http://tappedout.net/mtg-articles/2012/apr/2/comment-etiquette/ Here's something for you to read, FROZR2. Read it and follow it.

It actually seems 3 is the correct number of Caverns to run in this deck. I'll be on the hunt for a Dragonskull Summit if I can get my hands on it. It'll also help cast other stuff. Good call, Vos!

And if I'm not mistaken, you haven't really disproven any of my points. Any. Which is fine, just try not to claim that I'm bad at arguing. Hypocrisy.

See, we must have thought you were trying to begin an actual conversation rather than just spilling your baby food on the internet. I'm sorry Brozr4, next time we'll remember that your opinion is worth a little bit less than dirt to others, as golden as it may be to yourself.

FROZR2, make your arguments as clear as possible. I'll answer every last one of them.

You have disproven all of your own points, Krozr7.

Originality must be completely original, and not taken from other people's decks. So Jund cannot be run by anyone. So grixis cannot be run by anyone, nobody can run any land type for that matter. I wonder if anyone has used Stuffy Doll before? Maybe i'll make my own version of that... wait, other people have done every combination possible of that? Oh darn. I guess my version cant be original.

Lets take another quote from you:

"I agree some staples are required to be competitive. Like Thragtusk lol. But then it comes down to whether you want to win matches or have a good time playing with something that you brewed yourself."

1) This is something he forged through edits of his original deck concepts. Which was pooling good cards together to make a deck.

2) He probably wants to win matches, so he chooses combinations of cards to get the job done (hence the staples)

3) He hasnt copied this deck card for card from anyone, he put together his own list that just seems to be similar to other decks of the same colors... because, you know what, in this color combo, those are the best cards to play.

Who plays a deck competitively just to lose? People seek ideas to make their deck better. One to invest money in to win more value. He is using only cards he wants because he likes them. Most jund decks wouldn't even consider Chandra, the Firebrand , hence making it one of his own. My deck runs Chandra, the Firebrand , but im not calling him unoriginal just because i had it built for a long time now.

You need to redefine your definition of "original" and "creative" because the simple fact is, you're gripping onto no solid issue, and your arguments are drifting back and forth to try to make yourself seem justified and valid.

I see no further reason to tell you this over and over again, because you obviously cant come to terms with admitting you are a rude, self-centered individual with no open mind to real creativity. Please alter your ego... just a little bit.

He's a troll. Enough said. You fuel trolls when you react to their bs. The fallacies in his arguments are self apparent to all that read and play the game. Try not to let it get to you.

I am rude, and I am self centered. I have not once denied that.

But I am also right, no matter how you go and look at this, and no matter how many attacks are being launched right at me. Try to be more objective if you do want to argue my points.

As previously stated, a better deck doesn't have to be the most played. The same goes for better cards. The very first deck that won any matches was Todd Andersons, playing USA control. Brad Nelson then played the exact. same. deck... Brad Nelson was once player of the year, and he couldn't even go ahead and contribute to the meta. Those are players who go out of their way to win matches. They are not good magic players because their ideas are not their own.

My points are as follows:

1) If you are not the first to play an archetype of a deck, then you have netdecked. Simple as that. That's why I make all my decks before a new set becomes legal.

2) You can play similar cards without netdecking. Though when each and every card you run is a competitive staple (as is here), you have netdecked. I was the first to propose gettting Worldspine Wurm out on turn 4 via card:Descendants' Path. I have used cards used before but done something never done.

3) Creativity manifests out of nothing except influence. That does not mean you should be influenced to netdeck. Then it's not creativity anymore.

4) Originality is to be the first to play a deck. I played Grixis while everyone jumped on Bantwagons and Jund, because those are my colors. That was my only influence, and what do you know! I place every week!

It seems like you're convinced I'm trying to upset you, when I'm not. All I did was confront you, because I feel like it's the right thing to do. So no, I'm not trolling at all lol, just being a dick sort of. I have made a point (I hope) so sure, I can stop commenting if you see fit.

1) So 99.9999999% of all decks EVER MADE are netdecks. All your decks are netdecks. Everything is netdecks. You are NEVER the first to make a deck. Employees at Wizards will have made the deck type first, therefore you're netdecking them.

No, dude. Netdecking is the act of copying a winning deck from a high-end event. Playing the same color combination, playing the staples of a color or using the same combo is NOT netdecking.

2) I refuse to use inferior cards when better are available. Why use Mind Rot when I can cast card:Rakdos's Return? Why would I play Golgari Guildgate when I could play Overgrown Tomb ?Again, you are NOT the first to suggest using a certain combo. To think so is hubris.

3) Creativity is taking a deck idea, putting your own spin on it and then tuning it according to your needs.

4) Originality is impossible in this game. We have a finite number of available cards. Theoretically, every deck possible has been made. You cannot be 100% original when there's a framework like MTG's formats. It's simply not possible. You actually said it yourself! "creativity is dead in games like these."

Comments like "You could always call the internet police." , "Everyone be mad." , "Vos_Is_Boss forfeits." and " I'm dehydrated from all the crying all I've been doing.Also Umad?" are not confronting, they're not constructive and they are most certainly not wanted. What the hell do you hope to accomplish by "confronting" someone like this? Other than making them respond to you, of course. Being a dick and trolling are not mutually exclusive. You can definitely troll people by being a dick, which is exactly what happened here. Your point is hilariously bad, and you should re-evaluate your crusade on decks that YOU deem to be "netdecked".If you do comment on this again, I ask of you not to resort to any sort of hubris again. Claiming you were the first in a game with millions of players is ridiculous, to say the least.

Sure, I can agree that it's next to netdeck if the definition of netdecking is to use the same cards as another, but it isn't. You are right in that we are limited to maybe 1000 cards? I'm not positive lol. For the sake of simplicity, I will say that to netdeck, you must be influenced by a certain deck that does well. That being said, if you make a deck that does well on your own, and it just so happens to have been done before... sure, that wouldn't be netdecking.

But this deck is different. It was made so late in the current meta, just a cut over half of it. The only thing it's missing is a playset of Pillar of Flame and Bonfire of the Damned , and then it would be nothing but regurgitation. The only original mainboard card here is Duress . If you want I can go ahead and find examples of top 8 Jund decks, but something tells me that won't be necessary.

I offered advice to the original list, and logged on today and saw an explosion of comments on this list. I was quite excited to see some of the enlightening discussion of the deck, and was let down. Hard.

I'm personally considering trying a Chandra+ Bramblecrush approach. What are your thoughts on this?

InsaneRabbit, Bramblecrush would be awesome with Chandra, the Firebrand and possibly a sideboarded Reverberate (I've thought about Reverberate to punish control players playing Entreat the Angels and card:Sphinx's Revelation).

I might have to playtest Bramblecrush . It's more versatile than Dreadbore , and I've had great results with that card.

FROZR2, I'm not even going to bother responding after this. You make your own definition of terms instead of using the generally accepted definition. It's tiresome and frankly not at all productive. If all you're doing is spewing hate, then this website has no need for you. Do not comment on this deck again, unless you have ideas for actual improvement. THEN you're more than welcome.

insanerabbit, back in the day, i used Bramblecrush like a drug. Time has passed and i have almost completely forgot about the card. Maybe because its expensive, maybe because its only a sorcery, however, i really love that card. Using it with Chandra, the Firebrand is definitely something to consider, or at least test.

The only downside i see, is the mana cost. 4 can be rough with all the other 4 drops in your deck. Playing only 1 spell a turn can really hurt your momentum.

Also... i dont know why im continuing to feed this jerk, but him being the first to come out with the concept of bringing out Worldspine Wurm on turn 4? I bet he invented the card Rise from the Grave too.

I did not make my own definitions and terms. The line seperating netdecking and not netdecking is pretty much non existent, so discussions like these are necessary.

I am not spewing hate, I am trying to talk to you, and you are just being a child.

There isn't a lot you can do to improve a deck when it isn't yours. But sure, you have no board wipes. Mizzium Mortars Bonfire of the Damned and Blasphemous Act are all good. But Bonfire of the Damned is the most used in the current meta, so I'm guessing that would be your choice.

Vos_Is_Boss can play Worldspine Wurm from his graveyard.

At sorcery speed.

mfw

Get out, FROZR2. You're pathetic.

And you're mad. But sure, I can leave.

If you somehow left intelligent comments on this subject, you might be taken seriously, and not be the punchline of our sarcasm. Oh dear, have you not picked up on that yet?

I think I'm going to bring the subject of creativity in standard to my fellow Fargonian, Mr. Nelson. I'd like to here his input on the subject. As well as a response to your completely irrational abuse to him. I'll message you about it, maybe. Although frankly, you hardly deserve any spotlight.

The way I see it, staying true to your colors is a lot like staying true to a sports team. Players like Brad Nelson have a new favorite sports team every season because they are either doing the best in that season, or the most people are rooting for that team each season.

If, for some crazy reason, the meta was such a way that only Boros colors could win, and let's just say if you weren't playing them you would automatically lose, I would gladly lose matches if it meant staying true to my colors. White is a disgraceful color lol.

I also play Jund and after months of testing, at least in the meta in my area, you are running too few cost effective removal spells in your main board even with Chandra, the Firebrand to fork them - if you dont farseek to her on turn 3 you'll be overwhelmed. With 11 creatures +2 keyrunes there's a decent chance you wont even end up with a creature in your starting hand if you're on the play - consequently any solid aggro is going to win the first game for free unless you happen to topdeck perfectly and they have no answers of their own (unlikely).

Things that present a weakness to this deck currently also include hexproof, such as Geist of Saint Traft , and anything in the air. Went 3-2 with my deck at my last FNM deck:okay-its-jund and I also had too few removal spells in my main deck (also I have Arbor Elf for when Stomping Ground rotates in). The matches I lost were to aggro where I auto-lost the first game due to just not having enough to deal with the constant threats. With no boardwipes, I fear you'll have the same results. Cards to Consider are Bonfire of the Damned if you have them, otherwise Mizzium Mortars is an acceptable substitute, and Vampire Nighthawk has a sound place in Jund.

That said, I've been wanting to try out Chandra to turn 4 card:Rakdos's Return for 6, as it will probably be a scoop for the opponent at that point.

You raise very valid points. However, my meta has virtually no aggro decks, and so I am not very afraid of them. Bonfire of the Damned is simply out. I've had Sever the Bloodline and Mizzium Mortars in here, but they felt too slow and sluggish. I've considered Blasphemous Act since it's easier to cast when you need it the most.Adding Chandra, the Firebrand was just meant for testing, but I've really grown to like her. I might be modifying the deck to take advantage of her ability to copy stuff. Come Gatecrash, I'll be adding Arbor Elf s and Stomping Ground as well.

Chandra, the Firebrand copying card:Rakdos's Return is sweet. I hit an enemy for 12 with it that way. :)

Ah, yeah if you dont have to deal with a lot of aggro then maybe you don't need so much removal, but I thought one of your problem decks was Naya so I brought it up. One thing about mizzium mortars, I very rarely overload it, except when I absolutely need a board wipe. It's good for cleaning up a flipped huntmaster, olivia and the like. Given the choice, I'd be running bonfires instead but I strongly dislike the christmas miracle mechanic (and I dont have any).

From the look of your sideboard, it seems like jund zombies isn't a thing you have to deal with either cause I see no graveyard removal, no pillar of flame and no deathrite shaman or anything. That said, if your meta has few aggro decks to speak of, do you think lilliana really belongs in the mainboard? It seems like you could side her out and a few other things for some Strangleroot Geist , wolfir silverhearts, dreg manglers, or vampire nighthawks, the nighthawk synergizing extremely well with kessig. If no one is playing aggro or zombies, you could probably have a few free wins by filling out your early to low mid range with aggressive cards to use up their removal or first board wipe, rakdos's return their second board wipe from their hand and rebuild with thragtusks. Also, what IS your meta currently running? cause it's not zombies and its not aggro, so if its all control doesnt that warrant pressuring them hard to win before their board wipes take over? Just my two copper.

The metagame is a mix of G/W aggro, naya midrange decks, Bant Miracles and U/W control. There's only one Zombies-player at the shop, and he's running B/G.

Liliana of the Veil is great against slow decks. Make them sacrifice their one, lonely creature or keep their hand dry. Ultimate'ing her will probably be a game win. If I'll cut something to add creatures, it's probably her.. And if I do, I'll add Vampire Nighthawk .

I'll think about adding Mizzium Mortars , at least for the sideboard. The overload cost is a bit tough to pay, but it's great spot removal.

Christmas miracle cards -.- cant wait til they rotate out.

Have you ever considered Barter in Blood for jund?

I did, but I found it to be very clunky and generally hurting me as much (or more) than my opponent. It was often a dead draw..