What creatures do you try to find with GSZ? And what are the benefits for using Dryad Arbor?

Typically, I'll use GSZ for something CMC3 or less that's required for the situation. Dyrad Arbor, I took it out of Animar, Soul of Combos - Turn 3 Win as it felt very useless.

Yea I went ahead and put down on my last two dual lands. Glad I got my diamond when I did, though.

It is nice to see GSZ making a come back. Seems nice to pop out Caustic Caterpillar on a whim (sorcery whim, that is) or Sage.

I have been looking at effects like Flametongue Kavu to deal with some problematic cards such as Eidolon of Rhetoric and Aven Mindcensor.

Havent really found a spot just yet, just something that has posed an issue once or twice. Would like to see your thoughts

Yea I went ahead and put down on my last two dual lands. Glad I got my diamond when I did, though.

It is nice to see GSZ making a come back. Seems nice to pop out Caustic Caterpillar on a whim (sorcery whim, that is) or Sage.

I have been looking at effects like Flametongue Kavu to deal with some problematic cards such as Eidolon of Rhetoric and Aven Mindcensor.

Havent really found a spot just yet, and I know Ulamog is our prime removal piece. Just something that has posed an issue once or twice. Would like to see your thoughts.

GSZ is there for Sylvan Safekeeker (prob 75% of the time; hes great), Caterpillar (as an answer/deterrent), and Fauna Shaman (if i don't need anything this turn). You'll rarely need it for Ramp, but getting a Turn 1 Arbor can usually guarantee a turn 2 Animar, which is a solid play in many games.

And yeah, I've also considered ETB damage guys. Kavu is nice, but I actually like Grim Lavamancer for this. no ETB needed, and he's a 1-drop when you want to cast for the counter. Inferno titan is a decent option too.

I used to run Inferno Titan alongside Deadeye Navigator back before the mulligan rules change forced me to cut most of my higher CMC creatures due to them becoming liabilities in the opening hand. The two of them + Peregrine Drake used to be a common way for me to net a turn 5-6 win. I also liked that the Titan was able to deal with Hushwing Gryff if it was able to attack. That being said, in the end I cut the Navigator due the it needing 3 blue mana to cast and activate on the same turn, which was restrictive to how often I was able to combo off on earlier turns. Without the Navigator, the Titan got cut as well because it lost about 50% of its utility.

I might consider putting the titan back in if my local meta used decks with lots of utility creatures. In those situations the Titan could probably take out 2 creatures when it enters and then it presents a lot of pressure on subsequent turns. It may be a better card for 1v1, where it can repeatedly kill smaller utility commanders and clear out mana dorks.

Yeah, titan strikes me as a bit bulky, hence why Grim would be my pick. If he ended up being to GY inte3nsive in the early game, Kavu would prob be the pick.

These are probably a little too weak to play, but we may be getting some decent stuff in Core 2019!

catalyst elemental

skyscanner

I honestly doubt I want either for the deck, but these are kinda neat regardless.

The elemental may have been worth considering if it had a CMC of 2 instead of 3. The red mana helps get out cards like Kiki, but there aren't that many cards in the deck that need red so most of the time the mana may as well be colorless. If its casting cost was cheaper it might have been useful on the first couple of turns to get more expensive cards out quick, but it's probably useless by turn 4-5.

how does Animar, Soul of Elements + Ancestral Statue give you infinite etb's? how does Earthcraft + Man-o'-War go infinite? are you sure the combos work the way you think they do? don't you need infinite mana as well?

damn i hope so! ive been playing it that way for years!

Statue can bounce itself, and is free to cast when animar has 4 counters. it etbs, bounces itself, then just recast for free. that one is pretty standard.

the earthcraft line works bc you can tap the creature you cast with earthcraft in response to its own etb bounce trigger. so pay U to cast, etb bounce goes on the stack, use Earthcraft to tap it and untap a basic island, all abilities resolve, and then do it again! which creature you use depends on how many animar counters you have, but the drake works even without animar out.

ah nvm i get it now. we're supposed to assume the Animar, Soul of Elements has enough counters to make the creatures as cheap as they possibly can be. thats something you should really include in the deck description. also,

SilentSpartan: technically, you are in fact a netdecker.

Yeah, I guess that's just implied. I had it in previous versions but wanted the text to be as concise and legible as possible. sorry for the confusion.

And just a heads up, try either countering, bouncing or burning Animar, or use Rapid Hybridization/Pongify. Trapped in the Moon is a really spicy play too!

Netdecking is a great way to learn good deck construction, card evaluation and to tighten up your play. no reason to talk down to another player for using a resource to which you both have access! see if you can find some good ideas on the internet to give you an edge!

i wouldn't refer to "netdecking" as "using a resource" exactly. that sounds a little...generous. but i only "talk down" to netdeckers when they try to act like they came up with it themselves or act like they're a really good player even though their copied deck is all they know. i've met good players that netdecked, but i've also met some crazy ones.

The issue with harping on netdecking is that if you are interested in refining decks to be as concise and competitive as possible, your deck is inevitably going to wind up looking very similar to a netdeck. Netdecks are the end product of a bunch of people working towards the same goal and combining time and effort to look at all the possibilities. There are only so many card options and combinations that are viable, so even if you are working through the process on your own without any other references you are likely to have something that looks like a netdeck eventually.

Outside of the drive to make a deck as competitive as possible, there is a lot more design space and room to show individuality in deck building. But when it comes to tournament decks, netdecking is basically just a time saver. It's always worth testing new ideas though because there are going to be cards that work better in some metas than others.

SaberTech: the idea that every deck meant to be competitive will "inevitably look similar to a netdeck"...is just false. you wouldn't believe the number of times my friends and I have taken modern fnm by storm with something they've basically never seen before. the whole night is just other players scratching their heads in confusion, cursing under their breath, calling over the judge, and then huddling in the corner with the rest of our defeated opponents making excuses to each other. it blows their minds.

the only time a player might "accidentally" end up with a netdeck is if they go into the deckbuilding process with a win condition that has already been beaten to death. but even then theres a possibility of new combos and interactions. contrary to popular belief, not "every" combination has been tried yet. or a player might use a new win condition entirely.

Also worth noting that there’s a bit of a ship of Theseus issue here when identifying netdeckers.

If you copy the ddvklist but substitute one card, is it a netdeck anymore?

What if you test it out, then go back to the original list?

What if you download a list, then spend a couple years systematically testing every card against several other good options, but ultimately end up replacing nothing? What if you replace only a few cards? How many is a few in this context???

Even more comfusing, what if you see a few good lists online, and end up using the 60+ cards that appear in all of them. If your deck unique? Is it a netdeck??

So the issue is, where do you draw the line when it comes to using info you find online? I personally feel that the internet is a fantastic source of info, and we can’t ignore any of it if we really want to build the best decks. Peruse every list you can, test every card that looks promising, and synthesize what works. When you have a good list, post it online and discuss with other players. “Netdecking” is just the natural end product of this pattern, and there’s a reason almost all strong players have gotten more than a few good ideas from other people. It’s becsuse nobody invents a great deck on their own, it’s always a bunch of good ideas from different people that come together.

Some people accept a list they find online verbatim, others change parts oF it to suit their meta, play style or budget. But nobody is wrong to learn from other people’s work; that’s the only way we keep getting better!

And to your other point, most competitive decks did start somewhere, of course. But there are some well established decks that are proven to be very strong. As Saber said, if you want to do well, choosing to build Affinity in Modern or Zur in EDH is a totally viable strategy. It’s not invincible and you’ll still have to learn a lot to play optimally, but if anything there’s a greater probability of going well when you start from a deck that has been proven to do well in the past.

Q. If you copy the ddvklist but substitute one card, is it a netdeck anymore?

A. yes. seems obvious to me.

Q. What if you test it out, then go back to the original list?

A. im assuming you mean change the deck somehow, then test the new list. once you go back to the original, its a netdeck.

Q. What if you download a list, then spend a couple years systematically testing every card against several other good options, but ultimately end up replacing nothing? What if you replace only a few cards? How many is a few in this context???

A. this is basically the same question as the one before it. both scenarios result in a final decklist that is the same as the original netdecked list. so still a netdeck.

Q. Even more comfusing, what if you see a few good lists online, and end up using the 60+ cards that appear in all of them. If your deck unique? Is it a netdeck??

i'm assuming this question can only refer to commander. if there are 60+ cards that appear in "all" of the online lists, and we take into account a minimum of 30 lands, that means a maximum of 10 cards are unique. if less than 10% of the deck is unique, i consider it a netdeck.

for me personally, i think i draw the line at 20% of the decks spells, at least for 60-card formats. for 60 card formats, i consider it a netdeck unless a minimum of 8 cards are unique from the "stock" version. thats only 2 playsets though, so depending on the specific deck, it may be pretty generous of me to say that an 8 card difference actually separates it from being a netdeck.

now don't get me wrong, i'm certainly not trying to say that i think nobody should ever netdeck under any circumstances. i totally understand going with a deck that has proven itself to be powerful when showing up to fnm where prizes are on the line. obviously we're there to win when we pay that entry fee. the part i have a problem with though, is when players just make a carbon copy of something they found, and pretend its their unique homebrew, or when they act like the wins they get make them some amazing player even though they don't know of any cards/mechanics outside of their deck.

let me give an example. once at modern fnm, i sat down across from a grixis Death's Shadow player. as i shuffled, he caught a glance of my Watery Grave. he immediately proceeded to shout out to the rest of the table that we had a "mirror match". but i wasn't playing Grixis Shadow. i was playing 5c slivers. and beat him to death 2-0. he didn't know how the regeneration mechanic worked.

10-20% seems like a reasonable cutoff, all things considered. But it’s not a rule that works in every case, just a convention shared by some players and not others.

Another question is, what makes this the “stock” Animar deck? I built it by googling good Animar decks, perusing a bunch of lists I found and talking to other talented players. Am I a netdecker? The people I copied from likely copied from someone else, so how far back does it remain “netdecking”?

I get the feeling this is a highly context-dependent thing. Netdecking is difficult to define precisely and universally, but “you know it when you see it”. I agree with that honestly, inasmuch as there’s any utility in defining it. Your buddy very likely did “netdeck” my Animar. The real question is, does that matter? Isn’t magic a big enough game to accommodate people who like to invent and people who like to copy? Hell, a ton of players buy precons and have a blast without ever even reading the decklist in the box!

Do I think we agree that Netdecking a a recognizable but somewhat nebulous thing. All I’d suggest is to remain open minded about it, and acknowledge that it’s a big part of the game at every level of competition. If you choose to avoid it, that’s just as valid a way to play magic as if you had chosen otherwise.

@ DragonGodKing90 Just to clarify, I'm not sure how me tone will come across here but I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just going to do my best to lay out my perspective on the matter as clearly as I can. So with that said:

I think we are talking about two two different things. You are talking about either making a brand new deck (archetype), a fringe deck, or an alternative spin on an existing deck (new key cards or win conditions) and having it be capable of winning against other competitive decks in a particular meta.

What I was talking about is the refinement process of a deck. You choose a deck (by archetype or win condition), and then you go through the process of refining it so that it wins as much as possible. In a given meta, only certain cards are viable to support a given archetype or win condition against the common threats. You then test to figure out which cards in which ratios give you the mathematically best chance of winning with that deck against the variety of other decks you are likely to face. With the same mindset, the same goal, and the same tools available to solve the same problems, an individual will eventually end up with a deck that will look similar to a netdeck that people worked together to refine.

There are always going to be a variety of decks in a given meta, because at the very least you will have a dominant deck and a deck designed to beat it as often as possible. A healthy meta with have a lot more than that. So no, not every deck that is meant to be competitive will be the same, because there are different deck archetypes that are viable. But what does the version of 4 Color Humans deck that wins the most often look like? What version of Jund scores the best tournament results the most consistently? When trying to find the best version of a deck, over time, even someone working individually is going to come up with a version that will have a significant amount of similarities to a netdeck of the same archetype. Chances are, because more people are working on it, the netdeck will reach its most efficient form faster that one being worked on by a single individual.

So yes, I am talking about those decks whose win conditions have been done to death, because I'm talking about the process it takes for them to have reached that point. And in the case of edh decks, I am talking about decks based around specific commanders. A given commander might have a few alternate variations that focus on different strategies or win conditions, but in a competitive setting each variation is eventually going to have a list that mathematically has the best chance of snagging a win in the competitive meta. An individual can go through the process of figuring out that form for themselves, or they can look at a netdeck and see the combined effort and experience that other people have put towards the same goal and use that as a reference to move themselves forward faster than if they if they were working alone.

Oh, I totally agree that not knowing about the meta or even your own deck is a huge mistake. Netdecking doesn’t make you a good plsyer automatically, and to pretend it does is a pretty smug, obnoxious thing to do.

At the same time, sometimes it works. Sounds like your friend is winning a fair bit with this deck, so I guess the Netdecking paid off. If there’s a genuine imbalance, perhaps it’s time to discuss your desired power level with your playgroup.

SaberTech: i "think" i see what you're saying now. at first you made it sound like a blanket statement of "any deck meant to be competitive will eventually look like a meta deck" but i think now it looks like you meant something more along the lines of "most competitive builds of an already-known archetype will likely look similar to the meta build of that archetype". like tron for example. i just generally prefer to make competitive versions of unused archetypes. i've gone 5-0 at modern fnm with 5c slivers. my buddy has gone 5-0 at modern fnm with a 4c planeswalker deck whose only creature was Narset, Enlightened Master.

JMCraig: whose friend are we talkin about?