and is not meant for Multiplayer play, it falls apart in multiplayer.
I take apart decks that can win turn 3 or before consistently and if the group cannot interact with it. As an example, I took apart Dragonstorm because it could kill 2 people on turn 3 95% of the time, and 2 more on turn 4. It was a fun deck and I loved how it worked, but it just was not fun because people would have to play counterspells to beat it, and the playgroup don't really play much blue. The only decks that I would consider tournament level viable would be my Modern RDW which I do not play in the group and my Legacy Affinity which I do not play in the group because it is to fast.
All my decks are just my collection I have collected over time through trades. Most of my decks have cost less than $100 to put together because of this. As for 'casual jank', I don't keep hold of mediocre cards if I have a card that does the same thing but better.
U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
EDH:
G Ezuri, Renegade Leader, Fighting for Rivendell
WU Brago, King Eternal, Long Live the King
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon, Worship the Dragon
and just play any casual deck with your current NO netdecking group of friends
edit: you are not guarantee a win even when you netdeck, you still need skill to play it.
You can simply explain that different people enjoy the game in different ways, some like to collect cards, some like to build decks, and some just want to play the game. It's going to be hard to convince them that they should start netdecking since some people enjoy deckbuilding a lot (myself included,) but you should really tell them not to disrespect you only because you enjoy certain aspects of the game in a different way.
The pros and SCG grinders playtest a lot more than me. And they are much better at evaluating cards and analyzing matchups. I don't have any delusions that I can do it better or that they are wrong. I will gladly accept their research as fact and go from there. I would be very upset if I playtested 8 hours a day for 3 weeks and came up with the same conclusions.
I don't have a problem with the people who playtest video games to make sure they are bug free and then share their product with me. I definitely do not want to play the bugged out version.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.