My aim here is to try to get people thinking together and considering each others' points of view so please keep things civil. Flaming not tolerated etc.

Also tagging xzzane as requested.

Each needs the other to survive, as is the balance. With no netdeckers, who would play the beautiful messes you brewers come up with?

And without brewers, who would create said monstrosities for netdeckers to assimilate competition with?

Thats not to say they cant exist together in one package, but we all know they're the exception

I dislike netdecking because it forces other people in your meta to also netdeck, which makes the game less fun for me, personally. Deck creation is, to me, an integral part of the fun in Magic, and netdecking kills deckbuilding off.

That's not to say netdeckers are evil, just that it often means we spend more to play less magic. And yes, netdecking changes card prices, often in the up direction. And that's not an opinion; you can just about watch card prices move in response to decks playing well in tournaments. Rarity, of course, determines the cost tier because that determines the supply...but netdecking drives demand.

Speculation is probably worse for the market than netdecking, however. At least in the case of a netdeck, someone is getting value out of the card. A card sitting in a speculator's closet gives no one any value.

What this argument always boils down to: Magic is a different game to everyone and there's no right to ask others to play it differently. If you don't like how people are playing Magic, don't play with them. If those people play at the only shop near you, either evolve or find something better to do. Whining won't change minds.

Well said Chief.

Netdecking helps the homebrewer. Without a net meta, the brewer has no idea what sort of environment his brew will be in. Net decks provide something for us to test against. I know it's frustrating when a favorite brew falls flat... but most brews aren't as good as the brewer initially thinks they are. Isn't it better to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff at home before the tourney by running it against popular net decks?

It's nice that our conversations are so in depth that they turn into articles lol.

This is an area where I think the Magic community has improved on greatly (not that there aren't strides still to make). My first return to Magic and introduction to the more competitive side was in Odyssey Block in about 2003. There was such a stigma to most of the players I interacted with about netdecking that it was treated as an insult. Enough so that if I came up with a deck idea, and then see it do well in a tournament, I would abandon the deck just so I wouldn't have to hear it.

Anymore, I will see people show up to FNM with a 75 card copy of a previous weekend's GP top 8 deck, and not hear a peep. Typically, when I do hear the term in person, it is during a conversation about the practice in general. Come to the internet, and it's a little different. I don't know if the ability to progress a topic in a constructive matter is a dying "art", or if there really are that many (expletive deleted)s in the world and now they can find each other easier. Probably a combination of the two.

I personally never netdeck. Is this because it shows a lack of creativity? Or because it drives up prices? No. It's because I love building decks. In my humble opinion, it's the most fun part of magic. You get to come up with unique card interactions and win in ways people never expected. Or you can see how your idea fares in a competitive environment.

Netdeckers often enjoy the piloting skill that comes with top-tier decks and having to play around the meta. Decks are also usually more competitive, less risky monetarily (you know the deck can work if you play it right), and let you play with the best cards in the game.

Both have their draws and it comes down to personal preference.

I dislike netdecking because it forces other people in your meta to also netdeck, which makes the game less fun for me, personally

This goes both ways. If the format is too casual, competitive players who want to test their deck before going to a GP/Open aren't going to have fun.

I personally enjoy both. Creating a deck from scratch and seeing how it does competitively is fun but it's also fun to pick up a deck from a PT and get really good at playing with it, and tweak it to your needs. Deckbuilding is not the only enjoyable part of Magic.

Actually, the people who really annoy me are the people who make a homebrew and expect it to perform just as well as an established deck (these are the same people who claim to have come up with established decks before they went mainstream). They get angry when they lose, and usually their excuse is "well you're just a netdecker." If you're brewing, you should expect to lose against the best decks in the format. These decks have been around for years and have been tweaked by the greatest players of the game. There's a very low chance that someone who's not a pro is going to break the format and come up with the best new deck, just because of how much time the pros spend on it.

Not to say the article wasn't well written, but zandl sums it up really well.

I am definitely in the camp of homebrewer, as most of my decks can attest to, but at the same time my general understanding of netdecking has been this. There are things to be appreciated about both sides that get completely missed in the general vitriol about the subject. I will try to articulate a few of them now.

Let me give a musical analogy. I am a musician, trained in jazz. You would not believe, among jazz musicians, how often debates can get really heated over whether or not someone is creating their own musical lines, or just lifting improvised lines from other peoples' solos and pasting them into their own improvisational areas. I've heard both sides staunchly defended, and both sides ridiculed. The one side often says that those who merely take another person's idea haven't learned to create ideas themselves, and they're always going to sound like a second-rate insert-name-of-jazz-player-here (Michael Brecker, for example). The second side says that people who always try to make up their own ideas have never learned any of the established jazz vocabulary, and aren't going to fit well in any group setting they try to play in because no one can understand their dialect (pardon the linguistic secondary analogy).

Here's the thing. Borrowing other people's ideas is a wonderful tool, but it is a tool. It is a way to learn how other people who think differently than you have done it before, in a setting in which you will most likely learn how to do what they have done. It gives good exposure to possibilities, provides good techniques to emulate, and gives definition to what can be done under certain commonly defined parameters. Now, if all you do is use other people's ideas, then all I can say is that you then must become better at using them than all the other people emulating the same people, because everybody copies the masters. However, spending time learning your own ideas, your own tendencies is an experiment in discovering who you are, how you work, what aligns itself with your personal thought process, and learning where your preferences sit. This is as fundamental a thing as a person can do. Sun Tzu said in the Art of War "Know thyself", citing it as the first principle of war. Know where you are strong, and where you are weak. Know your tendencies, and know them better than the enemy, so that when you see your enemy gain knowledge of your own weakness, you can exploit that knowledge. I cannot recommend homebrewing strongly enough. It helps you learn what you like to play.

There is one other thing I've learned. When you imitate someone else for long enough, you start to move away from how that person worked, and will eventually find yourself, from sheer imitation, sounding like yourself, for nothing anybody does, even though it be the same activity with all the same components, comes across exactly the same way. One trumpet will sound different depending on who plays it, because all physiologies are not identical. In the same way, all mental processes are not identical. One deck, with all the same components, may not play exactly the same way at all from seventeen different netdeckers. They will all have their own opinions on what constitutes the best plays at any given time, the best things to hold back, the best to deploy quickly. Even when they play well, they are learning techniques from the best, the people who helped to create and optimize those decklists that they're playing from. This will only increase their skill set. But whether or not they start with the same playset, something inevitably changes. Sideboard choices are sometimes the best reflection of this.

In summary: netdecking comes with significant learning advantages in learning from the best. Homebrewing comes with significant learning advantages in learning what you personally are best and/or most comfortable at doing.

ChiefBell, I hope you will forgive this long entry on your article. I appreciate the stuff you write down here. I hope you find something useful in what I have written as well.

I have two scenes I participate in. I play MTG with the middle schoolers I work with and I play MTG at events and with friends my age. I homebrewed dozens of decks, many of them I actually purchased, and that can be a great time in and of itself. But "netdecking" is necessary at higher tiers of play. The term itself is almost embarrassing to say unironically. When I hear "netdecking" I think of DesolatorMagic who is a clown as far as I'm concerned. But I digress, they aren't mutually exclusive things as I participate in both, but I know at the heart of it all that "netdecking" is not only necessary if you're serious about competing but it itself provides decks that are very fun to play.

I'm not bothered by netdecking inherently, but I am bothered by the fact that my local meta is 75% crafted from whatever the last top 8 was.

I look at it like this: Regardless if one is "netdecking", they are still playing Magic.

I don't copy decks from top8 or anything else.

But I do research obscure and abandoned strategies.

And I also thoroughly playtest decks and buy singles instead of buying sealed product and making the best of my luck.

I have met people that consider this to be the same or just as bad as netdecking.

Buckle up, kids, because this comment is a long one. And probably pretty controversial, too.

ChiefBell for sake of argument, let's assume your Abzan modern deck started by you copying a list off of mtgtop8 however many months ago. I don't know whether this is true or not, but this isn't intended to be a personal attack you provide a perfect example for the point I'd like to illustrate.

So you started with a netdeck. However, you took that netdeck, came to your own conclusions as to which cards worked and which cards did not. You learned the deck, inside and out.

Then, the meta shifted. Abzan fell somewhat out of favor and the 'solved' list which was tuned for the meta when Abzan was popular became untuned. However, at this point, because you knew your deck inside and out as to which cards were good and how to identify good cards for the deck AND because you know the deckbuilding process, you took your own experience and adjusted the deck to be tuned for the new meta.

So, given this, are you a netdecker? Technically, yes, you did start with a netdeck, however, given the level of insight you have into your deck as well as your deckbuilding knowledge with the adjustments you were able to make to your list, you most certainly have exhibited traits of a non-netdecker.

So, what's my point? My point is this: I'll be honest, as a die-hard Johnny-Spike Brewer, I look down upon what are traditionally called 'netdeckers', but the term 'netdecker' is inaccurate. The players I look down upon (yeah, yeah, shame on me for looking down on people, but keep in mind that they are 'netdeckers', so it's justified) are not only players that are part of the subset of people that copy decks off the internet and thus 'netdeck'. The players I despise are the ones that copy a deck off the internet, then don't learn how to adjust and tune the deck themselves. I've seen people play Grixis and use Thought Scour to mill their opponent (not knowing it's to enable delve and Snap, not to mill), but those players are simply new players or people still learning the deck, and they're not the people I'm referring to. The players I'm referring to are not necessarily new players. They're not necessarily bad players either (oftentimes better players than myself, although they're rarely, if ever, fantastic players). They are, however, players that have little passion for their deck, care mostly (or only) for winning and don't really care how they win, and oftentimes have a lot of means to get cards, but aren't very avid mtg players. They are very narrow-minded and arrogant.

I AM NOT REFERRING TO SPIKES IN GENERAL. THESE PLAYERS WOULD IDENTIFY AS SPIKES, YES, BUT THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL SPIKES IN THE GAME, AND SOMEONE WHO IS A SPIKE CAN NEVER BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS KIND OF PLAYER So please don't get pissed at me as if I'm biased against Spikes; I'm not, as I am part Spike myself.

Let's call these players 'deckwads'. Probably disrespectful of me, but I don't particularly care for these people and I'm not in a particularly good mood either (although not because of mtg-related things).

Earlier I mentioned that deckwads are arrogant and narrow-minded. Allow me to explain. Deckwads oftentimes use the argument of 'that card beats me, so it should be banned' without considering how they could adjust their mainboard and sideboard to adapt to a changing meta. This is arrogant because they are blaming the problem on someone else without being able to admit that the fault may be in their deck instead. This is narrow-minded because they aren't considering that the solution to their problem may lie in an area of mtg that they've never tried. Normally I'd ignore these players and move along with my day, but their existence unfortunately has ripples in the game (especially the modern format) that simply cannot be ignored. In many ways, deckwads are responsible for the banning of Summer Bloom - Bloom Titan was a deck that put up good results, but was banned out of the game and many players felt like its ban was unnecessary. The thing about Bloom Titan was that hate for this deck existed for most, if not all, archetypes, however if you did not play cards that were good against them, their non-interactivity would overwhelm you. This shouldn't be a problem since as it gains meta share, players ought to adjust their lists accordingly, right? So logic would have you think, but Bloom Titan's emergence was over a fairly brief period of time, so many players, deckwads to be exact, did not adjust their decks to accommodate for it, and it was thus banned. My claims are are somewhat unjustified, but it's not an opinion that I created; many players held the viewpoint that Bloom Titan was banned because people simply didn't adjust to accommodate it, and the primary group of players who do this are the players that I have defined as deckwads. As an afterthought as I reflect upon what I have just written, deckwads act very entitled too.

The significance of this: deckwads and netdeckers are not the same group of players. When many people say they hate netdeckers, what they really mean are the players who copy a decklist but then don't learn that deck very well.

Quick clarification, again regarding Spikes: many Spikes will switch decks with the meta to always be playing what they believe is the best deck in the meta. These players are not deckwads, as they, more often than not, are focusing on developing their skills as a player to become the perfect pilot for a given deck rather than mastering a single deck. They are simply perfecting a different skill in the game, and because they switch decks fairly often, when a deck stops being good in the meta, more often than not they acknowledge this then switch decks without complaining 'this card always beats me and deserves to be banned'. They leave solving the problem of how to adjust the lists to someone else, but that's fine as far as I'm concerned.

Second clarification: sometimes, even the brewers can't adjust a deck to solve the problem. For example, if a ton of decks suddenly maindeck Leyline of Sanctity, burn players will struggle to adjust. They could maindeck Destructive Revelry, but that just worsens every matchup where there isn't an enchantment or artifact to kill, such as the Grixis matchup. However, at this point, this is a problem of burn simply becoming less favored in the meta, not one of deckwads refusing to adjust, and this was not the case with the Bloom Titan incident.

One last clarification I need to make before I get spammed with angry messages: I am not trying to pick on people with not enough time to get engrossed in mtg and perfect their skills with deckbuilding since, let's face it, deckbuilding is a long process. Not having enough time for such an involved process is understandable. It's the combination of having too little time to learn, yet also being arrogant, narrow-minded, loud, and entitled all at once that makes deckwads so irritable. So, people that are too low on time to learn deckbuilding and only like to go to FNM for some mtg fun, you guys are fine and I have no quarrel with you, since most of you aren't deckwads; the deckwads are sadly just a noisy bunch.

ChiefBell: If you think this comment comes off as too harsh, I understand. However, I would like my idea to be heard. I've saved this comment into a word document, so if you feel it is too disrespectful, then go ahead and delete this comment, but let me know. I'm willing to edit it so that it's much more respectful and informative rather than a rant, but I'd prefer to do this only if necessary.

@omnipotato That's a somewhat unfair and inaccurate generalization. I agree that netdecks should generally win over homebrews, but in practice even skillfully designed homebrews tend to get blown out. This is particularly a problem for Modern. The result is that only one or two players netdecking forces the entire meta to follow suit eventually. In so many words, netdecking spreads from LGS to LGS.

As for players testing decks to play at higher level events...they're already probably using a gauntlet of the top decks. If they're not, they should be. I'm a homebrewer, and I use a gauntlet. The only thing added is practice playing your own deck when you aren't also playing the opposing deck. Besides, pro-aspiring players are a minority of magic players and tend to buy singles rather than sealed product. This is not a sound group to base policy on.

Netdecking is a thing people get emotionally bent up about, and I understand why; you lost. But the more I think about it, the more I think netdecking is small fry and the more I think large-scale speculators are the real problem. One of the major reasons you see homebrews is expense--homebrews almost never have the same top-tier cards in them. If homebrewers had better access to the same cards netdeckers regularly buy, the netdeck would still probably win. But it would also be a more convincing fight.

If you are interested in discussing this from a spike perspective, I recommend listening to the Constructed Resource episode on brewing, which I also linked on the other thread.

This all boils down to something I heard referenced in a Q&A episode of Critical Role. When asked about what their biggest fear was when taking their D&D campaign from the privacy of home to be broadcast on the internet they said that they feared someone saying "your fun is wrong".

People need to stop being so judgemental of the way others play the game. This goes for almost anything I have ever heard someone get heated over. Netdeckers by and large like playing magic with effective decks. Who are brewers to say "your fun is wrong". Brewers like the creative aspect and the connection they feel with a deck they see as fully "theirs". Who are netdecks to say "your fun is wrong".

This same argument can be extended to vitriol over archetypes. People being judgemental over formats. Even the negative connotations of "casual" or "competitive". People just need to settle down and find other players whose idea of fun overlaps with their own.

Gidgetimer valid point, but the 'Bloom Titan incident' is proof that what you refer to as 'netdeckers' have a very real and unhealthy impact on the game because they don't learn their decks and don't adjust to the meta. It's in my monster of a comment above, somewhere...

ToolmasterOfBrainerd, if you'll pardon me for saying so, over the course of your extremely thorough comment, I found it interesting that you actually paraphrased a few things I had already said, but in a more specific context. I'm flattered. And yay, it means other people also think similarly

I am a relatively new player to Magic, so let that viewpoint sink in.

I am not in the competitive scene at all, or trying very much to be so, but I understand where people are coming from. The idea of 'netdecking' that is most disliked/despised/etc is the one where someone just copy pastes a deck from a high ranking place or somewhere on the internet and says it is their's (much like reddit reposts). These people may not wish to change the deck as it stands because they want exactly what placed so well, believing that it will place just as well anywhere else.

Couple of falsies with this in itself

1. if a deck places very high, other decks will (more than likely) start running hosers for that deck (at least those that wish to do well) meaning the decks won't perform optimally. if a token deck with numerous 1/1's gets played without pump, Curse of Death's Hold could possibly see play in a sideboard to beat that deck. Would it be played normally? Nope. In that meta? Sure.

2. The people playing those decks are at the high levels of skill (more than likely) and will definitely have played that deck multiple times in preparation for whatever they are going to. Like if a deck is going to a standard tournament, you bet the player will have play tested against some sort of company deck to make sure they don't fold to the meta.

But I see a lot of merit in 'NetDecking', mostly because I have played a lot of Commander. Because of the rules of commander, you (likely) don't know a lot of cards that would work well with your deck. Until I put my Varolz list together I had no idea about Death's Shadow but when I looked up decks, I saw it and realized it was a great fit. This kind of netdecking, where you are seeing what has been done and thinking about how it can work for you is, I think, the safer and more beneficial version. Not just taking a deck, but taking an idea and refining it to your own deck, like the Modern Aristocrats deck I made up recently.

TLDR: To those that netdeck, make it your own. See what works, and think "What could make this better" in your head. To those that despise anyone who uses control+c and control+v when making a deck, just think about decks you have brewed up, even from scratch, and how you may have looked up something on a card, a ruling, or even a combination that was shown in a deck or on a decklist.

At my LGS there is 1 person who netdecks, and when I say netdecks I mean takes the whole 75 and doesn't change a card of it, this usually means that his sideboard is completely useless against a bunch of homebrews while those same homebrewers actually pay attention to what the others play and tweak their decks accordingly, and so it's no surprise when the netdecker loses and the homebrewer wins.

I said this on the other post and am going to add it here.

People don't always fall into the camp of Brewer or Decker exclusively.

Sometimes a Brewer will assemble a netdeck just to see what it's like to play it.

At other times a Decker will try building and playing an original deck just for fun.

This situation happened with some people I knew when Theros was about to rotate. They built their own decks around cards they had loved, especially the Gods, and didn't really care about winning on that night.

You see I will have to disagree with you on the point that what I refer to as netdeckers led to Bloom being banned. I read your comment and I do agree that you identified the problem group in both that banning and the banning of Twin. However I am using "netdecker" to mean anyone who primarily uses an established list as the basis for their own decks.

I consider myself to be a netdecker. I like playing decks with high consistency and effective win conditions. The fastest way to find these decks is to look up a list and use it. I was also a Titan Bloom player and have time and again made the argument that it was a fragile deck that got banned because people didn't want to learn to play at instant speed.

Just because someone enjoys playing established lists does not mean they will also fall into the group of people who want the game changed to fit how they want to play. I would actually contend that people playing established lists are more likely to evaluate their own performance and the card choices of the deck before a typical brewer. Trying to blame one group or the other is rather pointless though.

The problem you have identified lies along a different axis. It lies along the axis of locus of control. People with an internal locus of control feel that their loss was due to something they could change. Was your deck unprepared for their strategy pre-board? Did you board correctly? Was your board correctly constructed for the meta? Did you make play mistakes? An external locus of control means that they feel they were the victim of circumstance. Why do I have such bad luck? That guy just plays OP cards. (sorry, being someone with an internal locus I find it hard to come up with external locus post-game self talk, but you get the point).

So really while I agree with what you posted above, I disagree that it even has anything to do with "netdecker" v "brewer". It is simply a different matter that also ties into people feeling that they way they want to play is the only way and everyone else's fun is wrong.

Good point. That makes some sense, and you're right, I didn't address netdeck vs brewer in that.

Looking back over your comment that I responded too, I see that I was mistaken. You're correct, you were referring to netdeckers in the literal definition of the word, not to 'deckwads'. I think the point I disagreed with is that we need to stop being judgmental over how others play the game. I am perfectly fine with accepting netdeckers and I do my best not to be judgmental of them. However, I will always be judgmental of 'deckwads' but not because they're having fun incorrectly (since they're not), but because they're unhealthy for the game.

I guess my intention for my initial post was to establish that 'deckwads' are not the only players who fall under the category of 'netdecker', and that we need to make a distinction between them, since I think there is a large misunderstanding. Even in the OP, (sorry Chief) it is largely based on observations of criticisms of 'deckwads' exclusively, but proving that those criticisms don't apply to netdeckers in general, and I agree that the criticisms of deckwads don't apply to netdeckers because that's not at whom the criticisms were directed. However, seeing the complaints and criticisms of 'netdeckers' (that are actually directed only at deckwads) and thinking that those criticisms are directed at everyone who copies a decklist online is a logical fallacy that we need to avoid before we can engage in meaningful discussion.

I'm a brewer personally, so I favor brewing, but I understand people who don't like to brew.

I don't see the whole problem here and why people get frustrated. I'm sure there isn't one interesting combo, or great interaction in a deck that someone in the world hasn't thought of before. We're all netdeckers in some way, and it's not a bad thing.

I got my idea for competitive elves, tested a REALLY fine tuned deck, realized that it didn't feel right for me, and made what I currently have (Dwynen's Army of Elves)! It's my favorite deck, and while yeah, it's mostly "net-decked," I've added my own flare to it. And I built the deck from the ground up with this community.

And to people who completely copy deck builds, it's not bad. It gets a deck popularity, which is good. Appreciation of good ideas is great, but it also gives more inspiration on improving a list or finding that "next OP card" for the deck. "Net decking" is a blessing, not a plague. Do you guys think all good decks came from just pure creativity? No, shit had to be copied for every really good and effective deck to get where it is. Plain fact.

icehit6 " Do you guys think all good decks came from just pure creativity? No, shit had to be copied for every really good and effective deck to get where it is."

If we're being honest here neither of these statements are true. The decks, and their basics shells(structure of the maindeck, with out filling flexslots or SB) is usually constructed from hours of playtesting and then more gauntlets to solidify those unfilled slots. Not just having a cute idea, or copying someone else. There's a ton of work that goes into running gauntlets to make small changes even to established decks. This practice is usually lost on both sides, "brewers" just cram really cute cards that synergize together on Gatherer and "Netdeckers" go to MtgTop8, buy the most recently successful 75 they like and sleeve it up. Neither camp is doing painstaking work to solidify a list.

Endstep I'm not 100% sure what you mean, probably because I'm not reading properly, cramming for finals and it's late, but if I'm thinking correctly of what you're saying then we have the same idea and my words are true.

The point is, people think of the same stuff. There are probably a lot of different people in this game who has thought of the next best thing, which is the exact same as someone else. Yeah, I'm 100% sure there are completely authentic and creative brews out there, but the best top decks are there for the reason that it's all the best cards with all the best synergies. Brewers start the decks off and put hours of work into making them good, and net deckers (may) spend hours of work into making them better through playtesting.

EndStepTop - oops, didn't see the top at the end :| I'm tired

I'd like to add something unique to the conversation without any specific point other than to be a thoughtful anecdote. I once created a meta. Disclaimer: memory is fuzzy. Forgive me if i screw up a detail or 2.

Sounds impossible right? I'm just some random pleb vs the top 8 charts so what happened? I brewed a deck that got net decked by many people. This was during a time of mid innistrad-return to ravnica standard. Most of the lgs was on some kind of control. Uw-r was popular as hell. I didn't own a lot of cards and was sort of bummed that my vampire deck no longer was legal but my roommate desperately wanted to play standard so i said screw it. What can i do? The deck was mono black control. It was jank. The curve was something like. Blood artist ramp liliana/crypt ghast, mikaeus, Grisselbrand with stuff like gravecrawler and geralfs messenger thrown in with the General killspells and draw. The deck could often win t4-5 by casting Mutilate on your own board just from artist and messenger triggers.

Basically after going top 4 like 3 weeks in a row, a few of the guys had started making their own variants of the deck and it forced the guys playing the "netdecks" to shift their lists towards beating that new meta.

I guess the lesson here is that with enough skill and knowledge on your part, you can take down the meta or in my case accidentally create your own.

At that point in time, I was running Golgari zombie beats. Even with the fact that it's a 0/1, I warranted Blood Artist to be worth 4 deckslots and still do.

If you're a good brewer, netdecking helps you more than it harms you as you get to use very specific silver-bullet sideboard cards, and if you've built something unusual (as is often the case with brews) there generally isn't a lot that they can bring in to get you back.

Also, a brewer who has spent hundreds of hours fine-tuning their list is going to have a huge advantage over somebody who clicked 'buy cards' at the bottom of a top 8 list - they will play so much better.

It is true that somebody who is using a solid 75 cards that somebody else took to a top 8 is generally going to have a better deck, but that isn't a reason to hate netdecking, as ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether a deck is brewed, netdecked or a mixture of both, the player who has put more effort into it's construction is the player who is more likely to win.

I have been playing, off and on, for about 20 years. During my first major run of playing Magic, there was no such thing as "netdecking", because quite simply there was no internet to copy off of. Brewing was a lot more prevalent, and everyone made their own decks and played them. Yes, people would end up, all be it a few weeks later, probably copying a "pro's" deck they played at a tournament, but you always had more than one good brew at any given tournament simply because it was the way the game was run.

Fast-forward to my second major run of Magic, and the game has changed dramatically. First, there are these new things called "Planeswalkers". Secondly, there are no longer any interrupts (yes, I played that long ago), and the whole landscape has changed. Everyone is watching what the "pros" build, and within a week, that is what you are going to see at every tournament. The next week, you are going to see a deck to beat the latest flavor. It means a more fluid format, and it means more money being spent on the cards that beat the other cards. This is what Wizards ultimately wants, because in the end, they make more money. However, that is the evolution of the game, and you either evolve or you get left in the dust.

Now, what does this mean for a dinosaur like me? I still brew just about every deck I build. I will take ideas I find in these "netdecks" and adapt them to my playstyle and my collection of cards. Sometimes I find they work, sometimes they don't, but I like the cards I have and I will find something I have to adapt.

Honestly, when you run into netdeck after netdeck, what you can do is adapt to that and you can almost predict what their next play is going to be. This is what netdecking does, to me, is takes away the unpredictability of the game, and that is what the true shame of doing such is. Magic should be a game where you get surprised by your opponent, where that sense of "oh shit, I never saw that coming" still hits you on a nightly basis. With the predictability of netdecks, you lose that surprise. I can look at my opponent, see the colors they are playing, and if they are playing any green and have at the end of my turn, I am going to see Collected Company. The biggest thrill I have gotten in the last few months was watching someone play a Demonic Tentacles deck, simply because it was so different and had that element of surprise and playability, so much so I built it right away. That is what Magic should be, IMHO, playing what makes you feel that sense of enjoyment, not what wins or stomps or whatever.

But that is just one long-time player's opinion, and opinions are like excuses which are like assholes...everyone has one and they all stink.

Wonderful article dude. I always sort of enjoyed the "rivalry" between Spikes and Johnnies. To me it boils down to what the individual wants to do or more so how that person wants to win, there is not a wrong way to do this. I have won FNMs with decks I home brewed, I have won with decks that I used a list for. At smaller venues it is really based on what every one is playing and any deck can take the cake.

Now that being said I do possibly have an unpopular opinion (This is just the thoughts of an old Johnny that has played magic for a long time) In my experience it always felt better when a deck that I worked hard on, building and adapting the deck to the meta won rather then just having a cut and dry list. Whenever I won or did well with a "net-deck" it almost felt like a hollow victory, as if I didn't really win but the creator of the deck won. Now of course this is not true for everyone and I know this, that is why I say that there is no wrong way to properly play magic.

Everyone has there own way and that is what makes magic one of the best games in the world :)

As a magic player of 12+ years I believe the game would be more fun if netdecks were taken out of the game. I know you can argue that they are necessary at top tier levels etc etc but tournaments, ProTours, Grand Prix & World Championships would be way more competitive and fun if decks weren't posted online. Just give the results of the individual and describe the style of play the individual person prefers.

I'm a brewer myself and have been since I got into magic, each set that comes out I've fallen in love with the new mechanics and cards that come out, just recently I built a B/G Delirium Deck and a Mono-Green Clues deck, competitively those decks would probably do bad (2-1 vs BANT coco using B/G Delirium actually) but my biggest problem with Netdeckers is their attitude in general. Netdeckers usually act smug towards other players, like they are the elitist of the magic community because they spent 500 to 600 dollars on their copied netdeck, or they become anger when their 500 to 600 dollar deck doesn't work like they thought it would because they have no idea how to play the deck that was build by someone else who understands it. But what is truly madding out of all of it is seeing how defeated Brewers become because 5 or 6 out of an 8 man tournament are netdeckers because they had to become a netdeckers.

Truthfully I've turned to Drafting as a way around netdeckers, it still provides a competitive edge and I get to come up with various short brews for the set

It seems you guys have had a vastly different experience with netdeckers than I have. It is also a vastly different experience than I offer people that play against me as I am a netdecker in organized tournament formats.

Anyone who hasn't taken the time to understand their deck is a bad player. It could be a brew that they made. It could be a deck you straight lifted from online. If you have not taken the time to understand the deck and expect to win over 50% of the time you are just bad. If you have taken the time and effort to tune a deck to the meta and learn every last trick you can then you are a good player. Whether it is a netdeck or a brew doesn't matter as much as how well it was played.

This comes back to my explanation of locus of control to ToolmasterOfBrainerd. People who say or think that their deck should win because it is a netdeck have an external locus of control. As do people who thinks it takes less skill to win with a netdeck. People with an internal locus of control feel that their skill at piloting the deck and tuning the deck is the most important factor. As such they will evaluate their own performance and choices in game and pre-game to find the reason for their success or failure.

As someone with an internal locus of control I find it baffling that anyone could think that the reason anyone won or lost was because of if they made the deck themselves or got a list from online. Isn't play skill and deck tuning the real contributing factor to game outcomes? I realize that certain decks are positioned well or poorly in metas. It is a fact that combo will not fare well in a control heavy environment. But it doesn't matter if it is brewed combo or netdecked combo, once the control player identifies the major moving pieces it gets harder to get wins.

It has been my experience that most netdeckers have an internal locus of control. They don't want to take the time to reinvent the wheel so they take a list that has proven results. From there they can perfect their own play skill and tune the deck to the ever evolving meta.

When I was playing Titan Bloom if I lost a game I didn't get upset. The deck had put up big wins. This didn't mean I was entitled to win just because I had this deck. Either the current iteration of the deck was unprepared for the deck I was against (in which case a revision was due if I expected to see the deck as a share of the meta). I had made a play mistake (get gud scrub). Or I had been outplayed (well it happens we will be better next time). I didn't start cracking above a 50% win rate with Titan Bloom until I had about 60-70 matches under my belt. I had been aware of the deck for years before it was a force in modern because my buddy played it casually. I still needed well over 40 hours of play time with the deck before I could post a winning record.

It seems to me that people on both sides don't necessarily have a problem with either practice. I feel that it is a sense of entitlement that both sides are guilty of that the other dislikes. Brewers are not entitled to a winning record because somehow magically the 75 cards they own are more "theirs". Netdeckers are not entitled to a winning record because they are running a proven list. The only person entitled to a win is the one who proved better preparation and play skill by earning the win.

FaintlyThere I don't understand why you're generalizing "net deckers." Not all of us are "elitists of the magic community because (we) spent 500 to 600 dollars on (our) copied netdeck..." From the way you're acting right now, you're a seemingly elitist brewer. You look down upon people who appreciate other's ideas and use them. It's not bad to use other people's decks. They're public for a reason. If someone wanted to keep a deck a secret, they really could. It's not that hard. All you have to do is play it locally and not post it online.

Just because you're "a magic player of 12+ years" does not mean your opinion is more valuable than anyone else's here.

With regards to the locus of control idea, the largest factor in each game by a long way is still luck. It doesn't matter how many hours you put into tuning a list, if you keep a 5 land hand and draw another 4, chances are you're going to lose horribly.

I don't think the point is that brewers feel like they 'deserve' to win because of the extra effort they put in so much as feel that they should be able to win with a good brew close to 50% of the time, as opposed to the (generally) much lower results that brews put up.

Equally, it isn't fun for either player if someone who hasn't bothered to learn their netdeck gets crushed by an excellent brew.

If someone at your LGS starts netdecking, the easiest way to deal with it is probably to sideboard an unusual amount of hate against them, so that (hopefully) they go back to whatever deck they were using before.

@DrLitebur: what you describe as "eliminating the element of surprise" is, to me a, key component of high level play. I naturally try to predict my opponent's plays - hell, I try to predict my opponent's play in limited, when they could literally have any card int he set. One of the few downsides of Collected Company is that it's (relatively) easy not to walk into one, you might as well take advantage of it.

@FaintlyThere: What Ifs are fun, but realistically you can't "take netdecks out of the game". If WotC didn't post decklists, mtgtop8 and mtggoldfish still would. If WotC prohibited that netdecks be posted on those websites (which I am not even sure they can do) you would still have people collating decklists from watching the event and sharing on social media. The dissemination of decklists is not going anywhere, and at that point I would rather make their accessibility the same for everybody.

FaintlyThere i can give a personal example of what icehit6 is talking about. I was on twitch the other day watching some matches when I encountered a Gr Eldrazi list which caught my attention because I was one of the many who enjoyed playing the deck before it got bansmacked. I then went online and found a list. This list to be exact but a few things were off to me. I messed around for two days with the numbers of the deck and came up with This lovely deck using my own ideas. You'll notice our decks are similar but distinctly different. So am I an elitist or...

icehit6 sorry about that poor wording, I was up late writing a final myself and reading it now, it's pretty poorly worded.

If people weren't willing to run with others ideas we would still be in caves throwing rocks at each other.

Advancement is a collaborative process between everyone. An original idea only has Merit if not original thinkers adopt it

@ VampireArmy) I believe my words might have got misinterpreted. I'm suggesting that the majority of 'Netdeckers' (if you wanna consider yourself that is fine) give off the smug attitude of MTG Elitist. For example during Theros block when Junk Reanimator and Naya Midrange were the decks to have I was running a mono-white enchantment deck. And even though it would place Top8 all the time at tournaments in an area that featured 20 of the top 100 players in the state. I was still seen as a no one because I wasn't running a deck from whatever ProTour was happening. So honestly that's not fun for me, I rather play against a Home brew then no matter win or lose be able to talk about each others decks, possible improvements and the game play rather than hear from some netdeckers giving me the tireless excuses of "I didn't get the right draw", "I got mana flooded", "I misplayed this/that turn", etc etc etc.

I think magic is a community event and local shops shouldn't allow netdecks as it takes away from the community aspect and focuses solely on personal gain.

From a different perspective, can you really be proud of yourself knowing you gained wins from a deck someone else put their time and hard work into? For example lets say you designed a nice dining room table, found the right wood, sanded down, stained it, put in hundreds of hours worth of work into this piece. Someone bought the table and then mass produced it because of it's quality. I honestly think if I was a ProTour or Hall of Famer, I would be pissed that someone is ripping off my deck and claiming it for themselves. I mean just cause you change the rims on a car doesn't mean it's not the same car anymore. that can be said for decks. Just because you changed 2 different cards in the deck doesn't make it your own.

FaintlyThere I think you're being a little bit too radical. I'm a brewer at heart and don't netdeck myself, but I acknowledge their importance. If you simply have a list that's already maximally competitive, then you can focus on learning the skill of being a better pilot. When you spend all of your time brewing and tuning, when you actually go and try to play your deck, you will have less knowledge of how to successfully pilot your deck than someone who started with a 98% completed decklist, played it, learned, and filled in that last 2% based on their experience with the complete deck and would then know the ins and outs of the deck and be much more prepared to take on the competitive scene.

I hope that explanation makes some sense.

Luck may play some small role in individual game outcome, but I don't know of many decks where keeping a hand with 5 lands isn't a play mistake.

@ FaintlyThere:

I think magic is a community event and local shops shouldn't allow netdecks as it takes away from the community aspect and focuses solely on personal gain.

Again, this is impossible to enforce. If I run 74 out of 75 cards from a list, am I netdecking? Even if I am running the same exact 75, can you prove I just didn't happen to find the same 75 as another player? You are not eliminating netdecking, you are giving an unfair advantage to those that are better at getting away with it.

From a different perspective, can you really be proud of yourself knowing you gained wins from a deck someone else put their time and hard work into? For example lets say you designed a nice dining room table, found the right wood, sanded down, stained it, put in hundreds of hours worth of work into this piece. Someone bought the table and then mass produced it because of it's quality.

I think you are missing the point. I buy tables because I want a surface to play magic work and eat on, and I am confident that whoever built the table knew what they were doing. I take lists off the internet because I trust pro players with knowing what they are doing, and because my goal is to win. If I believe that a netdeck gives me the best win %, I'll netdeck. If I believe a brew gives me the best win %, I'll brew. I am a Spike, and this is what I care about: I want to make the decisions that lead me to win the largest possible amount of games. If I pick the right deck for a meta, pilot it well and as a result achieve good results with it, then, yes, I can really be proud of myself, since I have apparently made decisions that lead me to win games. Maybe this is not what you care about. But it is what I care about, and you cannot demand that I play the game for the reasons you choose.

I honestly think if I was a ProTour or Hall of Famer, I would be pissed that someone is ripping off my deck and claiming it for themselves.

In my experience, people adapting a deck you pioneered (because, yes, I do sometimes brew myself) is actually an incredibly gratifying experience. I believe many a pro has also expressed that it feels very good to see other people adopt something you created, but I don't have the time to find the sources to support my claim right now, so take it with a grain of salt.

From a different perspective, can you really be proud of yourself knowing you gained wins from a deck someone else put their time and hard work into?

Yes. I played the deck to its potential. I mean if we want to take this to an extreme example. Your question is the same as asking If Usain Bolt can be proud of himself knowing he gained wins wearing shoes that someone else put their time and hard work into. Seems like a silly question doesn't it?

The thing is that there seems to be a disconnect between people who think that deck building is the most important part of playing magic and those that feel technical skill is. I believe that everyone can agree that people whining about luck are horrible no matter what other camp they fall into.

Evaluating play mistakes isn't a thing that I feel anyone should be upset about. Your opponent is saying that they made a mistake and you, via better play, beat them. Hell I'll point out my own play mistakes even when I win. Most of the time not out loud. But if asked about a game I focus on good and bad plays. I don't really care if my opponent built their own deck. Hell I don't even care if they even own the deck they are playing. What I care about is if they played their deck well and if was an interesting technical match.

I'll be a source.

I've had quite a few people on TappedOut copy or modify decks that I've made. It's as flattering as hell.

The conversation seems to suggest that successful decks are put together by a lone pro. They are not. They are put together by teams of professionals. People who have the time and expertise to put together these amazing decks. Time and skill I just don't have.

I sometimes think that a few people become dismissive of netdecks because they can't afford them, so to make themselves feel better they outright dismiss them.

FaintlyThere Plainly put, broseph. Correlation isn't causation. You seem to live in an area full of cancerous spergs which sucks but that probably has nothing to do with their deck style and more to do with general poor character that plagues a lot of any hobby community.

Honestly yes, I have found a new shop that so far has a great store base and excellent people. I understand the need to Netdeck at a higher level because that's the way the game is built but I think it's fruitless to play one at a casual competitive level if you have no intentions on going to ProTours or advancing yourself in the competitive field.

I just think it's disheartening to look at Top 16 decklists and notice there is only 3 different kinds of decks in the list. Makes me feel like no one is willing to take risks or understand how to build a deck.

Like I mentioned before I just steer clear of it now and draft. I prefer the format better honestly

I think that if a top 16 has only three deck archetypes in it, it's not the netdeckers' fault - it's the format that is unhealthy.

The other thing that might be happening is that a culture might be affecting how people view deck building.

When I was a new player I used to play in a group that was divided into two distinct parts.

Deckers and Brewers, although I was too new to understand it at the time.

The Deckers would win most of the matches and I could never work out why, mostly because they were also an unfriendly bunch that wouldn't socialise with other people.

The people who talked with me and got to know me were the Brewers. One of them used to be quite disdainful about "netdeckers", and I pretended to know what that meant. This person was also on a strict budget which I now think was a big reason for them being a Brewer.

I got tired of trying to build decks to make headway against the group who always won, and I was sick to death of their snobbiness, so I found another place to play.

At my new home the league is divided into two parts: Casual and Serious.

It's generally understood that the Casuals are Brewers and the Serious players are Deckers. In fact, if someone wins the Casual pool three times they are forced to play in Serious for the rest of the season.

This appeals to my inner Jenny as I and my partner can often Top 8 the Casual pool with my own creations.

Which brings about another interesting occurrence. My partner loves playing Magic but not building decks. He just doesn't have the time or motivation, so I end up building his decks for him.

So, how does he fit into the scheme of things? Is he a netdecker? Nope (unless you count the fact that I put the decks I make for him online). Is he a brewer? Nope.

Why should he be forced to learn how to build decks if he doesn't want to? I mean you can walk into any FNM, but an Intro pack, and play the game.

I consider myself to be a radical anti-netdecker, but I only really apply that philosophy to myself. :)
The only times I've had a problem with netdeckers run into two categories:
One. Egomaniacs
I get that building decks may not be everyone's skillset. But don't act like you are the king of the universe because you have a high limit on your credit card. Some stories:
a. I play a standard match against a guy, and his deck is an exact netdeck. The majority of his conversation was about whose deck it was, and how he was testing to prepare for a PTQ. I was perfectly fine with everything here. He wasn't trying to downgrade my silly brew that crushed him, he was totally honest about where he got the deck and what he was doing it for. I even played a bunch more games with him between rounds to help him polish up his play.
b. I draft an extraordinarily stupid deck on MTGO, and my round one opponent spends the majority of the time trashing every single card I was playing because the pro card reviewers didn't like them. He had followed the 'draft strategy' guide (the limited netdeck, essentially) to a fault, and was infuriated that he was losing. After I got sick of it and fired back, he went into the chat there used to be between rounds and tried to tell the rest of the players what I had in my deck! Weird Draft - 2nd Place MTGO

Two. EDH netdeckers
I know that there are some competitive events, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about netdecking for a 4-player match at a friend's house. That's like practicing drawing for a game night of Pictionary... lol

FaintlyThere

I think magic is a community event and local shops shouldn't allow netdecks as it takes away from the community aspect and focuses solely on personal gain.

Well, as it's been said, how would you enforce this? Also, by enforcing such a rule you yourself are destroying the communal aspect of Magic because you are telling people their fun is "wrong". Also, you are excluding members of the comminity by such a practice. This is absurd as it is hypocritical.

From a different perspective, can you really be proud of yourself knowing you gained wins from a deck someone else put their time and hard work into?

Um... yes. Most assuredly. I learned Magic through netdecking. That means I sat down analyzed the deck I was playing and learned it inside and out. I learned how to play Control decks by playing Control back during ISD-RTR Standard. And then transferred that knowledge to Modern and furthered my understanding of how to build Control decks.

I'd say that anyone who knows me on here can attest to the fact that when it comes to Control decks, I have a fairly decent idea of what I'm talking about. And that knowledge came to me by netdecking. By looking at the best decks, picking them apart and understanding how they worked. That you're attributing that with laziness means you clearly didn't read Chief's article.

I understand the need to Netdeck at a higher level because that's the way the game is built but I think it's fruitless to play one at a casual competitive level if you have no intentions on going to ProTours or advancing yourself in the competitive field.

Except this is once again telling people that your fun is more right and better than their fun. Which is fucking asinine. I play competitive decks. I like playing competitive decks. And I do this at a less than professional level, because I enjoy Magic that way. You do you, but don't have the audacity to suggest one way is better than they other.

Netdecking provides an technological advantage to players outside of the scope of the design of the game that some players will take advantage of to sidestep a challenging element of the game, some players will adamantly avoid using, and most will fall somewhere in between and lean one way or the other.

This is not unlike the debate about performance enhancing drugs in sports.

Personally, I don't see a problem with having a preference for playing one type of player over another. So long as people are civil, it shouldn't matter.

Additionally, I don't see the need to foster "compromise". Debate is healthy, and opinions within the community of intelligent and opinionated people should be diverse.

Why else should a forum for such a community around a game even exist, if not to debate these kind of questions, even if they have no objective right or wrong answer?

UrbanAnathema

The problem with many of these issues is that there isn't a healthy debate over them. They quickly devolve into people with extremist attitudes yelling at one another.

Even here in the comments or an article that can be boiled down to "please respect others and the way they enjoy playing the game" there are people contending that their fun is somehow more right. There would be no need to compromise if the discussions were:

B: I enjoy the feeling of creating a deck from scratch.

N: I can understand that, but I would rather take a list with proven results and test my play skill by learning it well.

B: I feel I know my deck well enough to play it well Because I took the time to build it.

N: Even then I'm sure your deck has surprised you with unintended interactions. I prefer to just skip to the feeling of discovery instead of creation.

But instead what commonly happens is:

B: I enjoy the feeling of creating a deck from scratch.

N: Creating a deck isn't the fun part of playing magic.

B: You only say that because you are an uncreative sheep.

N: Well you're a scrub

B: Elitist

N: idiot

B: asshole

If people were civil there would be no need to tell them to imagine the people with opposing opinions complexly. Or that there is no "right" way to have fun. Alas people aren't civil because they are passionate about their hobby and passion breeds inflexible opinions.

Sure. I guess if that's the case then Mods or whatever need to get involved. In my experience thus far at least with the recent discussion on another thread, that didn't seem to be the case.

No one can define for another what "fun" is. I do however feel that we shouldn't play the judgement police either. Varying opinions is healthy. Ideological perspectives revolving around game play are healthy as well.

People with different opinions or approaching the game from different ideological perspectives will argue sometimes, and sometimes people will occasionally cross the line, and get disrespectful. It's a fan forum, that's gonna happen too.

I don't feel that we need to police other's ideologies when it comes to the game. If its the disrespect that is the problem, then police that. That's what Mods are for.

If the thread isn't locked, you haven't fucked up yet. We don't babysit but let's at least stay a little more on topic.

Everybody has different amounts of time/money/talent when it comes to making a deck
Dont bash people because they might not have to time to sit down and test the deck over and over, they might get more enjoyment out of playing with a functional deck rather the brewing side of it.
The game should bring us together not divide us.

But then again.....why not get angry over a bunch of paper rectangles?

That middle part is fairly annoying. A lot of times it feels like "hey, you put money into your deck? Guess I should just give up now"

Here are my thoughts on the topic: I enjoy playing standard, and do so as much as I can. However, I generally can afford only 1 standard deck at a time, only changing it when I have to (i.e: Rotation). To this end, I want the deck I end up with to be able to do well against the field, and I don't want to spend time testing a brew in time I could be better understanding how my deck works and becoming more skilled at the game.

To that end, I will usually find a list I like somewhere online and copy it. I usually don't base my choice on performance results entirely, but I still consider it a form of netdecking. And I'm alright with it, because I would rather get in some interesting and good games with an opponent than watching my brew fall apart and have to go tune it again.

I mean that as no offence to anyone who brews any format here. I'm sure they offer very gratifying and just downright awesome games. But before that can happen, they need to fail. A LOT. And I personally don't want to have to spend time doing that. That's why I netdeck.

On the greater topic as a whole, I think it boils down to two things: Whether you look at the cards as a puzzle or a tool. That's a generalization, and with most people it's probably a mix of the two, but I don't think that it's too far of a stretch.

I read the article and some of the comments not all. Here's something else that I thought of. Even when deck lists are created by pros, where did the idea that certain cards work well together initially come from? RND of course. We work with the cards that were designed for us. This is especially true in standard. There are exceptions but stumbling upon a deck list that RND already knew would be a thing isn't exactly truly unique but it is brewing. You make the best of what you have with what you are given. Some "netdeckers" choose to not reinvent the wheel.

zyphermage your comment is true for standard but they do 0 testing for older formats. That's why the ban list is so sporatic in modern and slow to change for legacy/vintage. They react to decks after the cards are already on the market.

When I brew and lose It's no big deal. It's just a game and unless there is tons of cash on the line (which there is never for me), I can just have fun playing. I brew and lose alot. When I brew and win--can't beat that feeling with a stick. I'M THE SMARTEST PERSON ALIVE!!! :P Also brewing as a creative endeavor is fun enough, that I make decks that literally will never see the light of day.

VampireArmy I'm sorry? Was that to me?

UrbanAnathema no, not you specifically.

They may not test with other formats but they designed the cards to begin with is my point. People claiming they built a house is great, my point is to consider the person that made the bricks. People are so worried about their precious deck lists and forget that they are merely assembling a combination of cards that were already designed, some designed in way that other cards to go with them were obvious with common sense.

Eldrazi Winter existed because Magic RnD couldn't predict how the cards they printed would be used. Your argument seems intuitive, but heavily flawed by the fact that although WOTC designs the cards, they simply can't test them extensively or break the cards as well as the pros can. They do design with certain interactions in mind, yes, but it is simply impossible for them to predict which decklists will be the best, even in Standard. Look at Siege Rhino, for example. This article gives you some insight into both sides of this discussion. On the one hand, yes, RnD playtests a lot. However, if you look at the section on Siege Rhino, they never predicted it would have the impact on Standard that it did, meaning that they aren't always right and we can make decks and card combinations that WOTC didn't expect. An example of a card that was legitimately broken by brewers is Brain in a Jar. Don't believe me? Wait a few weeks. This card is a bulk rare to the unobservant eye, myself included, but this card is about to see quite a bit of modern play at the competitive level, purely because brewers realized how they could abuse it's interaction with fuse cards, which is not something WOTC tests with.

tl;dr: Deckbuilding is not an easter egg hunt.

On a side note, is this page really laggy for anyone else? It keeps freezing my computer.

Ummm they knew eldrazi were going to break into modern in a pretty big way. Just not to the broken extent that it was. I'm just thinking people get all bent up on their deck list being theirs, when it isn't really theirs per se. At the same time there is room for credit for discovering a card combo or deck list, but that room should stop there. It isn't like that person has exclusive rights to that. After playing with a deck list that person has to be aware that people will copy it obviously.

....you do know I mean the modern Eldrazi Winter, right? It was openly stated by MTG Aaron that the Eldrazi Menace was a defcon one, meaning it was as broken as possible. That wasn't some miscalculation on their end, it was a complete unawareness of what was coming. And, most notably of the whole situation, until the pro tour, the successful aggressive decklists didn't even exist online; there were only processor lists which were okay, but not as good as the broken aggressive decks that proved to be the most degenerate. What this says is that it took a team of top pros - not any amateur brewer, or even very successful brewer, but multiple pros - to realize the true power of eldrazi.

Saying that it was predicted by RnD is wrong.

I'm not even going to say anything new. Just read what I said last time again. I'm not even disagreeing with you either. You are taking what I am saying and taking it one step further than what I said.

ToolmasterOfBrainerd I'm not saying I agree with zyphermage, but (and get your tinfoil hat ready for this) I'm pretty sure that R&D team knew about the whole Eye of Ugin interaction, and wanted to abuse it so that they could sell BfZ/Oath. Except I doubt they would have predicted just HOW dominating it would become; they just wanted something that COULD break Modern etc. to entice said players to buy into the set. And it's perfect: the cards themselves wouldn't warp Limited or Standard, but could warp older formats.

I mean, apart from Expeditions, actually give me a full list of non mythics, non Eldrazi cards that see play. Any format. Then compare with SoI and tell me what you find. I don't think you'll find much.

Tbf though, this is pretty much just baseless conspiracy so, feel free to point out any fallacies.

The point of the Pro Tour from WotC's viewpoint is to highlight new cards. They wanted Eldrazi to be a thing in modern and even cleared the way by banning Bloom and Twin to ensure it would show up. They mistook how powerful the deck would be though and so it spiraled wildly out of control.

In this article Aaron Forsythe outlines what WotC wants from the Pro Tour so you don't think I'm being completely unfair. He doesn't mention that the bannings were to clear the way for Eldrazi, that is my own extrapolation of what happened. He also points toward accelerated tuning due to the large prize pools not being good for the format. It looks like they would have taken a much more laissez faire approach to the bannings.

I would contend that R&D have a good idea of the implications of new cards in modern and they thoroughly playtest standard. Legacy and vintage seem to be the wild west of formats, but as a legacy player I don't mind. This isn't to say that they are never surprised by what the community does with a card, as a matter of fact there are many examples of cards that proved too strong for older formats. But for the most part they know how cards are going to be played.

zyphermage does have an interesting point though. Does one have more of a claim on the Mona Lisa after completing a puzzle than after buying a print? Is the puzzle somehow more artistically beautiful? Is brewing a deck more akin to Da Vinci painting the original or someone completing the puzzle?In my opinion brewing falls somewhere in between. The pieces are not as well defined and some improvisation can make something completely different.

If your deck isn't at least 25% homebrew, it has no heart, if it isn't at least 25% netdeck, it has no brain.

Look at all the generalizations regarding people that the makers have never spoken to outside the game.

Like I touched upon earlier: Who cares what your deck is made of? If you build a brew and repeatedly lose to net-decks, it just means you need to get better at brewing. I absolutely love building decks to take down entire metas (and have had quite a bit of success at it, too), but knowing what decks are truly best is the key to being a great competitive player.

And, at the end of the day, player skill will always be largest determining factor in one's success in the game. That's fact.

Player skill and money. A 50$ deck is never gonna beat a 600$ deck consistently assuming the person piloting the more expensive deck has any brain at all.

The fact that money investment is, at the lower tiers of play, a factor is a bit troublesome, yes. But the fact is, Magic is designed for "core gamers", meaning people for which gaming, and magic specifically, are a primary hobby and the primary way to spend their disposable income.

However, I think the fact that a brew is by its nature a cheap deck is a fallacy - especially in older formats like Modern or Legacy. Even in standard, I have seen my share of $300+ brews. Brewing is about using an unexplored strategy, not about using cheap cards, even though there can be (and maybe there often is) an overlap between the two.

zandl, From the brewer's perspective, "player skill" when the game was originally conceived, was and generally still is, rooted in efficient deck construction. That skill-set is being completely bypassed by the net decker.

Also TheRedMage is correct. My Modern brews are each about $500 bucks or so. It's not an issue of budget.

If it says anything about this debate in general (not just here and now):

I've seen religious debates/arguments with more conclusive results.

@UrbanAnathema: That set of skills has evolved. Right now you can be great player by just good at tuning and good at playing the games. Players that want to have the highest chance of winning games have adapted to the fact that the world has evolved around them. There is nothing wrong with that.

@ TMBRLZ: I think there is a tacit understanding that brewers and netdeckers (and everybody that sits somewhere inbetween on the spectrum) just want different things from the game. The idea is not to reconcile the positions but just for people to talk about their reasonings and also

1. Make sure brewers understand there is nothing morally wrong with netdecking and
2. Make sure netdeckers understand brewing doesn't mean you are a scrub that plays bad decks.

Excellent conclusion TheRedMage. Everyone just end the argument there.

Toolmasterofbrinerd I enjoyed your rant, and like the term you created Deckwads, it fits them perfectly! I enjoy taking my home brews to bigger tournaments I may not do good but I don't expect it! I go in thinking I'm an underdog and I'm not supposed to beat the pro decks but if I can get just them couple of wins it makes it all worth it to me! Have a good day and I'll catch you later!

A very fluid, logical arguement on a pressing topic. Always nice to see. I don't feel much against anything involving netdecking, but I will draw a line in the sand: If a player DOES netdeck a good deck, the original creator of the afformentioned deck deserves to get creditted for it. If he/she is not creditted, I don't see it as netdecking, I see it as downright theft. But hey, opinions right?

FormlessEntity: How would one credit the original creator? I would assume you don't want the credit given before a match since the opponent could figure out what your deck was if they knew famous decks. Are you expecting someone to say after the match something along the lines of "By the way my deck was Golgari Aristocrats developed by Channel Fireball and most famously played by LSV at Pro Tour Shadows Over Innistrad". If someone said something like that to me I would assume it was more smug than full disclosure.

Now if we start talking about the deck then fine tell me who's list you are using (although they probably didn't design the deck, or at least didn't design it alone). But if I express no interest in the deck then telling me its pedigree is off putting.

FormlessEntity If he/she is not creditted, I don't see it as netdecking, I see it as downright theft. But hey, opinions right?

Sure, you can have that opinion. However, not only is it absurd, since you have no means of enforcing such a trivial thing; but it is not legally theft, so your opinion is one based upon your own morals and that is a purely arbitrary matter then.

Well me personally I would get mad if someone were to take my deck and win with it and it were to be copied and become a net deck because somebody stole the idea from me! I build my goofy Rogue homebrews from the ground up I don't look online to get any ideas I go to my collection of cards and start thinking Which card goes good with which!

Now somebody were to use my deck and say yeah that's one RTK built then that's okay. I still wouldn't be cool will someone taking it and winning a lot of money with it because all they had to do was learn how to Pilot it, they didn't put the time in like I did studying the cards, hours on end tweaking the deck and many hours of test and study and play test!

So yes in a sense it would be personal to me if someone were to steal my deck I worked so hard on creating,then use it and win money!

I don't put my best decks that I have built on Tapped Out for people to see! Those are for my eyes only or those I play on casual basis!

Winning isn't everything to me, like it is to some on here!I take my goofy Rogue home brews to the PTQ and state tournament events so yes I lose a lot but, I expect it! It's like a David versus Goliath match, and I'm the underdog but I enjoy that role because like I said winning is not everything to me it's playing the game having fun with it and seeing how many villan net decks as I call them I can beat!

Note I'm not calling those of you who use a net deck a villain that's just what I refer to the net that as, but in my goofy twist the villan wins more than the hero does!

If you use a net deck that that's fine, more power to you! But don't feel as if your Superior to me because you have took a net deck and beat me, because you're actually supposed to beat me I'm an underdog remember!

I'm glad those kind of players got branded "Deckwads" because that's what a lot of them act like!

Many times have I played at my LGS, and have been beat by Deckwads, you can always tell! They drop money into an expensive net deck and have that smirk look on their face when they beat you, even tho they haven't been playing as long as you have, it's those kind of players that gets my goat!

It's also those type of players that don't want to play the draft format, because they can't build a deck on their own! They have no desire to learn to build a deck on their own! They just want to drop money on expensive netdecks that they feel is the best, and expect to start winning right off the bat, but if they don't get their way they act like babies!

One of my favorite formats is drafting you have to kind of know how to build a deck to play and everybody is on a even Playingfield it's pretty much 3 packs and you're not guaranteed anything LOL!

Anyway that's my take on it thanks for reading your friendRooster-The-Kid!

That is a lot of exclamation marks!

Wow!

!

Player skill is not deck construction skill. Player skill is ... player skill? I thought that statement was airtight enough already.

This has been a very fun read.

Thank you for the article ChiefBell.

I like how the said article and the debate that fallows shows how the mythical passion of the geek reaches high into both emotion of logic, and is a love mainly composed by this deep intermingling. How can one judge the choices others formulate into their shared hobby? Here, the vision between community and self becomes blurred. This is especially shown by the fact that ChiefBell felt like using statistic to quell down, or rationalize (rightfully) a debate that had become too emotional, or personal. Sometimes, it feels like our choices and preferences are not mirrored into the community that we thought was supposed to mirror it and it is fantastic to see how magic as a hobby community as become large enough to make this tension part of what the whole story is, or seems to.

Tl;dr, nice article, nice comments, much Wowie!

I understand player skill, and all that, but back when return to Ravinia was in there were a lot of new players jump on the mono blue, and mono black band wagon.

I had my own brew of tokens once again build it from ground up with cheaper cards. I ended up building a side board to stop mono blue, because that's what most the new players we're playing!

You could see the deckwads faces after I sideboarded cards, it went from a cap eating smirk to, oh crapped after I took the series 2 games to 1!

Never solved mono black it was to strong!

To reiterate what others have said, though, power level discrepancies in each format can't be blamed on net-deckers. If there is one strong deck, people are obviously going to play it and we only have R&D to blame for that.

"My aim here is to try to get people thinking together and considering each others' points of view so please keep things civil. Flaming not tolerated etc."

- ChiefBell

Now if I were to actually share an opinion on this:

I for one, as an LGS employee, support netdecking.

It helps LGS's considerably.

For obvious reasons.

Consider this. Consider all your friends behind the counter at your favorite LGS.

Be sure to thank them sometime. And buy some of those cards that just won the Top 8.

-end opinions-

I have been monitoring this for reference and nothing has been particularly worth stepping in for, so I just didn't get involved.

I was under the impression that netdeckers also bought their lists online most of the time.

If they have a reason to be loyal to a store, no they buy from their LGS. But this also brings up the issue of who do you think are the major sellers on TCGplayer?

zandl Card evaluation and deck construction are very much part of player skill, and prior to the advent of the internet and the easy accessibility of championship deck lists, they were a very important part of player skill.

For formats like Draft and such it very much still is, obviously.

I feel like much of this argument is silly at this point. The reality is the genie has long since been let out of the bottle, and almost all of us both brew and use the resources available to us from the pros on the internet in constructing decks and playing Magic.

People will have preferences and value judgements about what is or isn't the "best" way to play the game. I don't think anyone is going to succeed in changing anyone's mind. So long as they're not trying to impose their viewpoint on you, and tell you how YOU should play and enjoy the game...who cares?

Thank you for posting this. It's effectively a far more complete version of the couple of lines I end up telling people every two or three months about this. Maybe I can just link it from now on.

I feel I should add my opinion. I am probably closer to the Netdecker side of things than the Brewer side. I do research, and I look at the meta on MTGGoldfish. But I don't just copy lists and run the exact 75. I look at several samples, and I take the cards that look right. I think about other possible cards for those slots, and even if I don't normally think of anything better, I try to improve lists. More often than not, I build my SB from scratch, using the examples and my own experience. For instance, I built a Jund list a while back. I used the common cards in the lists, but the numbers are all of my own design. I actually run a sideboard fairly different from most Jund players (4 Fulminators, for instance).

I think that people shouldn't just run lists without thinking about the whys and whats of the card choices, but sometimes lists feel very solved and there's not much to change. Does this make me a bad person, for understanding why cards are in the list and not having a better card to add? I think the answer is no. And changing a list just to say that it's 'your list' feels very silly to me. I've struggled with this idea in the past, but I feel that there is no reason to un-tune your deck if you think there are no improvements to make. At the same time, if I see an error, I will fix it.

I think that what I am doing is looking for old stuff people forgot that when combined with new releases could go rougue (maybe on a wide scale but more likely within a localized meta) but is currently very budget and atypical. I also like to spend time tuning and fiddling with fringey stuff that I feel has the potential to explode with a shift in meta or new card print.

I also have more time than money that I want to spend on this game so researching budget fringey things that I enjoy the flavor of and tweaking them with new cards is what I try for.

Quite the discussion. Im going to attemp to stay on topic here and simply talk about the OP rather than replying to the various comments.

In response to "Traits Vs the Individual": I disagree, that it is ok to not like netdecking but not ok to not like netdeckers. Thats like saying "I dont like rape, but rapists are all good in my books, because they are people not actions". Which brings us to my next point, and one that has been iterated a number of times here in different forms: No action or viewpoint is inherently good or bad, they are simply our preconcieved bias. For example, in my society, cannibalism is considered evil, wheras in other cultures it is considered a horrible thing NOT to eat your family members upon their death, by not eating them you are not providing a vessel for their soul to continue to exist and be passed down in. Another example is how modern western society says its evil to marry off your daughter at the age of 11, where in other cultures that is totally legit and not taboo or frowned upon at all. The point being is that it is all our perception, there is no cosmically right or wrong way of doing anything, netdecking or otherwise.

In response to "Dont netdeckers raise card prices": I feel your formula does a bit of a poor job at making correlations. Dont get me wrong, its no doubt better than anything I am willing to put the effort into doing, so thanks for doing all that research and calculations. I did my own super dumbed down research on the matter, and came to a few different obsevations myself, which I will get to in a minute. One of my main concerns with your formula though is how you were attempting to seperate supply from demand so much, as they are intrinsically tied together at the core.

If there is no demand, then there will be no price rise. A vanilla 1/1 for 7 mana will be played in zero decks, its price will be the absolute lowest, it doesnt matter if it is printed once or a dozen times, and it doesnt matter if its a common or a mythic rare. Nobody wants it, nobody is going to buy it, its price will stay bottomed out. Card rarity(common,uncommon,rare,mythic) and card availability(how recent, and how many opened packs) will contribute to how much a cards price will rise, ONCE IT IS IN DEMAND(for whatever reason), but not weather the cards price will rise or not. So demand for the card is the single most important aspect of weather a card will accumulate value or not.

Going back to my incedibly simplistic 'research' on the matter, I went to the online mtg card store I use and put in the search criteria "Common modern cards with a value over $2.50" And of the 17 results, every single one of them is or was played in a top tier competitive deck. What does this tell me? That every expensive common became expensive because it was played in a netdeck. 100% of them. I would say that this is fairly damning proof that netdecking is one of the largest contributing factors to a cards price. In reality it is the demand that is caused by netdecking that creates the spike in price.

Demand for cards exist outside of netdecking obviously though, from casual players love for oddball cards to collectors looking for their playsets of every alpha card, this demand has an effect too of course, but not to the same degree generally as a card played in a competetive deck, as showcased by the commons search I mentioned above.

TL;DR

There is no such thing as good and evil, right or wrong, just different perspectives.

Netdecking does have a huge impact on card costs.

I wish that competitive formats encouraged homebrews more than they do, but the most feasible way to hold your own in top tier gameplay is to copy established builds. Sure, occasionally a rogue deck builder goes through enough forethought to break the meta up with a new threat, but for those of us who do not have the time to devote to meta-analysis, netdecking provides a way to compete. In addition to meta-analysis, effective homebrews have to playtest, evolve, and go through a lot of revisions before they come out on top. Net decks, on the other hand, often have years of tweaking pre-loaded.

You may think my perspective on this issue is soulless or conformist, or defeats the purpose of magic, but I disagree. While homebrewing is a creative process full of passion and novelty, netdecking challenges the player to learn new strategies, concepts, and nuances. It forces you to rise above the competition by using your deck more effectively than the rest. It often separates good players from bad ones.

This brings me to my conclusion: a lot of the complaints about netdecking come from players who've failed to reach their competitive goals in magic. Without being mean, all I can say for those who've been hosed by netdeckers, is: in Magic, sometimes the odds aren't in your favor. It's impossible to make a build that consistently beats everything. Magic is rock-paper-scissors like that. Don't give up and figure out what works for you. Avoid using cards as a crutch and learn the finer points of the game.

Polterguy You did okay (I disagree here and there, but that's beside the point) until the very end, but I heavily disagree with your conclusion. I have not failed to reach my competitive goals in modern, yet I'm a brewer. Not only am I a brewer, but I'm a Johnny-Spike brewer, so I have good amount of competitiveness in me too.

The majority of brewers understand why netdecks exist. If you'd pay any attention to the comments above, the reason a lot of the people advocating for brewing enjoy brewing is because they find that netdeckers simply have no passion for the game, or at least nowhere near on the same level, and their singlemindedness on competition (assuming they're netdecking a tier 1 GP-winning deck) defeats diversity of the format as well as a lot of the fun. Not because we consistently lose to netdeckers, because, quite frankly, we don't. Competitive brews can compete surprisingly well in an FNM environment, even a competitive one, as I myself have experienced. However, not all brewers brew to be competitive, but in doing so they accept that they're not going to beat most tiered decks, meaning that they don't have any competitive goals to begin with.

To pick on a more specific part of your conclusion: "Avoid using cards as a crutch and learn the finer points of the game."

Sorry if I come off as a little harsh, but I'm more than a little offended right now. Did you even read that sentence as you wrote it? As a brewer, I think that statement applies even more to netdeckers than to brewers, since from our perspective, learning how to properly build a deck and understand a deck in a way that a netdecker will never experience is definitely one of the finer points of the game. And, in doing so, we learn precise playing due to a superior knowledge of the deck as well as the general meta (due to all the, as you put it, "time [we brewers] devote to meta-analysis"). I concede that I am not a great pilot myself, but because I was the creator of my Grixis Modern brew, I can guarantee that I know many of the nuances with the deck much better than any netdecker would, even if they spent time learning the list, and that's purely because I was the creator of the deck.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Avoid using cards as a crutch". Don't we all rely on cards? That statement is nonsensical. I could say to you, "avoid using other people's knowledge of how to build a deck as a crutch" because the benefits of brewing vastly outweigh the drawbacks, provided you have the time and dedication to brew. And, given the diction of your statement, I think is's safe to disregard the time and dedication requirements since you're making it sound like you're trying to say that brewing is somehow a scapegoat, which could not be more wrong; in fact, I could easily make the argument that the opposite is true.

In conclusion, you have little understanding of brewers and although you claimed you were trying not to be mean, you ended up doing just that.

Edit: I second RoarMaster's notion that netdecking does have impact on card prices. However, we do have to keep in mind that staples are expensive because they are the best at what they do, not only because they are played in a netdeck, but there are some easy examples of cards that are expensive exclusively because of netdecking and not because of being a general staple.

1 easy example before my time to edit runs out: Eye of Ugin pre-banning. It took a few teams of pros to break Eldrazi, then after they broke it, a few variants of the optimal list was all that was played, and without netdecking, no one would have come to the conclusion that Eldrazi was as good as it was and Eye of Ugin wouldn't have been $50 or whatever stupid number it was (don't recall the exact price).

@Toolmasterofbrinerd what does the term Johnny Spike Brewer mean? I have read it in your other post, wasn't sure what it meant.

And preach on, all I play are my brews made from scratch!

Roostervomet5

Here's a link to explain that

You have to scroll down a bit, but it explains the 3 different mtg personalities. It does a so-so job in my opinion, but it gets the idea across.

So as a Johnny-Spike Brewer, it means I'm a Johnny, so I like originality and I have to win on my own terms with my own deck. However, I am also a Spike, so I am competitive and want to win as well.

If we are trotting out our offended horses now let me join in. I don't think many brewers do realize why people netdeck. They think they do, and are being a bunch of judgemental pricks in the process. They don't though.

Not everyone wants the same thing out of the game. Anyone who has taken the time to read MaRo's articles on psychographics knows this. Many people use the labels of Timmy/Tammy, Johnny/Jenny, and Spike. They don't seem to understand exactly what they mean though. I would encorage people to read Timmy, Johnny, and Spike Revisited at the very least to understand what the psycographics actually mean.

Ok now that we all know how to properly use those terms, let's highlight what I think are the three most important sentences of that article. Timmy wants to experience something. Johnny wants to express something. Spikes plays to prove something. You see only one of those groups really cares about their personal relationship with the deck. Timmy and Spike do not use the game to express themselves. They play MTG either for the joy of playing the game or for the challenge of playing the game well.

Not all Timmies just want to swing in with a big creature. That is simplifying the psychographic way too much. Timmy wants to play Magic and experience the joy of just playing the game. Timmy is easy to identify at FNM, it's not necessarily the guy with a mono-green stompy list or the one trying to hardcast Eldrazi. He is the guy with the big grin from just playing good matches. He may have a brew, he may have a netdeck. It doesn't really matter to Timmy he just wants to have a good time. If Timmy is running a netdeck he is doing so because he would rather be playing games of Magic than building a deck.

Spike isn't always a good player and isn't always the cut throat that people seem to imply with the label. Spike wants to prove something. Some Spikes aren't even trying to prove something to others. Yes some Spikes are aggressive and unpleasant. We call those people assholes. Many Spikes just want to start with a proven list because they need a deck that can put up results to test their play skill, tune to perfection or assault a meta. Except for Innovator Spikes, Spike almost always has a netdeck. He isn't trying to reinvent the wheel. He is trying to break the land speed record. You can tell Spikes at FNM by their focus, not impolite but not necessarily overly concerned with making friends or impressing people.

Johnny wants to express something. As such he likes to make new inventive decklists, operate under constraints, or break a card that everyone says is bad. Johnny wants to create a masterpiece with their deck. Who cares about winning, or even playing the game when there are so many cool and interesting decks that haven't yet been built. Johnny almost always has a brew. His deck is an extension of him. Playing with someone else's deck just wouldn't be the same. I'm not going to say that Johnny is always fishing for compliments at FNM. But he is almost always discussing decks, the one he is playing, the one he is making, what you are playing.

So you see the reason people netdeck isn't because they are obsessed with winning. It isn't because they don't have a passion for the game. It is because frankly they don't care about expressing anything with their deck. The deck is what you use to play the game. The game is what is important to netdeckers. People who use a copy and pasted 75 for anything other than one event in an unknown meta are not representative of netdeckers. Most netdeckers tweak choices to fit their needs. Be it budget or meta. And I frankly find it offensive that so many people seem to think that just because you are working from an established list that you don't analyze the meta or have passion for Magic.

I would like to borrow a term from across the aisle for a moment and expand the stated meaning to include all people with the same mentality. Deckwad has been coined and proliferated through the comments. I would like to remove the implied fact that they are playing a net deck and just define it as "being arrogant, narrow-minded, loud, and entitled all at once". Because this can accurately describe many brewers too. "Their wins somehow mean less than mine," arrogant as hell. "MTG should be..." bit narrow minded are we? "If I just restate my points over and over they will be forced to agree," well on the internet volume of posts is a proxy for volume of voice.

And while I was trying to prevent from any direct examples a few things really got my goat when re-reading previous posts. "understand a deck in a way that a netdecker will never experience", "I can guarantee that I know many of the nuances with the deck much better than any netdecker would, even if they spent time learning the list, and that's purely because I was the creator of the deck." Is that so? You are contending that when I was playing Titan Bloom I didn't know the deck as some random local player that may have brewed a similar deck without knowing what was going on in the overall modern meta? I had 500+ games over hundreds of hours and some guy that happened to brew it independently knew lines and nuances of that deck that I didn't. That is frankly insulting. Do you also think that the guy that designed the football the NFL uses knows how to throw it better than any professional quarterback ever could? I'm actually very serious about that question. Maybe I shouldn't say professional since we aren't talking about professional Magic. Let me reframe it to "Do the engineers at Wilson know how to throw a football better than any High School QB ever could?" We are talking about hundreds of repetitions here. Exactly how stupid do you think netdeckers are?

For all you can defend netdecking through psychology, nothing will change the fact that it ruins games for brewers. The biggest problem with someone who netdecks in a LGS where everyone else brews is that however much they might enjoy themselves, they make it so that the other players feel they have to netdeck to win - which as brewers ruins the game for them.

Just to steer the conversation a bit because the last few comments have become increasingly speculative in nature, which is never a good sign:

1). On card price. Of course demand determines price to a large extent in some cases. Read that sentence carefully, and then read it again until you actually understand what I'm saying. There are examples where demand factors have caused prices to skyrocket. There are examples where raw demand has almost absolutely nothing to do with it. Dark Confidant was $70 when no-one played the card. At all. There was no Jund in the meta, and Abzan and Little Kid Abzan were ignoring the control portion of their decks. It's among a handful of barely played cards in the format and yet it remains one of the most expensive. On the other hand, when Eldrazi hit certain specific cards did Spike. One example where it did, one example where it didn't. And so we can continue. You can give me an example where the success of a deck caused a spike, and I can give you an example of a highly priced card that is barely played. What my maths showed, specifically, is that demand is a factor, but it is a poor factor. It does something - but it's not telling even close to the whole story. On the other hand the supply factors I identified were much better factors. Again they don't tell the whole story and they don't negate the influence of the demand factors BUT they are a lot more predictive of the price. So the two coexist, it's just that one kind of affects prices in certain examples whereas the other almost strongly affects price in more cases. Is that clear?

2). Moral relativism is kind of shaky but in cases like this it's generally ok. Let's not get into international politics though. But yes, even with crime the idea is to address the behaviour, and not the individual. Most sophisticated countries address crime by attempting to stop the behaviour being repeated, not by directly punishing the individual. This example is given as an individual raised the case of rape and judging the individual not the behaviour. Even in criminal justice, and likewise in most things, we are interested in behaviour, not necessarily people. The aim is to stop the negative behaviour being repeated, not to make people feel bad necessarily. For more information you need to delve into the ethics of law, specifically see Foucault's "Crime and Punish" for an exploration of what justice is trying to achieve.

3). A lot of this argument seems to have missed the point and turned into "I hate netdeckers who... do something something" and then identified a totally different attribute such as "been poor sportsmen" or "are arrogant" etc. In these cases you are not producing a coherent argument for, or against, netdecking, you are criticising other negative attributes. As with the deckwad example, and more, the source of the hatred isn't, in the purest sense, because they copied their deck. It seems to be because they had an unpleasant personality. Well, that's fair enough but again you're tarring every single individual who netdecks with the negative experiences you have had with a handful. Does it logically follow that ALL netdeckers behave in the same way? Nope.

4). We should avoid saying "netdeckers force you to...". I'll stop you right there. No, they don't. Perhaps if you want to win games netdeckers might force you to streamline your deck, but that's if you want to win specifically. If you want to play decent games of magic on a Friday night then netdeckers don't force you to do anything. A meta of brewers and netdeckers alike can coexist peacefully. In fact you can see in the modern meta right now that about all of the top 10 decks combined barely make up 50%. That means about the other half of decks we see in events are random little brews or other relatively unknown decks. Brews can win over netdecks, if you build them right. Now brews might not be tier 1 because they don't win consistently, or they always lose to a certain tier 1 deck (say, for example your brew is great versus Burn but terrible versus Jund). But that does not negate the fact that it is very, very possible to brew off-the-wall decks that challenge the more commonly seen meta variants. I mean really, after about 15 minutes brainstorming with the guys on the discord server I can brew up a deck or a little deck variant that I just made up and regularly start 2-0ing people across cockatrice and untap. Many, many people can absolutely attest to this. I absolutely have to stress here that it is my wholehearted belief that player skill is far more important than deck choice, and conflating the two is dangerous. I wrote an article a few weeks back in which I described the Dunning Kruger effect. Occasionally we need to blame our negative experiences on our own lack of experience rather than the external actions of others. Be mindful of yourself, not just the deck your opponent played.

Sorry the reference is Foucault's "Discipline and Punish". I errors in my last comment.

DaftVader If that's happening, maybe your brews aren't as good as you think.

I never said that I had any problem with netdecking, or that I was losing any games to netdecks (GU ramp brew OP). However, a lot of my friends have had a tough time against netdecks and some gave up on FNM standard completely. I'm just saying that a lot of people find netdecking oppressive, especially in an otherwise fairly casual environment.

Seems like we're mostly talking about modern. Between netdeckers and brewers maybe you guys can tune a faeries list already, just saying.

This part of DaftVader's comment made me think "they make it so that the other players feel they have to netdeck to win - which as brewers ruins the game for them." Well yeah you can't just walk onto a football field and win without practicing. Netdecking like Chiefbell said is not just going onto the web and copying a deck 100%, not looking at it and opening it up at FNM or whatever. It does give some sense that the person wanted to be effective and researched it before making a choice.

Being creative is fine and everyone is to some degree. I personally think brewers netdeck more often than not. I consider using a using the web at all netdecking. Even if it is just learning about 2 cards from an article without a decklist or just browsing related bought cards on a store. Even in the early days of mtg there were some sense of what "netdeck" is but it happened more at the store counters with idle chat or something.

Back to my earlier post I still think it is kind of funny people are seemingly acting like artists with this whole brewer concept. When they are actually just assembling a puzzle or connecting dots. The really creative people come up with cards and print them to play with friends ie. R&D. Though I think it is kind of silly I can see the fun in it.

Gidgetimer

I realize I a lot of your comment was directed at me. And a lot of what you said, I agree with. For comment #109, which I wrote, I was reacting to Polterguy's comment above mine and trying to point out the flaws in his argument more than I was trying to make general statements about netdeckers in general.

Yes, I realize that was terribly articulated in my comment. It looks like I was making general insults at netdeckers, but that is not what I intended. I am sorry for it coming off that way. Thank you for calling me out on that.

When I wrote comment 109, I was very tired and annoyed, which is no excuse, but I'll keep that in mind going forward when I'm commenting on a sensitive issue.

Your explanation of the psychographics is very good.

I look at net decking, like having sex with a prostitute!

"What do you mean Rooster?"

First off, you just throw down the cash and expect to win!Much like a prostitute, you throw down cash and expect to get your jollys off!

Second it's easy to win with a net deck I have done it in the past, and I'm not proud of that fact!Much like the prostitute is easy, all you have to do is throw down the cash, it's that simple!

Thirdly I have regrets from running the net deck I did in the past!Much like if you have set with a prostitute you probably would regret it later on, haven't tried that so I'm just assuming this last one! Lol

I enjoy thinking up of new cards to make all the time, it's also fun to think what card could I make if I were a creator of the cards!

But to say it takes time and effort of running a net deck please!

Maybe an hour at the most of study in learning the cards, when building your own brew takes countless hours of building from scratch, tweaking, and play testing!

One last point and then I will stop.There was this girl who started back in the SOM block, she had only learned to play from us casually never played in a MTG event like FNM, but wanted to start.I let her borrow Signal Goblins, spent 30 minutes showing her how told use it, she went and won her very first FNM with that deck, so don't tell me it's not that easy to use a net deck, and win, because you will never convince me otherwise!!!

Rooster-The-Kid is out

#NoRegrets Roostervomet5.

Aside from that, surprisingly meaningful metaphor for netdecking, well written and well done.

Roostervomet5 An entire list of ad hominem attacks and then an anecdotal story on how "brewing is le best". Did you read the OP, or just decide to spew off things that opposed what the OP was trying to address?

I said what I said and I stand by it I do not apologize! If you use net decks use them that's your business I don't hate you for it like the article States, but I will not do it I have done it in the past found it to be cheesy!

There has to be some net decks, how else would I be able to ride in and defeat the villan!

NO I'M NOT CALLING YOU OR ANYONE USING NET DECKS VILLANS, THATS JUST HOW I VIEW NET DECKS!

Have a nice day now y'all come back now ya hear, "in musical notes" shave-and-a-haircut two-bits!

Roostervomet5 you keep insisting that you have nothing against netdeckers and then disparage their choice in the very next breath. You say there has to be some netdecks and then you say you play draft because you can not netdeck in that format. You need to make up your mind about a stance and stick to it. Especially if you are going to say that you stand by what you said.

If you want to be narrow-minded and judgemental because other people play magic with a different goal than you do that is fine. People can then label you as bigoted and not waste their time conversing with you. If you want to accept that other people experience a shared hobby differently; welcome to being a contributing member of a community. For the love of god though, pick a stance and stand by it.

What part of me saying that I have played a net deck didn't you understand?

My stance is this it's easy to win with a net deck, plain and simple, I have since learned to build my own decks.

I can comment on both because I have played both, it's far more easy to win with a net deck, I'm sorry you're offended by that simple fact!

Play them all you want, did you not read that?

I won't I will lose the most of my games, and take pride with that lose, because I build my deck!

I would rather lose "my way" than a pros way!

Musical tones " shave and Haircut Two Bits!" Lol

I find this while thing comical truthfully!

I seemed to have ruffled some feathers for speaking my mind! Lol

I accomplished much by getting called a bigot! Lol

I guess that's whay Society has come to, you can't disagree without being called a bigot anymore, but it is what it is! Lol

Play your net decks I won't think anything different of you, but when I find out you are playing a net deck, the match is no longer about, you and I!

It becomes about me trying to beat what a Professional MTG player has assembled!

Thus forth like I stated your deck, not YOU becomes the villain, and I will try with all my might to beat it, won't always happen, I understand that because one man being me built my deck, and a team of professionals built the net deck!

It's nothing personal aginst you, just the deck you decided to use.

If you were to play me you would find out I goof off most of the match I don't even call the card by the right name!

For example I call Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, Gideon the goat keeper!

So chill out don't get your panties in a bind, because if you do I have won, by setting out to make someone aggravated with what I was saying!!!!!Lol lol hahah!

When did I say anything about you commenting on both types? I said you either need to pick the stance that netdecking is a fine practice, just not for you; or that netdecking is not ok. Shall I say that again with less complexity? Choose one:

1. Netdecking is fine. Not how I enjoy the game though.

2. People should not netdeck.

I have heard somewhere that it takes three times before you remember something. So here is the third repetition of the two things I told you to make a choice between.

Netdecking- Fine practice. Not my choice.

Netdecking- Blight upon MtG

Ok now that we have made the choices clear. I would like you to show me where I said anything about ease of winning with netdecks vs brews, or where I passed judgement upon you for wanting to brew. You seem to be reading words that I didn't write. All I would like you to do is pick one of the two stances I have listed and stick to it.

You have already proven that you are incapable of reading and understanding my normal writing style so I am uninterested in debating the finer points of learning decks; what constitutes player skill; or what incentive other psychographics have for playing.

Good day sir. We seem to have irreconcilable differences in writing style.

Inb4 "hurrr durr so butthurt".

Ok thread closing if this continues. Dial it back a bit please.

Roostervomet5

You're exactly the type of person that Gidgetimer was referring to in comment #112 about how some brewers think they understand why people netdeck, but actually don't. Even though I'm in favor brewing myself, I know that netdecking is an important part of the game and I understand why people netdeck. My point is back off; you're being insensitive, to put it politely, and what you're saying about how it is easy to win with a netdeck is simply a lie. It might appear true in a simple format like Standard, but if you're looking at, say Legacy Miracles, if you haven't had years of experience with the deck and don't have a vast knowledge of the Legacy metagame as well as the available lines of play in every single matchup, you will struggle to win. And on the surface, Miracles doesn't even appear like that hard of a deck to play. For an even more extreme example, I bet that if you tried to pilot Vintage Gush Storm if I gave you the deck as a Vintage tournament began, you would probably lose to most modern decks since the deck is so difficult to pilot, even though you're playing a deck with Black Lotus in it.

Gidgetimer up above, you asked the question: "Do the engineers at Wilson know how to throw a football better than any High School QB ever could". As someone who has taken Engineering courses, in some ways, I think the answer is yes. Hear me out. The engineer might not have they physical capabilities to throw the football as well as the QB, and they won't have the experience throwing the football to know throwing technique, however their knowledge of the football itself grossly outweighs that of the high school QB. For example, the engineer likely researched how a QB would throw the ball, and could look into the interaction between the surface of the football and the QB's fingers. In doing so, he would design the football such that there was a most optimal way to hold the football for maximum grip as well as to allow the thrower to transfer the maximum amount of potential energy from their body into the football as kinetic energy. In doing so, they would have an understanding of the underpinnings of the design of the football for how it was intended to be thrown. The high school QB, after enough throws, would come to discover for themselves what works best for them for throwing the football, but without the same knowledge as the engineer, they would never be able to hold it perfectly and understand why that is the optimal way to hold the football.

So, I think it is very safe to say that the QB might win more games of football as a QB than the engineer would given their physical training and experience throwing a football. However, consider this: you have two high school QB's with the same physical capabilities and the same experience throwing a football, however one of the QBs is also a Wilson engineer that designed the football. In this scenario, the QB engineer is intrinsically a better QB than the QB without the engineering. That is the advantage given by being a brewer that a netdecker can never have. Do you think the QB that isn't an engineer would be able to learn from the engineer all the nuances of the football that gives the engineer QB the advantage? Possibly, but by the time the engineer teaches the QB everything, that QB is an engineer himself.

This analogy is pretty clever; keep in mind that in the example I gave above about the 2 QBs had the prerequisite that they had the same experience and physical capabilities. I think that the reason you think that the QB will be a better QB than the engineer is because you're assuming that the engineer won't have the same physical capabilities or experience. In magic, that's a pretty safe assumption, for the most part, but it won't always hold, and when it doesn't, the brewer will always have the upper hand. Just something to think about.

My stance is this I will always be for the brewer, not the Net deck!I do believe it's a blight on the game, but if that is what a player does, then do it!Not that hard to understand where I stand!

I goof off with just about every aspect of the game whether it be calling cards different names, or calling the creatureswithout hast, as having morning sickness instead of summoned sickness! Lol

And once again I will not apologize for using my first amendment right to freedom of speech!

I never used foul 4 letter words, just spoke my mind.Can't help it that this country has gotten so it gets offended at everything, but like I said it is what it is.

Yall have a good one!

ToolmasterOfBrainerd My comments were mainly geared toward brewers who are just breaking into the game. Brewing tends to be the first thing players tend to do when they hop onto the competitive scene. Most of them wind up deterred.

There are many benefits to brewing and I think it ultimately leads to a happier pastime than pure netdecking because it grows from higher levels of intrinsic motivation. You wind up feeling rewarded from the creative process of making a build, which exists regardless of roster placement.

I may sound like I'm contradicting my prior sentiments in this post, but this issue harbors a lot of complexities and very few people here are strictly on one side of the fence.

That said, I have quite a bit to learn and I apologize for offending you or anyone else.

I think this argument stems from the question "Is winning fun?"

To some people it is. Those same people will go to lengths of making a game not fun for other people as long as it results in a win. Is this behavior against the rules? No. However, this is much more prevalent in, say, RTS or MOBA games than a card game. In said games, these are the people who rise through low ranks with "cheese" strategies, things that work at that rank because people don't know how to respond. I recently got into an argument with a friend of mine with me on the side that backdooring shouldn't be done. His entire argument was "but we won, right?"

How does this relate to MtG? In it's purest form, the "look up top 8, buy the winning deck, play the winning deck", netdecking is similar to a cheese strategy. You just bought a deck that is proven to show results, so those results are nearly guaranteed to suck the fun out of someone's game at FNM level. As you get to higher levels of play though, purely having a deck that puts up results doesn't get you nearly as many wins. In that way it's the same, at higher levels BD doesn't work in mobas because people start warding, in RTS people scout well at higher levels.

Magic as a whole is fluid enough that someone who purely copies decklists will most likely not take huge tournaments because those decklists already showed up and the truly remarkable players/teams have already come up with counter plans for said decklists.

What that basically boils down to is that the only type of netdecking I dislike is in people who ONLY play at FNM (or lower) level and ONLY copy entire lists. My reasoning? I highly disagree that winning, and winning alone, is inherently "fun". Once you start changing the deck based on experience or local meta, then I have no issue.

Also, this is obviously my opinion and please forgive my extravagant use of commas.

Tsarius I agree with what you just stated, that's where for the most part about 90% TO 95% players do just that in just about every shop you play, or at least in Kentucky they do.

I have to give my friends props though, even though most of them net deck, they still practice and go to bigger events.

I will go if it's not to far away as I'm crippled and don't travel well, but I still enjoy taking my homebrews to any big events.

I will say that one of my friends try to tear apart one of my brews he said it made his head hurt trying to figure out the goofiness LOL he said he's seen many a times the deck played, and knows what it does, but couldn't figure it out.

The one thing I will apologize for is if you think that winning means everything to me I'm sorry if I come across like that because I do not care about winning unless it's with my brew, and even then winning is not everything!

I have called games on myself because I forgot to reset the sideboard I drawed the card and realized that I forgot to reset the sideboard I told the guy I was playing immediately bud I give you this win because I forgot to reset my sideboard in game 1. Game 2 was close but he swept me but it was my fault I will not take a win even though I might have got away with it I would have still known and I will not win that way winning is not everything to me I will not cheat and I will not be cheesy just goofy!

I've been playing this game since onslaught, one of my major goals is to have a card banned, and players complaining saying that card is broken!

That's it that's what I care about the most building Goofy stuff that nobody but myself I can understand and have fun playing it and making other people scratch their head wondering what the heck!

PS if not, or grammar or any of that crap comes off bad it's because typing through talking talk to text so to speak whatever I talk it writes and sometimes it don't understand my accent lol

ToolmasterOfBrainerd I'll restate the question again and bold where the emphasis was put in my head since such things don't come across well in text. "Do the engineers at Wilson know how to throw a football better than any High School QB ever could?" It is my contention that much like after hundreds of hours of using a ball a QB will inevitably discover the optimal way to throw a ball with just his basic understanding of proper form combined with enough repetitions. I'm not assuming a physical mismatch at all.

Tsarius I disagree that running a netdeck is "nearly guaranteed to suck the fun out of someone's game at FNM." Even at FNM level play people have different expectations of the game. I personally find format legal piles to be less fun to play against than some super tuned monstrosity. I would much rather play against Miracles than some guy running 14 lands 44 standard legal goblins, and 2 Goblin Chirurgeon. People need to just understand that not everyone as the same expectations as you. The simplest way to get what you want out of a game is to just play how you enjoy the game and remember that you only have one match against each opponent.

I will have to say this, the football thing and Magic the Gathering is comparing apples to oranges!

I will ask you this question.

Do you think you could take a deck John Finkel built, and pilot that deck better than he could?

If you put it that way, then yes and no. It really comes down to the amount of thought put into the football, or in magic, the complexity of the deck. Could a netdecker netdeck modern Burn and learn to play it perfectly pretty quickly? Yes. Burn has roughly 1 line of play and even the sequencing isn't that tough. Sideboard takes a little thought, albeit not much, relatively speaking. However, if we go back to to Miracles, the situation changes quite a bit.

This is where I'm going to go back to how it depends on the amount of thought put into the football. If the engineer spent weeks researching the optimal material, and decided on pig skin from a pig fed a corn meal only diet whose skin was then sun-dried for 2 weeks because the engineer knew that this material, when warped and bent into the shape of the football, would offer a medium coefficient of friction for the first 3 (non-thumb) fingers of the hand, but a higher coefficient near the tip of the ball. Thus, by spreading the pinky away from the other 3 fingers, the QB would be enabled to apply an extra bit of control as they release the ball, giving it the most optimal flight path and control through the air. (note that all of the pig skin sun drying and dieting is made up for the sake of providing an example)

Would a high school QB be able to figure out this property of the football by throwing it a lot of times? I don't think so. If the engineer told them about this property (the parallelism is reading some online primers or talking to the experts at your LGS) they would be able to try and apply it, and with practice they could get there, but without doing all of the research on pig skin and pig diets and sun drying and the process of forming the leather into the shape of a football, I don't think they can understand that property of the ball as well as the engineer can.

I think one of the most profound thoughts in this (which really highlights the genius of using footballs as an analogy) is that the QB can learn the football as well as the engineer, but when they do, they've become an engineer themselves. In magic, the parallel is that for a netdecker to truly perfect their skills with a specific deck, they need to learn the function and possibilities of every single copy of every single card in the 75 in every single matchup, as well as its potential for interaction with every single card combination within its own deck and within the every opponent's deck. In addition to that, they ought to know all of that information for cards not included in the deck, but could be in a different meta, and what cards are best in what meta. At that point, the difference between the brewer and the netdecker in terms of knowledge of the deck is nonexistent.

However, if the engineer just took generic leather that he found and made a football out of it without much thought or time, then yes, there is nothing for the QB to learn about the ball and therefore the engineer has no knowledge of the football over the QB. The parallel of this is a Standard RDW or mono-W weenies, where there is little thought to put into your play and the deck is fairly straightforward, so the brewer doesn't have any superior knowledge of the deck than the netdecker because there isn't much of anything to know beyond how to pilot an aggro deck.

Back to magic. Saying that the creator of the deck will always play their deck better than anyone else ever will is wrong, and I concede that. However, the perfect pilot is, by necessity, someone who knows the deck well enough that they could be the creator, which comes out of not only hours of playtesting the exact copied netdeck, but by also trying out slightly modified versions of the same deck to learn why that version is the best version for the current meta, down to the last card.

Side question that I should have addressed awhile ago: what format do you play? Or, more to the point, have you played much Legacy? In Standard, it's like the generic leather without much thought example, whereas in Legacy or Vintage, the difference between someone who netdecks and someone who is a deck creator (brewer kind of loses meaning since those formats are so close to solved) is massive, so if you haven't played much eternal format, you may have not observed the true depth of potential for superior knowledge for the brewer. (that last sentence could come off as me assuming a lack of knowledge as well as asserting that you're wrong because of it; I intend neither of these and I am legitimately curious, since it may lead to a more interesting discussion)

Closing thoughts: I contend that as someone who does not spend a lot of time perfecting my play, but instead works on tuning my decklist, there are likely entire strategies and nuances in general play, that is, play which applies to a whole archetype (such as control), which I am completely unaware of. However, I do think the same nuances exist on a much finer scale in individual decks, which require an intimate knowledge of the deck to observe, rather than just experience playing it. Here I am again at 1:30 AM where I am writing comments... if I poorly articulated something in here or come off as offensive, I had no intention of doing so.

You have the wrong 'Roam', should be 'Rome'...

BTW I think he means Seasons Past control bather than burn.

ToolmasterOfBrainerd I never play standard. Only modern, legacy, commander, and casual. I brew for commander and casual and netdeck for the competitive formats. I will admit I don't play control in competitive formats because I don't know the entire meta well enough. I play mostly combo because it rewards my two major psychographics (Diversity Gamer Timmy and Nuts and Bolts Spike). Because I enjoy combo, I used to say I was Combo Player Johnny as well as those two; but the thing is that I enjoy playing combo not finding new combos.

I think that assuming a netdecker has not read a primer is a bit unfair. If a deck is complex they are likely to read a primer or talk to a current player of the deck to get a basic understanding. Linear aggro or glass cannon combo doesn't require as much understanding and as such could probably be run blind.

I think we may be having another disconnect here though. Are there really players that find a list and play it with zero preparation? In my opinion part of netdecking is to learn the basics of how the deck plays. This is so that you can focus on having fun or perfecting your play rather than the basics of the deck. I feel like playing a deck blind is the equivalent to someone who said they "brewed" legacy goblins and has the pile I described earlier.

Now to address your point about the perfect pilot. I am glad that we agree on this. I think that we may still be slightly disagreeing on what constitutes netdecking though and that seems to be where the whole drawn out analogy is failing us. A decker that does not try to understand and adapt their deck is like a brewer who gets too married to the first draft of a deck. Neither one is going to do well because they do not adapt and overcome.

I operate under the assumption that deckers analyze their deck and tune it for what they are likely to see. They are not unwilling to put effort into the deck outside of games. They just want that effort to have the maximum effect.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that you operate under the assumption that deckers copy an exact 75 and don't bother to think about it. That putting enough effort into a deck to fully understand it, and the meta it exists in makes them somehow not a decker.

Bringing Belcher to a meta of fair midrange and aggro legacy decks (perish the thought by the way, I made myself sick even trying to comprehend such a meta) shows an understanding of the deck and the meta it is to be played in. Taking the same list to a meta dominated by blue combo and control will not have the same effect. Any player with a small amount of skill will understand this. Now that idea scaled back from an entire deck to individual card choices takes a better player to understand.

Running Enchantress you have a decent amount of main deck meta hate you can run. With tutors and the crazy amount of draw you can pretty consistently find 1 and 2 ofs. Enchantress is the shell and is a netdeck. If you expect lots of decks running Dark Depths and other black creatures you want to ensure that there are 4 Elephant Grass in the deck. There usually are anyway, because one mana enchantment. If you expect Sneak and Show you run Blind Obedience main. The list truly goes on about what small changes can be made to combat a meta. These decisions do not make the pilot not a decker. They make them a decker who is aware of the meta their deck is being run in.

Gidgetimer FNM is standard...at least at all shops I've ever gone to. Said "format legal piles", or to be more precise the pilots of, are the people that pure netdecks suck the fun out of the game for. I previously observed that winning on it's own is not inherently fun, but the opposite is untrue. Losing with no hope of success is very much not fun on it's own.

Tsarius That is interesting that FNM is only standard around you. FNM is allowed to be any format that the TO (usually the shop owner or an employee) decides to run. Draft is the most usual around me, then modern, standard, EDH in that order. We had 2 legacy FNM about a year ago but it wasn't sustainable.

I misinterpreted your statement as sucking the fun out of most people's FNM experience. Some people are sure to not have fun playing against any deck. I don't like playing against format legal piles. I would much rather play a game against a well crafted brew or a netdeck. This is something I know about myself. I do not enjoy crushing someone without them having a fighting chance and I don't enjoy playing my deck under its potential.

There are people who strongly object to combo. Some object to control. Others object to aggro. I personally object to midrange top deck wars. Does this mean that no one should play at FNM? Alternatively, maybe everyone should take their fun into their own control and not let what others are playing bother them so much. If one finds that they don't enjoy FNM where people get to decide for themselves how they are going to have fun then maybe even regular REL tournaments are not for them. A casual playgroup with the social contract of no netdecks or highly tuned brews may be what they want.

One is not entitled to an enjoyable FNM experience just because they play magic. Even if it is a fairly friendly and laid back tournament, it is tournament magic. Even pre release is a tournament. I have run into players not having fun at pre release because the were consistently losing games with no chance of winning. Is the onus on me, as their opponent in a tournament, to play worse so that they can have fun? Do I have to sacrifice my fun so that others can have fun?

I think we're coming to an agreement.

I think that netdeckers can probably be pooled into 2 categories. They won't be cut and dry, but most netdeckers likely fall into one of the 2.

The first is the lazy netdeckers who put together the top winning deck each week and go play it. This group would not play the deck for very long and would not change any cards in their decklist. I would say that they're most commonly found in Standard, although they can be found in other formats too. I think it's fair to say this is the group that, for the most part, is responsible for a lot of the bias against netdeckers from brewers. They're not necessarily 'deckwads', and many of the people in this category shouldn't even be associated with the term, however deckwads fall into this category nonetheless.

The other is the group that it sounds like you would fall it; people that netdeck because they want to play the game at the most competitive level possible. This group would definitely take the time to learn the deck, tune it out, and learn how to adjust the deck to their liking as well as to combat the meta, since doing that would make them a better player. I think it's fair to say that this group of detdeckers is the group that takes the most offense to the bias against netdeckers, since they've done little to deserve it.

Brewer who is married to the first draft of their deck.... aah, the nostalgia of when I first started playing

You two finished up with good pieces to read, I can relate to both great job!

Please note the first one toolmasterofbrinerd mentioned are the ones that tick me off!

Gidgetimer you brought in something that I wasn't aware of, I thought that FNM was always Standard, because it's what we have at our shops for the most part in Kentucky.

Been playing since Onslaught and our format on FNM has always been Standard. Now we have a Saturday tournament that rotates from Modern, twin headed giant, exc, to my Favorite Pauper, I do wish they would draft more in Saturday though

So I learned something from both of you 2

Y'all have a good one!

As a Magic player that started back in beta, I can attest for a fact that the game itself has become degenerate. Why I am saying this you might ask? Simple, because they realize the target audience is younger than the original intent. And as the magic community became more gravitated toward this, WOTC made moves to accommodate. They are out to make money obviously. Also there is a pressure to come up with new ideas that keep interest. There are only so many things you can do to this game without changing how the game is played entirely. I do not condone netdecking as I do not see this as a show of skill. One could argue that it takes skill to pilot a deck, but I guess I am in a very small minority that feels that it does not. A perfect example was that I recreated a top tier deck just to prove this exact point and gave it to a brand new player that only had very basic knowledge of the game and he ended up in the finals with it. Maybe he was just a natural, but I dont think that is the case. Now, to be fair, I do think there are some decks that require a little know how, but in today's magic society, I feel that has mostly gone the way of the Do-Do. When I sit down at a table to play and see an almost exact deck of something I've seen on a top 8 list, I just roll my eyes and feel like I should have just flipped a coin to see who wins. It would save time and would be infinitely more entertaining. When I look at tournament deck lists and let's say 30 plus decks are all the same with maybe a few cards that are different, that is when I feel netdecking has poisoned the game of magic. Thankfully I have read that WOTC is addressing this issue with the new set release format, so I hope this is a change for the better. I seriously got unbelievably irritated with seeing Azban decks and/or Jeskai decks over and over and over and over and over. snorefest. I apologize for my rant, but the point I am trying to make here is that people want to win and if they dont have to really think about how to put a deck together to do it and they can just copy a winning deck idea, then they'll do it. I honestly have zero respect and am just not impressed by pro-tour winners over the last decade or so. So they won with a deck that was already proven to win games...yay. Show me something more interesting. But I dont deserve to be impressed nor my comments cared about. No one ever does, but that doesnt mean I wont speak my mind, and if I choose to dislike netdeckers, then I will dislike netdeckers whether it is "right" or not. Thus why I dont play tournaments any more, because I just dont care for cookie cutter decks upteen-million times. Am I bitter? Yes. Am I salty? Yes. And I have every right to feel that way, just as everyone else on this planet has a right to feel the way they feel and when it becomes wrong is when someone tries to say that person is wrong for feeling the way they do or voicing their opinion. Welcome to the human race.

Can we frame comment #131 and make it the background of every page on this site? I feel like it encapsulates everything we should shun and it should serve as a reminder of what we might become if we lose our way.

@Yawgmoth73: I'm so glad nobody like you plays at my store. By how you've described your typical night of playing Magic, you sound soul-crushingly miserable to be around.

Just my opinion, though. Can't be mad, right?

The part that stuck with me is this one:

"I honestly have zero respect and am just not impressed by pro-tour winners over the last decade or so. So they won with a deck that was already proven to win games...yay. Show me something more interesting."

Have you even watched a pro tour in the last "decade or so"? Standard Pro Tours hit 2-3 weeks after the release of a new set. Pros cannot win with netdecks because the format is literally too young for netdecks to exist in any proven fashion at that point. Rather, the decks that come out of the Pro Tour are the ones that become netdecked at other tournaments.

We have now had two separate people telling stories of "I have handed a netdeck to a new player and they did well with it", trying to prove that it allegedly takes no skill to pilot a netdeck.

I would argue that simply means that the other players at your FNM are also not very good at Magic. Honestly, I pride myself of my skill of learning, tuning and effectively piloting decks that are not necessarily my creation, and I take offense to the notion that there is no skill involved in the process. First, even when you have decided on an archetype, it takes quite a bit of work (and skill) to select the right 75. Second, unless your competition is extremely soft, you are still going to lose horribly if you don't play those 75 well. Hell, if I found myself in a position where that was not true, I would probably try to find a more competitive FNM. I am a Spike (refer to Gidgetimer's comment #112 or anything written by Mark Rosewater ever) and I play to prove myself - especially to myself. A win is a win, but if I can win against a particular crowd without even trying, then I feel I have nothing left to prove, and I should move on. The goal is to constantly improve, and there is no improvement to be had in such an environment.

@ ToolmasterOfBrainerd (comment #143 ): Yes. That. It is so frustrating to have people constantly berate me for things that I don't do because they lump me in this nebulous definition of "netdecker"

(casually unsubs from thread) While this discussion is mildly entertaining, I feel like the level of intelligent thought/input is falling exponentially :L

Closing. This has run its course.

RIP this thread. May we remember always the extreme prejudice shown by both brewers and netdeckers in the above 150 comments.

I know you are trying to be fair and not express an opinion in your eulogizing of the thread, but I'm kinda curious where a decker expressed anything that could be considered "extreme prejudice". Strong rhetoric is all I feel I was ever guilty of. I also don't see where any other decker displayed a prejudice. I'm honestly just trying to understand where another may see prejudice where my correlated view tells me there is none. I hope to become more empathetic of the other side through this.

I'm confused. As I read this, it seemed to be of the perspective of someone that netdecks. I didn't see any counter points against people that netdeck.

That being said, your "research" on pricing is flawed. It's not just about the supply or the demand, it is based on both. Because of speculation of certain cards, sometimes cards are bought up in large quantities before the prices change, the card see pro tour play and then there is a big demand for the card. But since the supply is low because an online shop for example has bought up a large amount, this will radically change the price further. The demand is high, but even though the supply is there, it's not accessible until that shop let's those cards go. This has been done a lot and affects pricing. But the cards in question are those that see pro tour play, and due to lack of imagination, people resort to netdecking because they want to play a deck that did well in a large tournament. If more people played decks they created, there would be more variety in the pro tour, some decks that seem a bit awkward could end up doing well, but pricing for cards overall might be more reasonable since a bigger variety of cards would be seeing play.

In the future, if you're going to make a thread that incites arguing, at least make points from both perspectives. The game used to be about collecting cards and creating your own decks. I find that half the fun is making my decks.

Ok so the button that disables comments on threads isn't working at this particular time. Regardless:

Kindly consider this discussion closed for the time being.

There's a lack of new material being produced and the conversation has largely degenerated into something that is far from useful. No more.

Last comment: As someone who has been playing this game for a while, I can appriciate what netdeckers, deckwads, and homebrewers alike say about each other, but this is getting absurd. Thank you for closing this thread, ChiefBell. It was informative at first, yet slurred and truthfully useless past the halfway mark.

I consider myself as a middle ground between Netdecker and Homebrewer. Almost all of my decks are made at home with cards on hand, but I like taking inspiration from what other people have made and, say, posted on TappedOut. For instance, i'm making a modern Mono-green devotion hydra deck(Omnath's Hydra Friends are Really Devoted), loosely based off of some other decks on TappedOut. ...However, I only own like 3 of the required cards, so i'm planning to order or trade for the rest(luckily, the entire deck costs only 82 dollars if I was buying the whole thing at once).

In conclusion, I think that closing this thread was a good action, as it quickly devolved into poorly informed fallacies and personal attacks. Thank you.

whistle WOW, this got a lot of discussion.

I'm just stopping in to say that, while I heavily agree with your points overall, this section stuck out to me:

"When we build a deck we gather together a collection of 60 cards, and then play with it. Some individuals find 60 cards on their own and use them. Some might start with a theme and include 30 of their own choices before copying a further 30 from a well known decklist. Another individual might just copy the full 60 cards from elsewhere. You can see where this is going. When does a deck become a netdeck? If we can't answer that question then there's no point using it as a term."

This is a classic case of the Continuum Fallacy. Just because the term "netdeck" is poorly-defined, and because there isn't a clean dividing line for what is a netdeck, doesn't mean that the classification itself is invalid. A deck with 60 totally-original cards is probably not a netdeck. A deck that's 100% identical to a MTGTop8 deck almost certainly is. The term is still meaningful, even if it has slightly different meanings to different people and if it's a bit grey in the middle.

Not implying any moral judgment, but just saying that your logic is flawed here. Sorry if anyone's already brought this up.

Daedalus19876

I believe you're the first to notice that, and it's a very valid point, however chiefbell closed the discussion on this thread, so technically neither of us should be posting anymore. Some people commented after chiefs closing though, so it's pretty easy to miss the note.

Reminder: discussion on this forum is closed

He probably should click the close thread button. Otherwhise, we would be unable to comment like this.

Dude. If you'd read above, you'd notice that he tried that but the button is broken. Please don't respond to my comment and just leave the reminder message as the last comment so people can actually see it, unless you're chief or some other mod who would like to leave a more official closure comment.

This discussion is closed. Do not comment on this forum.

I suppose it's ok to comment now given that this is off the front page so there won't be floods of silly comments any longer.

Daedalus19876 - The continuum fallacy is an informal fallacy and therefore does not always apply. I believe my argument of "define what it is you are criticising before you proceed" is warranted in this particular case. I'm not specifically saying that the label is invalid because it operates on a continuous scale, what I am saying is that it becomes increasingly difficult to criticise a netdeck, if we do not know what a netdeck is.

If you formulate a criticism of a netdeck, and it can as easily be applied to a homebrew too (given the continuous nature of the scale) then the criticism you are making is not an inherent weakness of netdecking. If this occurs then the term netdeck is not one to be used in relation to praise or criticism. The term still exists and has weight, but not as a predictor of any positive or negative trait.

AwezomePozzum - The button didn't work.

ChiefBell Excuse me. I didn't realize. It's been some time since I read through this thread.

I'm surprised you read it all to be honest.

I meant the comments. All the comments.