The Cheap Deck Club Committee (Closed)

TappedOut forum

Posted on Nov. 29, 2015, 12:01 a.m. by Atony1400

The advisers over


The Cheap Deck Club.

Standard Atony1400

SCORE: 54 | 0 COMMENTS | 4942 VIEWS


Atony1400 - leader of discussion

CheeseBro - member

bah-bammmm - member

Panzerforge - unconfirmed member

Sleazebag - unconfirmed member

deltacobra - unconfirmed member

We will discuss requesting entries, and ways to make the page better.

Atony1400 says... #2

I'd like to welcome bah-bammmm and CheeseBro to the committee.

November 29, 2015 12:03 a.m.

Atony1400 says... #3

Subscribe to keep up to date with other posts by members!

November 29, 2015 12:18 a.m.

The_Raven says... #4

I don't understand.... What is this? Many of the decks seems pretty bad... (the modern decks don't stand a chance... At all...)

November 29, 2015 4:10 a.m.

CheeseBro says... #5

so, what would this committee do?

November 29, 2015 10:07 a.m.

CheeseBro says... #6

Swilliam, what do you think?

November 29, 2015 10:10 a.m.

Atony1400 says... #8

The_Raven, this is kinda a private thread, and my modern deck has won many modern tournements.

BBDI (Boros Beat Down I).

So im going to kindly ask you to keep your comments to yourself.

November 29, 2015 12:26 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #9

It's not a private thread if you're posting it in a public forum. If you wanted to keep it private, you could have easily discussed it in your clubhouse.

November 29, 2015 12:39 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #10

Clubhouse?

November 29, 2015 12:41 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #11

It's open to suggestion, not criticism.

November 29, 2015 12:41 p.m.

Make the deck private and then put all your discussions there. You can't get mad at us if we comment on a public thread if it was not made known beforehand that it was a private affair (and again, if you don't want your "committee" conversations to be known to everyone, don't do it in a public place where everyone can see it. It's not that hard).

November 29, 2015 12:43 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #13

November 29, 2015 12:45 p.m.

julianjmoss says... #14

It's open to suggestion but not criticism? Don't be a baby

November 29, 2015 12:46 p.m.

Servo_Token says... #15

So to criticize the decks on this public forum, the modern decks are actually just really bad. There's a difference between a local tournament and an actual tournament. These decks cannot be relied on to do well in a real tournament.

Didn't look at the standard decks, but after seeing the legacy deck I had to navigate away from the page... It made my heart hurt.

This is extremely amateur. Sorry if you can't take criticism, but if that's the case, don't post on the public forums.

November 29, 2015 12:48 p.m.

Criticism is fine, but let's be civil.

November 29, 2015 12:50 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #17

I'm sorry if some people are not people with no social life and hundreds of dollars to blow on cardboard, so if you cannot respect part of your OWN magic community (basically 90% of the total playing population), then you shouldn't be playing!

November 29, 2015 12:52 p.m.

I didn't see anything uncivil about his post, Epoch.

EDIT: Maybe you should heed Epoch's words about being civil, Atony. You're getting a tad bit salty about this.

November 29, 2015 12:58 p.m. Edited.

Atony1400 says... #19

Didn't come up until after it posted, that's the one little flaw I found on this site.

November 29, 2015 1 p.m.

I respect people with budget concerns. What I find really strange is that the budget decks come nowhere near playability in their respective formats. If your goal is to help people who don't have a great deal of money to spend on Magic, then you need to do a better job of curating decks that will actually help them be successful to some extent.

November 29, 2015 1:01 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #21

Kinda what the club does!

November 29, 2015 1:05 p.m.

I think the point is being made because what your group is currently offering doesn't seem to do a fair job of helping players get the most out of their limited resources.

Reception to your project would be better if the decks could demonstrate consistent results at a reasonable level of competition (e.g., FNM). If you're just taking substitutions or decks that happen to be cheap but don't actually deliver results, then you should advertise that the decks are meant for casual play rather than for use in any given format.

November 29, 2015 1:11 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #23

Ok, so your saying, list those as casual unless they can be really competitive.

November 29, 2015 1:13 p.m.

That would be best. When you describe a deck as "Standard" or "Modern" or so on, what you're typically conveying is that the deck is designed to be played in a constructed event of that format. This implies that the deck is actually competitive enough to get results in that format.

If you're simply using the formats as a way to describe what kinds of cards are in the deck, consider using the "Casual" label instead to prevent confusion with event-oriented decks.

November 29, 2015 1:18 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #25

Ok, I'll do that.

November 29, 2015 1:52 p.m.

CheeseBro says... #26

Atony1400: Epochalyptik and GlistenerAgent is right. part of the criteria to become a member is to have results in an event, but i feel like the decks dont have that. the list I made up in Comment #6 of decks that have no event experience. also, DevoidMage Epochalyptik, julianjmoss, and canterlotguardian are right though. This is a public thread, and people can criticize things. This is a committee after all, isnt it? Topics should be openly discussed!

November 29, 2015 4:29 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #27

Yea I know.

November 29, 2015 4:35 p.m.

bah-bammmm says... #28

Oh shit. I knew cheesebro would start spamming his Johnny home brew decks again, and I knew once this forum would be made shit would hit the fan.

November 29, 2015 4:45 p.m.

CheeseBro says... #29

????? those were decks in the club i was saying that they had no proof of win!

November 29, 2015 4:47 p.m.

bah-bammmm says... #30

All I did was make an edh deck. I never expected any of the decks listed to actually be able to compete, and once someone started shouting facts, people got pissy. None of the decks made are honestly tournament viable.

November 29, 2015 4:47 p.m.

CheeseBro says... #31

damn i wish the days when people were sincere and ACTUALLY READ WHAT I SAID IN THE COMMENT!

November 29, 2015 4:48 p.m.

CheeseBro says... #32

the edh deck is cool, the one you made

November 29, 2015 4:48 p.m.

bah-bammmm says... #33

I feel sick to my stomach. I know shit is gonna hit the fan with this forum.

November 29, 2015 4:51 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #34

His mana severance edh is pretty clever, if you ask me.

November 29, 2015 4:52 p.m.

CheeseBro says... #35

i seriously dont see what i did wrong. this is a committee, and i was trying to discuss what decks really dont belong in the club. I dont know what you are talking about about "crappy johnny homebrews".

so

November 29, 2015 4:55 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #36

Hey, my deck Jeskai Control by Tokens II is a homebrew, and I've made people cry because of it lol.

November 29, 2015 4:58 p.m.

bah-bammmm says... #37

It's kinda sad how serious this is being taken.

November 29, 2015 5 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #38

You got me there, I've been perfecting it for 9 months,

November 29, 2015 5:03 p.m.

bah-bammmm says... #39

I meant this "committee" thing

November 29, 2015 5:04 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #40

Can you guys just get over your little "fued" and move the f*** on???

November 29, 2015 5:08 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #41

CheeseBro, please move comment #6 to the private deck.

November 29, 2015 5:10 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #42

NM, I got it.

November 29, 2015 5:10 p.m.

bah-bammmm says... #43

I'm out. I don't care about this at all. All I did was make an edh deck and now this committee thing is being taken too seriously. And then we have people using gifs as insults. I'm done with all you basement dwelling virgins!!!

November 29, 2015 5:14 p.m.

Atony1400 says... #44

Damn,

November 29, 2015 5:17 p.m.

Good to see you're all being civil.

November 29, 2015 5:19 p.m.

This discussion has been closed