Can someone tell me what 'net decking' is?
General forum
Posted on Nov. 16, 2013, 3:42 a.m. by deathtouch_roadrunner
People on TO seem to refer to it a lot.
The Doctor says... #3
A netdeck is a pro-tour caliber deck that has been proven to be very efficient and win consistently.
Net-decking is copying that deck and posting it to a website, claiming it to be your own.
It's like plagiarizing.
November 16, 2013 4:07 a.m.
The opposite would be a home-brew, or a deck idea that you came up with and built yourself. Many decks use elements of both. Take an existing, successful deck or archetype, swap some cards, change the sideboard, splash a different color, or playing a budget version are all ways to modify a netdeck.
November 16, 2013 4:55 a.m.
vampirelazarus says... #5
I once netdecked Sam Pardee's first place Pod deck, and when I went to buy cards for it, I made it into a completely different beast. Mostly.
Generally, net-decking is viewed as a bad thing. Some people might think of the net-decker in a negative light. But at the same time, some people just want to win, so they net deck.
November 16, 2013 5:25 a.m.
Net decking is copy/pasting a good deck and not playing it very well or not tuning it at all. Now it is actually a common thing among pros copy a list and pilot it, in fact usually most successful decks originate from one brewer or a team and it spreads out.
November 16, 2013 8:19 a.m.
Stygian333 says... #7
Haha, I love this guy who says its like plagiarizing. "Net decking" is a negetive term for someone who takes a proven and tested idea and decides to play it themselves. It doesn't matter if you wanted to try the idea or had been trying it before a deck that makes it big does the same thing, people will still whine about "net decking" because they want excuses.
Magic is all about interactions. To me, it makes sense that the more testing goes into a deck, the more interactions have been figured out. "Net decks" are just mutual ideas that many many people have vetted as working. Noobs will complain about net decking because they don't like that you've thought ahead and done research on your deck and all the possible interactions. It makes you a better player to be aware of the meta outside your own store.
November 16, 2013 8:42 a.m.
http://kriskurse.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/netdeckers-are-people-too/
November 16, 2013 11:15 a.m.
hochmaster says... #9
Its kind of like how everyone and their mother is playing mono-black devotion, and before that it was selesnya aggro, and before that it was trafty-resto-thragtusk bant. Some guy on pro tour won with a specific deck, so people just use it as a ready-made efficient idea, even if they do tweak it a little.
The point is, researching existing decks and then making a similar one does not constitute for effort. This is called "netdecking". Effort is researching cards that you like, and then finding out what interacts with them nicely. Build a deck around those cards, and you'll probably have a homebrew.
November 16, 2013 11:22 a.m.
hochmaster, I beg to differ. Throwing together all your favorite cards in the format hardly requires effort; it takes something along the lines of 30-40 minutes. However, researching the meta and trying to find what you believe to be the best-positioned deck (which is almost guaranteed to be a well-tuned "net deck") can take days, if not weeks.
Believe it or not, net decking is making the smart choice of picking the best deck for a given metagame.
November 16, 2013 12:52 p.m.
Lol plagiarism. And I suppose all of the world-tour folks went to prison for helping each other and using the same lists as each other quite often.
People see old things like fuckin' Hivemind combo on this site and treat it like it's new, and the author just basks in the +1s.
Play how you want. Elitist assholes, neckbeards, and the like will tell you that you're a bad person, but really you're just playing magic.
November 16, 2013 1:01 p.m.
I thought I knew what 'net-decking' was. I assumed it was just what is described above. But recently I encountered a new term - I think it was "google deck" and when I asked "Do you mean net deck?" they said "same thing". I think they are slightly different, though.
I think this is a new kind of deck that is generating some angst amongst traditional players and LGS's that rely on buying sealed product and proceeding to brew at home. I think it is the kind of deck I make where I research individual cards (on google or other search engines like gatherer) and then make a deck with all singles without buying any sealed product. Often this deck is playtested using software and adjusted before ever being played against a real person. This type of deck can also often be found online in full detail for anyone who wants to build against it, just like a netdeck. I believe that some players hate this and consider it a form of "cheating" that is more or less equivalent to true "netdecking" in annoyance. I think the problems with it are more related to the bypassing of the primary market, "cheapness", and the use of the computer heavily to build the deck (even if it isn't an actual 'netdeck', it might be hard to tell the difference if it is encountered at an LGS and they can find it online somewhere).
November 16, 2013 1:04 p.m.
RegisteredDecksOffender says... #13
I disagree. I think net-decking is purely a cop out. I hardly think the guys who created Magic sat around and were like "We should make this awesome card game with thousands upon thousands of cards.. but what would be REALLY cool is if everyone played the same 3 decks!"
I think part of the Magic experience is making a deck you like, and building it to the best ability. Whether it be a build for fun or competitive, I think it's important to have a creative flair. I understand- to a point, net decking to go to a tournament, but I get really sick of people playing the same couple of decks. Especially when people make one or two minor changes and insist it's their "own build".
The guy who made the first Jund build with Bloodbraid Elf and all of the staples of Modern, put them together and made a successful deck has the right to be proud if he wins a tournament. The douchebag at your LGS who looked up "Best Modern Decks" on Google, invested a little money and no creative thought however doesn't.
November 16, 2013 1:07 p.m.
HarbingerJK says... #14
if you're net-decking for an FNM then you are clearly a Spike
November 16, 2013 1:30 p.m.
hochmaster says... #15
I didn't say "throw together". I said "researching cards that you like, and then finding out what interacts with them nicely". If you have a card that you think could be good, then build a deck that makes it good. For example, Sphere of Safety . I built an American enchantment control around that card, because of researching the currently enchantment-heavy format, and seeing what cards in the format best compliment the sphere so that it causes a game lockdown. What I didn't do was make the millionth gray merchant deck so that I could win consistently. I want MY shit to win.
November 16, 2013 1:49 p.m.
I'm al for net decking, of course I'm biased because from personal experience I know what it does to ones skill level. However, I think it comes down to what type of player you are to how much of a "sin" most people think it is. This site is mostly casual players, so the sway vote would go to net decking being bad. True competetive magic players know sometimes it is what it takes to succeed. SOMETIMES. Other time you have to be the one people will be net decking off of. If you look at the big wigs of magic you see weekly at SCG tournaments, while they do a lot of brewin and testing of decks they made, a lot of times they'll pic up a winning deck from a previous week. Example: after GP Louisville a huge lean to mono black occurred in th competetive ranks. Just my opinion though, so no lashes, alright?
November 16, 2013 1:58 p.m.
There needs to be a rational balance between how much you net deck, and how much original material you work on. Whether it be modifying the netted deck to fit meta of your area, or making something new or crazy.
November 16, 2013 2:01 p.m.
Depending on the intensity of the play, I change my view on netdecking.
Kitchen table play and FNMs, don't netdeck. You're just ruining the fun for everyone.
High REL tournaments? Go ahead. Just know what you're doing with the deck before you play it.
Really it's just a measure of how important it is to win. At a FNM, if you don't get first place, no biggie. Just come back next week and try again. At, say, Pro Tour, winning is the absolute number 1 priority.
November 16, 2013 2:24 p.m.
This is a pet peeve of mine. The better you become at the game, the more and more your homebrews will start to look like "net-decks". There is a simple reason for this: Good players are naturally gravitated towards strong cards and interactions. If one guy finds this great interaction, what's the chances that someone else will not as well? A net-deck is simply a strongly tested deck that has done well in a competitive event. People all over the world have polited the thing, or something similar, and so have found out what works and what really doesn't. The longer an archetype is around, the more refined it gets and the more the meta shifts and tweaks it.
Personally, I'm not a fan of people that just grab a list off the internet that has won some huge event, buy the cards, and dominate their FNM with it. People that have powerful decks, that they have worked on over time, I'm fine with. Even if the deck in question looks like a net-deck, if they discovered the interaction themselves, and playtested and tweaked the deck to make it their own, I have no problem with it. It's the people that look down on others that are not playing the "Best deck" or a "tier 1 deck" that I have a problem with.
Pretty much, building a deck is one of the most important parts of the game IMO. If you netdeck and win with it, all you show is that you are a good pilot. If someone shows up with a powerful rogue deck (homebrew), chances are, the net-deckers do not know how to handle it, and lose because they know their deck so much less well than the person that hand crafted their own.
November 16, 2013 2:58 p.m.
To everyone who says awful things about those net-decking at an FNM: Get a grip.
Magic is a game of awe-inspiring scope, potential, and possibilities. It's a game you can play however you want. If I want to play Esper control at FNM, why do you automatically think less of me for it? I used to be one of those people that sat on the sidelines, lost every week, and bitched about net-deckers, but who honestly cares aside from you? I'm all for brewing up new ideas and love when those fresh ideas get me to the Top 2 of an FNM (see: Zandl's Firefly (Light-BUG) (2nd/31) from before rotation), but I also like to win. If I'm going to devote several hours and dollars to something each week, I personally want to do well at it.
Hell, I was winning with Wolf Run Green that day before Wolf Run Red won a SCG Open (the day Innistrad came out). People thought I was really cool and skillful for innovating, but then the rest of the Magic world caught up to me and started slamming down Wolf Run Green, too (look up any States 2011 Top 8 list for reference). After the deck became popular, everyone I played against would just roll his/her eyes and bitch incessently about my "lack of creativity". Give me a fucking break.
So I got tired of the bitching and brewed up Wolf Run Blue in late November of 2011. It had Vapor Snag , Ponder , Frost Titan , Phyrexian Metamorph , and Glimmerpost . Again, everyone complimented me for having figured out that Glimmerpost wrecked face with Primeval Titan and that Frost Titan was, in fact, the best Titan aside from Primeval Titan (and it also destroyed my opponents in Wolf Run mirrors). I played Wolf Run Blue nearly every week through May 2012 (since it was so much fun and no one bitched about it) until somewhere around the end of May and the beginning of June of that year, when everyone else figured it out and that was the only Wolf Run list worth playing. Yet again, I found myself getting exasperated looks from the general populous and I still remember that one guy (after losing) improperly grabbed my deck, started looking through it, and threw down cards on the table that "made me a net-decker". Clearly, it was time to brew again.
tl;dr - People who complain about net-deckers do so because it's the easy answer after losing and/or, rather ironically, are the ones who don't understand the point of a game.
November 16, 2013 3:11 p.m.
lord_of_the_snakes says... #21
net decking is selling your soul to the mtg devils
November 16, 2013 3:14 p.m.
lord_of_the_snakes says... #23
@kriskurse i don't get annoyed by netdecking as an idea, i get annoyed by getting wrecked by a Voice of Resurgence flicker deck 3 times in a row against my budget simic deck that a had to draft a number of times just to get all of my rares
(same deck, different people, but wasn't it obvious)
November 16, 2013 3:28 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #24
I'm not opposed to "net-decking". Indeed, I welcome the chance to research different decks to understand the game better. Why are some decks effecient, and others aren't? How does one build an effecient deck? I treat "net decking" as research. For instance, I'm a Control player, and I play in the Modern format. When I first went to Modern a few months ago I sat down and spent a good long while analyzing and researching the Modern metagame and some of the more competitive styles of play, not only because I like to win, but because I found the information to be engaging and useful.
For example,I assembled an Esper Gifts deck at first. Sadly, the deck was clumsy and lopsided, so I attempted to fine tune it. This required further research into what Esper Gifts was all about, and it required me to supplement previous research. When I realized I had made some poor judgements in my deck building I rectified them. But then I came across an even bigger problem. Esper Gifts wasn't fun for me. Not because I "net decked" but because it lacked the amount of Control play I enjoy. It was, something of a Combo-Control Hybrid which I never got a good feel for. So I scrapped it and went back to the drawing board.
More research led me to Cruel Control. I remembered how when I played Standard my Grixis decks were never effective, so I decided to give it a whirl for Modern. Honestly, I love it. It's the perfect fit for my play style of: Sit back, counter, burn and wait for the win con to show up. But here's the thing, while I've crafted a solid, reliable deck, the current meta isn't keen on Grixis. I've made minor adjustments to account for this, however I never would have been able to come up with the deck if I hadn't done my research.
To me "net decking" is perfectly viable, especially if you wish to be somewhat more competitive than casual. Just because you "net deck" doesn't mean you simply take the top tier deck and copy it. You need to find a play style to suit you. If you borrow ideas, so what? You need to understand what you're doing even if you simply copy a deck. And you only understand more by playing more.
November 16, 2013 3:37 p.m.
Also, here is the tl;dr version of this entire thread (and the ultimate point I'm trying to make):
Some people play for creativity's sake and others play for competition's sake. Most people are somewhere in the gray area between the two, each playing according to their own budgets, as well.
When poor sports play for creativity's sake, anyone who copies is an asshole.
When poor sports play for competition's sake, anyone who consistently brews is a dumbass.
When poor sports play with little money, anyone with a $100+ deck is an asshole.
When poor sports play with lots of money, anyone with <$100 is a dumbass.
/thread
November 16, 2013 3:40 p.m.
I have nothing against net-decking but am interested in the dynamics of this issue somewhat.
I get a feeling like MTG is like an IQ test and any use of a computer for any reason is cheating - even if it is just posting a decklist - then you are guilty of helping other people cheat. ... to some people ...
I get the feeling that it is a lot more about cheapness and the primary vs secondary market than it is about creativity.
Also, a point/question about EDH: Many generals have stupidly obvious strategies associated with them. Is everyone using the same general essentially net-decking off each other? Should only one decklist for certain generals really have a right to attract anybody's attention or credit?
I'm also getting more into the idea of working my frustrations into my own deckbuilding rather than venting them in complaints. For example, tutors bother me. So now I have two anti-tutor decks but I have stopped bitching about it and come to appreciate why they exist. This is the thing with netdecks: because they are online, they are so easy to build / side-board against.
November 16, 2013 3:55 p.m.
@zandl agreed
If you have people that netdeck at your store build a deck that punishes that netdeck, there is at least 3 people at my lgs that play mono black, i built a white weenie list that is meant to punish a bad draw from that deck. Be as creative as you want, if you don't want to win as much as a have a good time play whatever you want.
P.S. Good players will win regardless of what deck that they are playing
November 16, 2013 4 p.m.
Hallowed_Titan says... #28
I see no problem with it. A deck is a deck. Play the game or dont.
November 16, 2013 4:08 p.m.
hochmaster says... #29
You do realize that in that situation, you are the brewer and those who rolled their eyes/copied are the netdeckers? You're contradicting yourself.
November 16, 2013 4:49 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #30
Arguing that netdecking is somehow wrong or unfair is senseless. Competitive Magic is about winning the game. Yes, it's also about fun and good sportsmanship and all those things, but the goal of competition (of any kind) is to win. There shouldn't be anything wrong with playing a deck that's proven to win.
Let's go through the most common arguments against netdecking.
1) Netdeckers have no skill.
This statement is somewhat subjective. While it's true that there's more game knowledge involved in building a deck from the ground up, a netdecker still needs to understand how, when, and why a deck works in order to be reasonably successful with it. Most players only complain about netdecking when they lose to netdeckers; if the netdecker loses, he or she is sometimes ridiculed.
That ridicule reflects an underlying truth about this situation: players are predisposed to think that netdecks are supposed to win. Factually, this is unrealistic. Victory in Magic depends largely on the construction of the decks, the skill of the players, and the random chance inherent in the game. Netdecking does not immediately increase skill. Gameplay does that. In a match between two equally powerful decks, it's the skill (and luck) that determines which player will win the match.
It should be acknowledged that, outside of even matchups, netdecking does give an advantage due to the tournament quality of the list. Additionally, it does take less deckbuilding skill to copy and adapt an existing decklist than it does to homebrew an equally powerful list. However, players still need skill to win a game, even if they're using netdecks.
2) Netdecking takes the fun out of the game.
This statement is entirely subjective. Fun means different things to different people.
Some players are opposed to netdecking because they think that FNMs should be about homebrews and laid-back gaming. To an extent, they're correct. The FNM experience is intended to teach players about the game and be more casual than a tournament setting. That's why there are different RELs and judging philosophies for FNM and tournament play. However, competition is inherent in FNM. Prizes incentivize performance, and structure is the same across FNMs and tournaments. As such, it doesn't make sense to argue that players shouldn't try to win at FNM.
Many players use FNMs as practices for PTQs, GPs, IQs, States, and other major events. It's natural that they play at FNM the same decks they intend to use in these events. Telling a player he or she can't use his or her netdeck is, in this case, an unfair demand.
Some players believe netdecks degrade the quality of the FNM experience. This argument is also ungrounded. There is no real difference between a player cleaning house using a netdeck and a player cleaning house using a homebrew. The netdeck merely gives losing players something to complain about. In the majority of cases, players who lose to netdeckers complain for one of two actual reasons:
- They are already biased against netdecking. Many times, players who think netdecking takes no skill or that netdecking is unfair have heard their friends or other players use that argument to justify losing. The cycle perpetuates as newer players are conditioned to think that netdecking is somehow inherently unfair. In truth, there is nothing unfair about using a netdeck. Meta shifts aside, deck strength doesn't somehow change from the time someone homebrewed the idea to the time someone netdecked it. The fact that most players don't complain when they lose to a powerful homebrew is evidence enough that there's a preexisting bias against the netdeck.
- The player is unsportsmanlike. This argument, which is by far the fairest reason to dislike a player, has nothing to do with whether that player uses a netdeck. It all revolves around personality. Even if the player using the netdeck somehow feels superior because he or she netdecked and others are using less powerful homebrews, that's still a personality issue. The netdeck didn't create in those players some previously-nonexistent jerkishness.
@zandl, post 2:4: That's pretty much the gist of it. People who never want to listen to the proper argument are too set in one of those categories.
@hochmaster, post 2:8: Nowhere in zandl's post did he say the opponents were netdecking. He was pointing out that after a deck similar to his homebrew won an event, people began to look down on the whole decklist.
November 16, 2013 4:55 p.m.
Blizzicane says... #31
@ zandl 10/10 Best comments in this entire thread.
November 16, 2013 5:07 p.m.
IAmKingTony says... #32
my favorite is when someone netdecks and doesn't know how to run the deck properly, so they spend $500 and still lose repeatedly...
November 16, 2013 5:45 p.m.
AlexanderAlekhine says... #33
For me this game isn't even about playing... which sounds odd, but I like building decks though- no, no, I loooveeeeee building decks. What I like even more? When they're successful. I like thinking of the interactions, 'is it possible to play American control in standard? Why? Why not?' the answers were obvious- the intricacy of the combinations, the complexity in the cards themselves, the IDEA of a changing meta, it's wonderful! I don't too often wait for GP winners to be announced to build decks, no, I build them all the time- in my head. For instance, when you start noticing the more heavy creature play at an FNM and less control play you ask the question 'why?' and then you answer it, with the obvious answer, let's think Theros 'Devotion... devotion... devotion... devotion cards ' then a bubble starts to form, boom, the mono-colour decks take the GPs by storm, took both top seats in standard, and mono-black devotion made the top 8! That's exciting for me, that's why I like this game. as all the people mentioned above me, 'mono-black blahblahblah netdeckers blahblah' I'm more interested in why decks win rather than winning itself, which is the reason why I believe I excel at creating great decks that do quite a lot. if that makes sense, due to this, I often get called a netdecker, so be it, I don't mind. I just like analyzing the game.
Remember, there is no such thing as instant speed in Magic. Peace.
November 16, 2013 6:07 p.m.
Well, Epochalyptik said it more elaborately and beautifully than any of us could've, I think.
This argument has occurred in so many places so many times that it's just old now. Fortunately, it seems like the majority on TappedOut understand both the pros and cons of net-decking and find at least some neutral respect for those who do.
November 16, 2013 6:41 p.m.
My view on net decking is that if you netdeck, then fine. If you netdeck and hope to win a gp or especially a pro tour, then you're unlikely to succeed. The best players are the ones who are able to even if they use a competitive archetype, improve it to combat the meta differently. If monoblack control wins a tourney, then it's almost bound to happen that there'll bee a Spike (hehe it's a pun) in the amount of people using the deck. This means people will sideboard Bramblecrush to kill Underworld Connections and the land it's enchanted to. Or people will sb Dark Betrayal . However, if you know how people are going to sideboard, you can make your deck different to other decks of a similar type, and win because they've boarded in the wrong stuff. If you run a dimir aggro, with Cloudfin Raptor , Returned Phalanx and Nightveil Specter , then you'll be able to rack up lots of devotion for both blue and black, thanks to the specters, but then your opponent will essentially have to side against two decks. Dark Betrayal won't kill a thassa, and Bramblecrush won't have any useful targets, so lots of their sideboard will be rendered nearly useless. By making a deck that uses proven-powerful strategies or cards, but then changing the deck so people aren't expecting it, you'll give yourself more of a chance as people won't expect your deck, and won't be able to answer it. If you netdeck, then you'll win a lot, but you won't beat the best lists, as they're fit to counter the meta, whilst being viable strategies on their own. I dunno whether dimir aggro may become big, and it probably won't, but it's just an example of why a netdeck most likely won't win a gp or a big tournament. There are exceptions, and this is when there are tier 0 decks. JTMS and Stoneforge Mystic pretty much dominated the meta on their own, but in most cases, it's the ones who adapt to the meta who are able to win consistently. At FNMs net decking isn't bad either imo. It gives a chance for brewers to test their decks, and it also means people can see where a deck's weakness is, so they can combat it. The main reason I don't have a problem with it is that netdeckers won't go very far anyway, and the best they're gonna win is a game-day or FNM.
November 16, 2013 7:10 p.m.
DemonicTrilogy says... #37
The thing about Net Decking for me is that it's perfectly fine, just be aware it stunts your growth as a player. People who build their own decks and either coincidentally hit a strong arch-type or create something strong from nothing tend to be ahead of the meta and are in a stronger position than those who play inside the meta. They are the ones who best know how to adapt ahead of the masses and know how to consistently stay ahead, while people who often net deck are only on par with everyone else or behind.
November 16, 2013 8:31 p.m.
detentionsphere says... #38
@Stygian333, @Blakkhand, @zandl: this, this, and this. All of this is very correct.
Netdecking is not a bad thing, people. Just like brewing is not a bad thing. Different people play the game in different ways. If you want to homebrew a deck and take it to a tournament (probably getting crushed by the established, Tier 1 decks), then that's fine. Whatever floats your boat.
However, if someone else wants to try an established deck, test it, get used to it, figure out its subtle nuances, strategy, and different lines of play, perhaps tweak it a little, and then take it to a tournament and have a fair shot at winning, THEN THAT'S ALSO FINE.
@MagicMike69: actually, Richard Garfield did not intend the game to turn out the way it is today, but for different reasons - the reasons he was fine printing Black Lotus , because he imagined that rarity would be a restricting factor for access, so that most playgroups, for example, would possibly never have even seen a Black Lotus . So Garfield did not intend for you to be able to netdeck, but he also did not intend for you to be able to brew up a Sphere of Safety deck.
November 16, 2013 8:48 p.m.
Personally, I'm glad there exists a Standard environment of maybe eight decks, because that is an environment I enjoy playing in sometimes. Knowing your opponent's cards changes the game and can be very interesting.
November 16, 2013 9:08 p.m.
"... just be aware it stunts your growth as a player."
Not necessarily true. Anyone can sleeve up whatever deck they find on the internet (whether with real cards or with proxies) and net-deck, but if you're a real net-decker, you strive to wrap your head around how the deck works, what makes it so good, and the decisions made by those who originally created it. Otherwise, you aren't going to win anything.
In a way, net-decking can show you the correct paths to take in order to build future decks.
November 16, 2013 10:19 p.m.
lord_of_the_snakes says... #41
when do the riots start, it's probably soon, i need to get my Riot Control s ready, because they are coming
November 16, 2013 10:42 p.m.
But bantam1234, the Riot Piker s are already here!
November 17, 2013 2:21 a.m.
Trollhoffer says... #43
Personally, I dislike heavy netdecking. What I mean by that is that I have no problem with people borrowing card interactions or broad strategies, because learning those interactions and strategies is critical in terms of growing as a player. As a game, though, MTG is versatile enough that you can have a deck with some of the same interactions and a similar strategy as another powerful deck, but still have it play uniquely or give it its own identity.
Take mono-black devotion, for example. I have no issue with people going "That did really well, so I'm going to try making a mono-black devotion deck", but I do find it annoying when said deck is bang on a pro-player's deck. Using Desecration Demon ? Gary? Thoughtseize ? All the more power to you. Given all the different black permanents in Standard, though, there's a vast array of different ways to assemble the pieces you need. Has Dark Prophecy been used with Pack Rat yet? With a sacrifice outlet, you can discard into copies of Pack Rat , sacrifice the copies to draw, and continue the cycle to dig into the cards you need while filling your graveyard. Not necessarily that bad if you're running Sewer Shambler as Pack Rat fodder, which can then be scavenged to make your guys bigger -- particularly fatties like Desecration Demon .
I feel that when a deck wins consistently, there are two essential reasons:
It's piloted well.
Its core components are strong or have strong synergy together.
Those core components may not change, but the supporting material that helps enable them might change considerably without making the deck weaker. Playing Standard RDW? Well, duh, you'll be running Fanatic of Mogis . But I didn't hear of many people running Ember Swallower , which strikes me as odd since it curves off Hammer of Purphoros , thereby gaining haste, has a 4/5 body for 2RR, and punishes your opponents for drawing out the game with its monstrous ability.
tl;dr version:
I'm by no means against people borrowing ideas, interactions or successful strategies, but a straight-up netdeck bothers me because it seems like such a non-effort when you could likely have a deck with the same level of power, but while putting your own stamp on it.
November 17, 2013 10:04 a.m.
I'm appreciating all the tl;dr versions in this thread.
November 17, 2013 12:08 p.m.
Seraphicate says... #45
personally, my view on netdeckers as a whole is fairly bad. i'm a 'johnny', and i value people's own work over something they saw on the net/winning a tournament
first, starting with my definition of 'netdecker'; basically somebody who has simply not bothered piecing together a deck of their own, instead, deciding to go to tournaments, or online and look for a decklist that is powerful, a deck that is consistent, a deck that wins, and (at least nearly) copies it card for card. somebody who has copied a deck they found, BECAUSE it wins. basically, someone who only uses the intellectual property of others
to me (very lazy) i find netdecking as begin very close to the pinnacle of laziness, especially when you go up against somebody, and, although they havent heard of/know what Innistrad is, you find that their parish deck is extremely similar to this one everybody else plays
if people have strung together a deck, that's similar in every aspect to one on the net, but without having to go online to make sure it's perfect, card-for-card, that's what i'd call good, to me, that player has worked on it. they understand the deck and it's concept, and it is theirs alone.
on the other hand, somebody who has put about |------| this much thought into building their deck, and searched online for something that wins, is basically throwing money at the game. the |------| of thought i can see would probably be the 1-2 cards they replaced, to go against people at their local play area
i fail to see the point in winning with somebody else's deck, it feels like a hollow victory. sure, i may have piloted well, but having a run that well doesnt give me any sense of achievement, regardless of how fast, how consistent or how broken it was.
i don't have much against netdecking in serious tournaments, because that's where people play to win big. i'm more of a casual player who likes making putting things together without having to look to others for help
December 26, 2013 2:53 a.m.
Seraphicate most of that is somewhat ludacris. So your calling everybody from CFB, SCG, and any other sites lazy and bad at the game? I'm pretty sure they win more then any of us.
December 26, 2013 8:12 a.m.
I generally don't care, although,I don't know if this is net-decking, but I am a pretty new player and I'm awful at building decks. I usually like to look at the tournament winning decks, and what cards are in it, and What I could replace the 4 $30 cards with for something less than $10 each.
Although I am getting a bit better, but that is only because I am getting better at learning how I can get some cards to interact with each other. Learning more about what cards to use and not to use in certain decks.
Point is I usually look at a deck and see if I would enjoy it or not, If I would end up having a lot of fun with it, then by all means I will net-deck it. I don't care if I win or lose, I play to have fun and annoy the crap out of people, that's why I play mill. and in the deck I use against my friends (not really any format specific) I run 4 Vexing Devil , you know why? unless they have something in hand to get rid of it or counter it, it screws them over either way.
GreatSword says... #2
Netdecking is basically just copy and pasting the most recent successful decks and playing them. It's usually used as a pejorative term, as it isn't very creative.
Also, the Q+A forum is for technical rules questions; not general Magic queries.
November 16, 2013 4:01 a.m.