Quote from Creme_Fraiche420 »So I've had some more time to sift through some of the comments on my work breaks, now I'm home.
I still stand by my original conclusion that cookie cutters are cancer to magic. I give props to the original deckmaker, whoever that might be, and no one else. Here's a challenge: Make an original deck that can stand up to most streamlined decks, if you can do that, then you know a thing or two about magic. Using someone else's deck does not require deep knowledge on the finer nuiances of the game, to know what works and more importantly, WHY. After deck building is taken out of the equation, you're most left with 'luck of the draw'. There is very little skill in the in-game decision making, the choices you make are usually obvious and only have a few each turn anyway. This isn't chess, where there are 18 possible moves in the first turn. ( I play chess BTW)
Don't get me wrong, I am by no means pro tier. I cannot make decks as refined as, say a mono red burn. I'm constantly swapping out cards, and I have a hard time stripping it down to 60 cards most of the time. My current best deck is 78 cards, however I've seen a few 200+card decks out there (don't really see the point but whatever). This is the area I struggle with the most, it's prioritizing. What do I want 4 of and what needs only 1?
Those who only play to win at all costs, or those who play aggro decks in order to grind out the daily rewards faster, you do realize that your opponent is also trying to grind it out? Playing a red burn deck makes it much harder for anyone else to grind especially because it seems like almost 50% of the people I play use this exact deck. I'm bloody tired of it.
Even if you think I'm an idiot and can't play because I can't beat this outrageous deck, you can't argue the fact that it's way too common online. This alone should send alarm bells that maybe it's popular for a reason, because it's that good. It would not be so common if it wasn't at least close to as good as I claim it is.
And lastly, if you're not playing tournaments, or money isn't on the line, then playing under the philosophy of "playing to win", is pointless. Why do people play games in the first place? Is it solely for the sake of winning? Or is it because they are fun to play?
We all know how good the red burn deck is. It's been played out a million times. Do something else if for no other reason than to mix things up and make things interesting again. Whatever you do, if you play me using a land destruction deck I will track you down and murder your whole family
What it's come down to is making a purely anti-red deck. Nothing but life gain and deck-out. I call it the "red can go **** itself" deck. It's my way of showing my middle finger to all the degenerate copy-cats who think they can play because someone else came up with the winning deck.
Okay rant over.
I know this is a late reply to this ancient thread.
First of all every format have its archetypes and meta, eventually players will choose the best and most streamlined efficient way to build their decks. Being ignorant about it and whining when you lose to a better player is just being bad and salty.
You said your best deck have 78 cards. Wizards and everyone have said before that 60 is the optimal unless you have a deck that specially needs more which is extremely rare. You come in here to whine about mono red aggro, but you Didn’t even get the basics right in the first place.
You refusing to be similar to any other netdeck out there doesn’t make you better or special, just makes you silly. Even players who have come out with their own special brew have studied the meta and the archetypes themselves before constructing their decks.
The solution to beat RDW? I think most players have already said. Anything life gain, control decks.. so many ways to beat red decks.
I play red deck wins and I also play esper control. Although my variants aren’t exactly the same as the netdecks, they win me games.
Also git gud. Really, adapt instead of whine.