[Discussion] Netdecking

[Versus]

I'm curious to what everyones definition of this term is?

On the surface it would seem that the most common and sensible answer would be for a player to take a deck list from the internet and then proceed to play that list card for card with little to no testing or understanding of how the deck works. Does it go beyond that though?

-What if you test that very deck for months until you know it like your own skin?

-Does taking that list and changing the SB to more directly deal with your local meta still netdecking?

-Does taking the shell the of an established archetype and making a few tweeks here and there break the stigma and the overall definition of a netdeck? what if someone else already made those same tweeks. Are you now netdecking their list?

-What of splashing a second or tertiary color? Is one still netdecking by running Death and Taxes with green for Goyf and Teeg? Faerie Stompy with black for Negator and Maw?

-Is the construction of a mono-black deck with a disruption package consisting of 4 Thoughtseize/4 Duress/4 Hymn/4 Therapy make my deck a netdecked MBC? What if I just so happen to make my creature base include some 1 drop Zombies and Gators, is it Sui now? Is it "Stark Sui"?

What if the deck is so refined that there is no room for improvement over a card or two? Someone invented Goblins, Thresh, Belcher, but more than one person plays each of these archetypes. I've been playing Faerie Stompy for a few weeks now and admittedly so my current build differs from one of Eladriel's by 2 card slots. Yeah, I like Cloud of Faeries over Looters and 3 Psionic Blasts do it for me rather than 2, but besides that my deck is his deck. I've even explored some changes even though they have already been thoroughly tested and long abandoned. When all was said and done I'm left with basically the same build that everyone that posts in that thread is currently playing. I guess that makes me a net decker then?

I like to build decks all the time, but I feel like the talents (or lack of) I have just aren't up to snuff to be truly competitive in a format so rich with highly skilled players. So I look at the threads on this site and come up with a deck I think fits my play style. I proxy it, I test the shit out of it, I make some changes, and I play it when I can. Did I make it up? No, but when it all comes down to it, it's still my deck, right?

[frogboy]

On the surface it would seem that the most common and sensible answer would be for a player to take a deck list from the internet and then proceed to play that list card for card with little to no testing or understanding of how the deck works. Does it go beyond that though?

usually you a) test it and b) understand how it works.

[Nihil Credo]

There is no agreed-upon definition of 'casual', and there is no agreed-upon definition of 'netdecking'.

[SilverGreen]

-What if you test that very deck for months until you know it like your own skin?It's netdeck.


-Does taking that list and changing the SB to more directly deal with your local meta still netdecking?It's still netdeck.


-Does taking the shell the of an established archetype and making a few tweeks here and there break the stigma and the overall definition of a netdeck? what if someone else already made those same tweeks. Are you now netdecking their list?Yes.


-What of splashing a second or tertiary color? Is one still netdecking by running Death and Taxes with green for Goyf and Teeg? Faerie Stompy with black for Negator and Maw? It's netdeck too.


-Is the construction of a mono-black deck with a disruption package consisting of 4 Thoughtseize/4 Duress/4 Hymn/4 Therapy make my deck a netdecked MBC? What if I just so happen to make my creature base include some 1 drop Zombies and Gators, is it Sui now? Is it "Stark Sui"?It isn't netdeck, it's the kind of deck many players I know here play at regionals and use to name "Pile of Shit" in the registration sheets. I'm not kidding.


And the most common and sensible answer is a player take ANY decklist from the internet and then proceed to play that list card for card with any level of testing or understanding of how the deck works. ;)

[ClearSkies]

There is no agreed-upon definition of 'casual', and there is no agreed-upon definition of 'netdecking'.

Yea, I think this is the best answer, especially seeing how people have different opinions already, and the topic creator has so much different situations.

To me, if it is a deck idea that I can find it on the web, it is net deck. It doesn't have to be card for card copy or whatever. I don't believe it is a bad thing though unlike some people who go around "I hate "netdeckers", and I refuse to play with them" attitude. (Even through their "creations" (at least they claim they are) decks can be found on the internet)

[nastynate]

I'm curious to what everyones definition of this term [net deck] is?

Net decking is simply drawing upon the collective knowledge of several players and their experiences to assemble your deck, rather than building a deck from scratch all by yourself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with copying ideas that work. If we don't share our knowledge and learn from others who play this game, then we don't make much progress. Net decking is the simple acknowledgment of your willingness to utilize the tech of other MTG players, instead of bungling along with blinders on.

This doesn't mean that you shouldn't examine and evaluate the deck lists that you copy from others. You should still play-test, study, and consider possible improvements. I usually analyze the basic framework of a net deck and determine what it does. Then I make changes (whether to the main deck or the side-board) based upon metagame considerations and/or possible improvements. Sometimes that entails no changes at all, and other times it means drastic rebuilding.


I like to build decks all the time, but I feel like the talents (or lack of) I have just aren't up to snuff to be truly competitive in a format so rich with highly skilled players. So I look at the threads on this site and come up with a deck I think fits my play style. I proxy it, I test the shit out of it, I make some changes, and I play it when I can. Did I make it up? No, but when it all comes down to it, it's still my deck, right?

You went through the effort to obtain the cards, test the deck, and play it, so why are you worried about whether it's your deck or not? So long as you aren't claiming credit for developing the deck without acknowledging the efforts of the other people involved there is nothing wrong. You'll be lucky if one out of one hundred unique decks you come up with actually perform well in tournament play, so don't feel guilty if you decide to play something good (even if it isn't your creation); you certainly won't be the only one playing an established archetype.

[Bryant Cook]

Everything is a "Netdeck" these days fucking get over it. I hate the term, it's a term that scrubs use to make themselves feel better. Because well they suck... Even locals in my metagame call me a netdecker for playing TES (See Nick Patnode).

[Cait_Sith]

Everything is a "Netdeck" these days fucking get over it. I hate the term, it's a term that scrubs use to make themselves feel better. Because well they suck... Even locals in my metagame call me a netdecker for playing TES (See Nick Patnode).

Its not like you invented TES. Everyone knows Breathweapon did.

I only complain about netdecking is someone brings the EXACT list of another deck (I mean card for card, or REALLY damn close) and goes "Hi guys! Look at my awesome new and totally independently made deck!"

Thanks to the magic of the Internet, people's lists are naturally going to look alike as they agree on the optimal tech. There will always be variants (I play Deeptread Merrow in my Uw Merfolk. Most people consider it stupid, but I like it), but there are going to be fundamental similarities. Calling it all "netdecking" just makes you side a lot like a brat.

[Versus]

Thanks to the magic of the Internet, people's lists are naturally going to look alike as they agree on the optimal tech.

I think this basically says it all. We all play the same game. We all see the cards and initially think similarly then catagorize them accordingly. It doesn't take a genius or a Pro to make the conclusion that playing The Rack in a deck that makes your opponent discard their hand is tech. However, it's the true innovators who look past he surface and find something the rest of us missed. In other words, put a group of people who never played the game before on an island with a huge card pool and a rules booklet and guaranteed a few of them will come up with what we know as White Weenie. Only one will come up with D&T.

I was going somewhere with this, but I'm too tired to remember what my point was. You get the general idea I hope...

[freakish777]

Netdecking is a good thing. Almost everyone should do it.

[Pinder]

Even locals in my metagame call me a netdecker for playing TES

http://doesitallmatter.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/i-lold.jpg

And I don't think there's anything wrong with netdecking at all. I mean, if you can create a deck and it's good, then great. But it's not like every time you want to go for a drive you should reinvent the fucking wheel. Plus, as someone who's created a competitive (moderately, at least) deck, it brings me no end of joy when people netdeck my (or Volt's) list.

And plus, what sort of mindset is it to say 'I made this deck, now no one is allowed to play it besides me ever'? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If someone sees you playing a deck at a tourney, likes it, and builds it, are you going to be mad at them? The propagation of ideas is nothing new, and the fact that it happens on the internet now is no cause for alarm.

edit- One caveat, though, and that is that I'm very picky about deck credits. Netdeck, fine, but don't steal something off the internet and claim it was your brilliant idea. That's called plagiarism and as a certain English teacher can tell you, that's bad. Occasionally you'll end up with similar ideas all on your own, sure, but how often does that actually happen?

[Michael Keller]

I used to be a big anti net-decker. In the big picture, however, you're foolish if you don't. You need to be able to:

a.) Maintain a working knowledge of superior competition.
b.) Know what cards are seeing considerably more play than others.
c.) Understand how to adapt to the format by seeing what decks are winning on a consistent basis.

People should use the internet to their advantage. People who don't will only tread above water for so long and typically don't care about their rating and have big ego trips - as if they're too "good" to work off what others have created. That's why more often than not you hear people bashing the hell out of "net-deckers" because they lack originality, which is completely and utterly false.

Wow...I can't believe I said that.

[Bovinious]

edit- One caveat, though, and that is that I'm very picky about deck credits. Netdeck, fine, but don't steal something off the internet and claim it was your brilliant idea. That's called plagiarism and as a certain English teacher can tell you, that's bad. Occasionally you'll end up with similar ideas all on your own, sure, but how often does that actually happen?

I concur in the highest, I was very upset when some pros whos names I do not recall stole my Pitch World archetype for Worlds and recieved credit for it, I even sent an email to Brian David-Marshall about the blatant thievery of the Dragon Stompy and Pitch World archetypes during Worlds, but I havnt recieved a response :frown:

[The Rack]

Netdecking is a good thing. Almost everyone should do it.

This is a statement I'll never agree with becomes it comes down to what Magic, as a game, can be decided as many different ways of what its all about. Either you like playing, just picking up a random deck and playing. Or you like the chesslike attributes of the game as a strategist. Or you like designing something and calling it your own. Or you like just winning, in that case you could be doing other stuff to win at easier than Magic.

My 2 cents.

[Lego]

I concur in the highest, I was very upset when some pros whos names I do not recall stole my Pitch World archetype for Worlds and recieved credit for it, I even sent an email to Brian David-Marshall about the blatant thievery of the Dragon Stompy and Pitch World archetypes during Worlds, but I havnt recieved a response :frown:

I've noticed that you've been really angry about this for a while. There are a couple of things you've got to realize, though:

One, the deck sucks, and it was never meant to be good. What you're doing is akin to designing a rocket that doesn't work, and then being pissed off when someone else tries to get the same rocket to work (and fails.) It doesn't make any sense.

Two, I think you may be getting pissed off at the wrong people (I don't think you should be mad in the first place, but if you're going to be mad, at least direct it properly.) You're getting mad at the pros, when I think you really need to be getting mad at Bill Stark. I wasn't there, so I couldn't tell you, but I think it's pretty likely that some pros (Mike Hron and Gabe Walls) were joking around about the deck with Chris McDaniels, and Bill Stark overheard them, maybe talked to them about it, and assumed that they had made it. Yes, I can't rule out the possibility that Mike and Gabe claimed to have created the deck, but a far more likely possibility is that Bill never asked.

Three, if you care, you can always PM Bill Stark and ask him. His username is Bill Stark (Sidenote: Is that actually a space in his username? We can do that?)

[Bovinious]

I've noticed that you've been really angry about this for a while. There are a couple of things you've got to realize, though:

One, the deck sucks, and it was never meant to be good. What you're doing is akin to designing a rocket that doesn't work, and then being pissed off when someone else tries to get the same rocket to work (and fails.) It doesn't make any sense.

Two, I think you may be getting pissed off at the wrong people (I don't think you should be mad in the first place, but if you're going to be mad, at least direct it properly.) You're getting mad at the pros, when I think you really need to be getting mad at Bill Stark. I wasn't there, so I couldn't tell you, but I think it's pretty likely that some pros (Mike Hron and Gabe Walls) were joking around about the deck with Chris McDaniels, and Bill Stark overheard them, maybe talked to them about it, and assumed that they had made it. Yes, I can't rule out the possibility that Mike and Gabe claimed to have created the deck, but a far more likely possibility is that Bill never asked.

Three, if you care, you can always PM Bill Stark and ask him. His username is Bill Stark (Sidenote: Is that actually a space in his username? We can do that?)

Pretty much, Im just really bitter. I dont think it really matters much the deck sucks, the pros thought it could be decent and it was hailed as very innovative and stuff on MTG.com, and even tho its not actually good Id still like credit, kind of like when Cavius got all made that someone posted a Lich list in their SCG article w/o citing him, if yall remember that. I probably should PM Bill Stark then, Ill get on that.

[Finn]

Pretty much, Im just really bitter. I dont think it really matters much the deck sucks, the pros thought it could be decent and it was hailed as very innovative and stuff on MTG.com, and even tho its not actually good Id still like credit, kind of like when Cavius got all made that someone posted a Lich list in their SCG article w/o citing him, if yall remember that. I probably should PM Bill Stark then, Ill get on that.Wait, this is for real? I almost posted how funny I thought it was on another thread when you kept going on and on about this.

[Bovinious]

Wait, this is for real? I almost posted how funny I thought it was on another thread when you kept going on and on about this.

Well it is a bad deck, but its still MY bad deck. And what makes me more mad is just the principle, that WOTC and pros dont even care to give proper credit where it is due so people think pros actually build/innovate, the same thing happened to Dragon Stompy and could happen much more in the future.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

Well it is a bad deck, but its still MY bad deck. And what makes me more mad is just the principle, that WOTC and pros dont even care to give proper credit where it is due so people think pros actually build/innovate, the same thing happened to Dragon Stompy and could happen much more in the future.Your anger is completely justified. What happened is simply plagiarism, and that's one of the things that writers/artists/musician hate the most. Where as their medium is word/paint/lyric your's [and all of ours] is cards.

[Lego]

Pretty much, Im just really bitter. I dont think it really matters much the deck sucks, the pros thought it could be decent and it was hailed as very innovative and stuff on MTG.com, and even tho its not actually good Id still like credit, kind of like when Cavius got all made that someone posted a Lich list in their SCG article w/o citing him, if yall remember that. I probably should PM Bill Stark then, Ill get on that.

Your thoughts here make me suspect that you never actually read the coverage. Is this the case?

[Bovinious]

Your thoughts here make me suspect that you never actually read the coverage. Is this the case?

I read it...what makes you say that?

[Deep6er]

Probably because you lack even the most basic of fundamental reading comprehension. Listen, the point trying to be made about your ridiculously terrible deck, is that THEY don't care if they have credit. Thus, that transfers to them never caring if they GIVE proper credit. The Eternal community seems to have a great deal of people who care about giving/receiving credit, where credit is due. I won't lie, I appreciate credit as much as the next guy. What's odd is the fact that I see a great deal less of this in other formats. With some minor exceptions, it seems to me that they don't care WHO invented it, but as long as it wins, they'll play it. So, deal with it. They have different perspectives on the situation, and as much as it pains me to say this, you're allowed your perspective. However, when it comes to something as trivial (to their perspective) as this, you will not accomplish anything.

Just as a future note, please for the love of all that is holy, post messages with CONTENT. Not random shit that infuriates any of those who care to read it.

[zulander]

Probably because you lack even the most basic of fundamental reading comprehension. Listen, the point trying to be made about your ridiculously terrible deck, is that THEY don't care if they have credit. Thus, that transfers to them never caring if they GIVE proper credit. The Eternal community seems to have a great deal of people who care about giving/receiving credit, where credit is due. I won't lie, I appreciate credit as much as the next guy. What's odd is the fact that I see a great deal less of this in other formats. With some minor exceptions, it seems to me that they don't care WHO invented it, but as long as it wins, they'll play it. So, deal with it. They have different perspectives on the situation, and as much as it pains me to say this, you're allowed your perspective. However, when it comes to something as trivial (to their perspective) as this, you will not accomplish anything.

Just as a future note, please for the love of all that is holy, post messages with CONTENT. Not random shit that infuriates any of those who care to read it.
Actually Type 1 shares that same "give me credit blah blah" syndrome. It's usually standard that doesn't really care.

[Bovinious]

Meh, this thread was about Netdecking so I figured id throw in my opinion about when pros steal ideas and dont give proper credit, that was pretty on topic so im not so sure what you meant...

[Freshrock]

Net-decking is the 8th and deadliest sin. Net-decking is like committing adultery with your sister who just happens to also be a pile of paper cards.

With that out of the way and said...


it's a term that scrubs use to make themselves feel better.

This is true. All it is is an insult. But the hypocrisy behind all of it is that nearly everyone who plays magic is guilty of being a net-decker. No one has time to test every single possible card in a deck, that's why this among other magic boards exist. hell, even the creators of decks are net-deckers because they will use suggestions that they didn't think of but someone else did.

The only people would can't netdeck are the Amish, everyone else does it.

[Nihil Credo]

The Eternal community seems to have a great deal of people who care about giving/receiving credit, where credit is due. I won't lie, I appreciate credit as much as the next guy. What's odd is the fact that I see a great deal less of this in other formats. With some minor exceptions, it seems to me that they don't care WHO invented it, but as long as it wins, they'll play it.
There's a reason behind that, it's not just community xenophobia.

In Standard, the card pool is limited enough that the core strategies around which competitive decks can be built are often apparent from the start. It doesn't make sense to claim any merit for spotting out the Kavu Predator / Fiery Justice interaction, or that Teferi was worth building a deck around. You can get praise for developing the deck, i.e. proving your list was the best one (by winning a major tournament with it), but design is not something worth talking about.

However, when a deck emerges that did take ingeniousness to devise, Standard players will pay as much attention to the original inventor as any T1/T1.5 elitist; pinpointing the original creation will also be easier since the creator probably did not share the list in public forums before bringing it to a major tournament. The updated Worlds Dragonstorm list is an example of that, with everyone repeating that Nassif got it from Chapin who got it from so-and-so.
An even better example is the metagame-dominating Makeshift Mannequin deck, whose namesake card was completely overlooked during spoiler season: after Chris Mascioli placed at States with the then-new archetype, both Mike Flores and BDM in their MtG.com columns considered it important to explain that Mascioli got it from Gavin Verhey who got it from Jonathon Loucks "and some local Northwest forums" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mf170) who "dedicated it to his recently deceased grandmother" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/bd304), I kid you not. None of these players are name pros, by the way.

So yes, there's a very good reason why the Eternal communities seem obsessed with credits, though they don't care any more than the Constructed people. Give us two weekly columns and a fuckton of tournaments to suddenly unveil our kept-under-wraps creations (or hell, just report those 100+-player tournaments that take place once a month around the world) and then, just like Standard deckbuilders, we won't ever need to endlessly debate credits in the forums. Until then, the forums are all we have.

[Iranon]

Meh. I think getting credit is usually overrated.

When I saw Zvi's control deck based on Enlightened Tutor/Counterbalance, I thought 'Hey, that's my deck'. Compared to one version I've been playing for ages, the difference in spells is 2 Wraths and 2 Standstills in the place of an expanded toolbox (Pithing Needle, Porphyry Nodes, Isochron Scepter and a metagame slot that was actually a lone Standstill occasionally).



I had often wondered if that was possibly the best control deck in the format and why nobody else seemed to play anything of the kind. I have to admit though, more often I played a Uwr version with Humility and the janktastic Rakavolver (chosen for not sucking totally under either of the 4-mana lock pieces)

Of course, it's slightly different with a more outlandish concept like Pitch World or a new combo... if most of the cards that make up a deck are good in their own right, other players will get similar ideas.

***

Generally, I don't get the hatred for 'netdecking'. I like to be aware how other players are tackling problems that plague me with my decks, often I'll find after testing that their solution is better than mine.
Sometimes, however, I find that my pet tech that nobody else seems to value makes me more successful. Usually that's probably because I'm a bad player (for example, in control decks I tend to favour a card or two that simply make my opponent scoop when it hits play. Better players would be confident in their ability to dominate the late game anyway).

Still, in my experience the players that will accuse you of netdecking are the same who will throw a fit at you for beating them with janky techs, claiming they'd have won the match if you hadn't 'sucked that much'.

I do understand that casual players don't have fun if someone blows them up immediately with Belcher or SI. Or that they'll never resolve a meaningful spell in the whole game.
On the other hand... I often fail to see fun in doing nothing relevant for 6 rounds, finally assembling an inefficient set of synergies and then saying 'well, guess I win'. In effect, they're doing the same 'unfun' stuff at a slower pace, and unlike me (I like combo vs. control), many get upset if you throw a monkey wrench into their cumbersome doomsday device.

[Lego]

I read it...what makes you say that?


Good response

What he said, but also: what made me think you didn't read the coverage is that the pros did not think your deck was good. They were joking around about it, and almost talked Chris McDaniels into playing it. Bill said it flat out: none of them had the balls to play it [because it's terrible]. That's the part I think you missed.


Actually Type 1 shares that same "give me credit blah blah" syndrome.


The Eternal community seems to have a great deal of people who care about giving/receiving credit, where credit is due.

Emphasis on the "Eternal community" part. Gearhart was talking about Type 1 as well.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Netdecking is a derogatory term usually used by the loser of a match to describe the deck that just beat them. There's no merit or point to it, it's just a meaningless and laughable appeal to morality based on a supposed lack of originality on the part of the triumphant opponent.

Now mind you, this is coming from someone who's never entered a tournament larger than a local Saturday Frog tournament with a deck not of my own creation. That's my personal preference- I enjoy the challenge and rewards of building my own decks. But the appeal to originality used by self-styled "rogue" deck builders is a pathetic crutch, the hallmark of the chronically weak. It's compensation for the weakness they openly acknowledge in themselves. They don't have the strength of will to take on the challenge of beating the established decks on their own merits, so they try to redefine the conditions of victory- "Sure, I lost, but what do you expect? You're just playing a netdeck!"

Lost is the realization that any deck, "net" or not, had to be built by a real human being at some point. Unconsciously, the "rogue" is acknowledging, accepting, even welcoming the idea that they are incapable of building a deck of similar strength; they welcome the idea as a crutch and an excuse to whine about their most recent loss, shifting the blame elsewhere and avoiding the work of addressing the weaknesses in their design.



As far as credit goes, it's only ever acknowledge haphazardly. Your best bet if you actually want credit for your ideas is to expound on them- vocally. No one remembers the first person to say, "How about Remand in Solidarity?" or, "Maybe Body Snatcher in Hulk-Flash...". And they shouldn't. It takes little creativity or genius to stumble on a good idea. People that come up with these half-baked ideas are the equivalent of the drunkard at the bar complaining that he had the idea for cellphone cameras before anyone else. Maybe he did. But did he figure out how to make them work? Did he market the idea agressively and put effort into bringing it to the public eye? People are going to remember the person that explains to them eloquently why it's a good idea to run such-and-such a card in Vial Goblins far more than they will the person that suggested the card and then wandered off in boredom. David Gearhart, for instance, did not come up with the idea of adding any of the following cards to Solidarity; they were all other people's suggestions;

- Cunning Wish
- Force of Will
- Remand
- Meditate
- Reset
- High Tide


But despite that, Solidarity is unquestionably regarded as Gearhart's creation. Why? Because he's the one that actively and aggressively pushed it and developed it, who advocated it and played it in tournaments when no one else was taking it seriously. He didn't create the deck in reality; but he brought it to life in the eyes of the Legacy community, which amounts to the same thing as far as posterity is concerned.

[Ewokslayer]

The Eternal community seems to have a great deal of people who care about giving/receiving credit, where credit is due. I won't lie, I appreciate credit as much as the next guy. What's odd is the fact that I see a great deal less of this in other formats. With some minor exceptions, it seems to me that they don't care WHO invented it, but as long as it wins, they'll play it.
That isn't really true though. At Worlds players went out of there way to give credit for their Standard decks to others. Heck, Evan Erwin interviewed the "creator" of Dragonstorm Chris Sutton (Great Guy btw) even though the orginial list was different from what Patrick Chapin and Nassif ended up playing.
Also, everyone knows what Wafo-Tapo plays in Standard and is credited as such. (Which is probably why Dragon Stompy was defaulted as being credited to him as he was playing it, it was new to most people there, and he is known as a good deck builder)

As for Netdecking.

I love netdecking. I read magic websites for entertainment and ideas. Most people's ideas suck and I ignore them. Some ideas are good, should I ignore them too because they aren't mine? Should I ignore the most optimal choice for a card slot because I didn't personally find the card and put it into the deck? That seems silly.

[Finn]

David Gearhart, for instance, did not come up with the idea of adding any of the following cards to Solidarity; they were all other people's suggestions;

- Cunning Wish
- Force of Will
- Remand
- Meditate
- Reset
- High Tide


But despite that, Solidarity is unquestionably regarded as Gearhart's creation. Why? Because he's the one that actively and aggressively pushed it and developed it, who advocated it and played it in tournaments when no one else was taking it seriously. He didn't create the deck in reality; but he brought it to life in the eyes of the Legacy community, which amounts to the same thing as far as posterity is concerned.
Hearing that feels like hearing the rich man give me unsolicited advice to take a long vacation in Tahiti to reduce my stress from having to work so much.

While I think you have the big picture right, Jack. I can't help gainsaying you, ya know, just because.

This is all well and good for people who have tournaments. It's an even better scenario to have people at those tournaments able to drum up the talk to anyone outside of that store. And while it's getting better around the world, most of us still don't have any of that. None. I advocate shit all the time. Virtually nobody on this forum knows me personally, so you have to take me at my word when it performs well in testing. We all know how that goes over. So what avenue do I have to push an archetype? Performance at tournaments. Oh but there are none. So I could push it on the forums...round and round...

When I went to Mass I listened to the guys talking about which Legacy tournaments they were going to make in the coming weeks. I wanted to cry right there all over the Warhammer figures.
[/same sob story for more than three years]

And I think it's funny that the question of netdecking is being posed on a forum...on the net...about decks.

[scrumdogg]

The low point to netdecking is when people either attempt to steal credit (blatantly wrong) or are arrogant scumbags because their deck is good enough to do well. Yes, said people have to play the deck to success...but not always. Walking in with a shotgun to room full of knives does not make you someone worthy of praise (for anything other than your deck picking skills) or adulation. How many wins have resulted from Vial Goblins being so redundant that the pilot made multiple mistakes & still won? How many times has TES/Belcher/Ichorid/Breakfast/whatever just comboed off on someone's face with no skill involved, just a succession of uninterrupted broken cards?
There are few thrills to compare with building, testing, tweaking, and winning with your own deck (even better when other people also do so, ironically...). The rogue deckbuilder who does well should get kudos for succeeding against the world, but to castigate them for the effort whether or not they succeed is petty & spiteful.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Netdecking is a derogatory term usually used by the loser of a match to describe the deck that just beat them. There's no merit or point to it, it's just a meaningless and laughable appeal to morality based on a supposed lack of originality on the part of the triumphant opponent.

Now mind you, this is coming from someone who's never entered a tournament larger than a local Saturday Frog tournament with a deck not of my own creation. That's my personal preference- I enjoy the challenge and rewards of building my own decks. But the appeal to originality used by self-styled "rogue" deck builders is a pathetic crutch, the hallmark of the chronically weak. It's compensation for the weakness they openly acknowledge in themselves. They don't have the strength of will to take on the challenge of beating the established decks on their own merits, so they try to redefine the conditions of victory- "Sure, I lost, but what do you expect? You're just playing a netdeck!"

Lost is the realization that any deck, "net" or not, had to be built by a real human being at some point. Unconsciously, the "rogue" is acknowledging, accepting, even welcoming the idea that they are incapable of building a deck of similar strength; they welcome the idea as a crutch and an excuse to whine about their most recent loss, shifting the blame elsewhere and avoiding the work of addressing the weaknesses in their design.



As far as credit goes, it's only ever acknowledge haphazardly. Your best bet if you actually want credit for your ideas is to expound on them- vocally. No one remembers the first person to say, "How about Remand in Solidarity?" or, "Maybe Body Snatcher in Hulk-Flash...". And they shouldn't. It takes little creativity or genius to stumble on a good idea. People that come up with these half-baked ideas are the equivalent of the drunkard at the bar complaining that he had the idea for cellphone cameras before anyone else. Maybe he did. But did he figure out how to make them work? Did he market the idea agressively and put effort into bringing it to the public eye? People are going to remember the person that explains to them eloquently why it's a good idea to run such-and-such a card in Vial Goblins far more than they will the person that suggested the card and then wandered off in boredom. David Gearhart, for instance, did not come up with the idea of adding any of the following cards to Solidarity; they were all other people's suggestions;

- Cunning Wish
- Force of Will
- Remand
- Meditate
- Reset
- High Tide


But despite that, Solidarity is unquestionably regarded as Gearhart's creation. Why? Because he's the one that actively and aggressively pushed it and developed it, who advocated it and played it in tournaments when no one else was taking it seriously. He didn't create the deck in reality; but he brought it to life in the eyes of the Legacy community, which amounts to the same thing as far as posterity is concerned.


QFT.

[kirdape3]

I mean I like winning tournaments of Magical cards if at all possible. If that means I have to go out and build a new deck, then let's get cracking. If that means I just hijack somebody else's deck and win with it, then good for me.

That being said, it is nice to have someone acknowledge you as creating a deck. But it's not the sine qua non of my Magical existence.

[Hoojo]

I always feel like net-decking is inevitable. If you thought of an idea, someone else has probably thought of it too.

Most sites have people who happen to popularize ideas of their own, like IBA was saying. TES is wastedlife's because he works on it and was the first to promote it on The Source. It doesn't matter if the cards in it and combo deck B are similar. If you make your home on another forum, combo deck B may be the "original" idea and belong to deck creator B. Perspective.

I "invented" a standard deck a while back (two years I think) that played Loxodon Heirarch, Faith's Fetters, Phyrexian Arena, and Persecute. Sound familiar? My deck was one color and probably six cards different than The Masterpiece (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mf95), but since I played so many of the same cards and I'm a noob, I give credit to, I assume the creator, Anton Goldblatt because everyone I played at the tournament called it that.

[Deep6er]

OK, so Jack's right. I actually didn't put forth any of those cards, and in fact, had to borrow Wishes for the first time I played the Mono-Blue deck in a serious tournament. However, I absolutely stand by the fact that I love Flash of Insight. No other point beyond that. Also, I TOTALLY stole Flash of Insight from somebody else. I'd seen him using that in a version of Tight Sight (old Standard deck) and thought it was amazing. Anyway, Jack's right about most of that other stuff too. I use to call people "dirty netdeckers" until I ACTUALLY realized what the fuck I was trying to say. Was I calling them stupid? If so, I just lost to a stupid person. That doesn't sound right. Was I calling them narrow-minded and lacking in imagination? Yes, I guess. But if they're so narrow-minded, how did they beat my gloriously convoluted and intricate deck that is leaps and bounds more difficult to play than theirs? Oh, right. It's because their deck is better than mine.

Once you get to that point, things just get better. Quit trying to prove your the cleverest person in the room. Seriously, nobody gives a damn. When you win, you can prove that you are, unquestionably, the best.

[Isamaru]

This may be the first "Netdecking" discussion thread in the history of MtG Forums that actually has a real discussion of the topic, with some good opinions. Kudos to the Source! :)


And I don't think there's anything wrong with netdecking at all. I mean, if you can create a deck and it's good, then great. But it's not like every time you want to go for a drive you should reinvent the fucking wheel. Plus, as someone who's created a competitive (moderately, at least) deck, it brings me no end of joy when people netdeck my (or Volt's) list.

And plus, what sort of mindset is it to say 'I made this deck, now no one is allowed to play it besides me ever'? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If someone sees you playing a deck at a tourney, likes it, and builds it, are you going to be mad at them? The propagation of ideas is nothing new, and the fact that it happens on the internet now is no cause for alarm.

edit- One caveat, though, and that is that I'm very picky about deck credits. Netdeck, fine, but don't steal something off the internet and claim it was your brilliant idea. That's called plagiarism and as a certain English teacher can tell you, that's bad. Occasionally you'll end up with similar ideas all on your own, sure, but how often does that actually happen?

Well said, Pinder... you also somewhat made me reconsider my own beliefs. (I guess I was only upset before because people had made a few changes to my deck and no longer acknowledged my original project.)

[dontbiteitholmes]

The only time people have a right to complain about netdecking is when someone claims to have made a deck they obviously didn't or possibly when someone beats you with your own deck and you can be like, "If I wasn't so good at making decks you'd never win."

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I fucking love getting randomly smashed by my own decks on MWS. That's actually a situation where you feel worse about winning, I think.

[Bovinious]

I fucking love getting randomly smashed by my own decks on MWS. That's actually a situation where you feel worse about winning, I think.

Dude, one time my teammate was playing Pitch World on MWS to waste peoples' time...and he got paired against THE FUCKING MIRROR MATCH!!! It was a glorious day, those were the only games on record Pitch World has ever won btw, except this one game it won against Survival...

[galeng]

Everything is a "Netdeck" these days fucking get over it. I hate the term, it's a term that scrubs use to make themselves feel better. Because well they suck... Even locals in my metagame call me a netdecker for playing TES (See Nick Patnode).

When you play combo, everyone is gonna hate you. I don't think your locals care that it's a net deck as much as the fact that it's combo.

Also netdecking is fine. It's just annoying when people netdeck and dont know jack shit about how the deck works.

[thebadmagicplayer]

When you play legacy you are kinda forced to netdeck so you dont spend an extra $100 or more on cards that will get cut. I enjoy seeing new decks and if I ever get off my ass to test one then I will be happy to see people netdeck it. (That way the card prices in my deck go up and I can afford to buy more duals!)

[dahcmai]

Netdecking has changed quite a bit over the years. The internet by itself has basically changed the way people build decks in the first place.

It's extremely rare to see something innovative that can win anymore. You really only see it in standard nowadays. Mainly due to the ever changing card pool. In Legacy or vintage the card pool rarely changes and it's not hard to figure out what the better cards are in these two formats now. From a deck builders point of view it's changed even less than most people see.

Think about how decks are built from a formula standpoint and you can see it.

I build decks like this. They go into one of a few categories.

Aggro, Aggro-control, Control, Mill, and Combo. Lock decks fall into the control category.

Aggro has always had the same archetypes forever and a day depending on the colors involved.

White weenie - amazing how that hasn't changed since the necro days even.

Red - Usually fast red creatures backed up with burn. That's what the color has available

Green - fat efficient creatures.

etc...

The same goes for combo and control even. If you try and break the trends you end up with a deck that's complete shit. Try and make a red control deck with one win condition or a White large fattie beats style deck. You see what I mean. The colors are only capable of so much.


I can classify every deck out there into one of those categories easily and show you how a previous build contributed to a new one.

It's rare indeed to see a deck come out that is totally not based on one of those original strategies. Granted you do end up with new ways to do it here and there. Iggy pop was a prime example of that. Black combo was nothing new since the printing of Necropotence. Tendrils made it viable again even with the restricted/banned stuff. Ill-gotten Gains was an older card that went unnoticed for quite a while. Someone put some thought into it again to come up with that as an answer to make it fast enough to compete. TES is another evolution of the same.

There's only so much you can do in this game anymore without it having been done already. The only change is newer cards being used to change up how the same strategy is being used again.

The internet just made this noticeable. The only thing left of being innovative is being able to use cards not normally used to make an inviable strategy good again in the format you're playing in at the time.

Here's another good example.

Merfolk during Unlimited era. yeah I actually played back then.
Compares to modern day Faerie Stompy. How?

Well, both are aggro category. Your way to win involves rushing the opponent with creatures to do damage in the most efficient way possible with them.

They sub-categorize into blue aggro which is the oddest of the groups being you have to use normally sub-par creatures in the color with control as a backup. We've gained Force of Will since the Power Sink days. What's amazing is Serindib Efreet has survived after the years and is still in. Psionic Blast has stayed. All that changed was the creatures for the most part and the gain of a couple horridly powerful artifacts.

The innovativeness comes in the form of using Ancient Tombs and City of Traitors. If you didn't have those, those artifacts would never stay in the deck and it would be one of those decks waiting for innovation to put it back on the map again. It's the same for a wide range of strategies waiting to have a newer card added to them to make them playable again.

Occasionally, we do have whole strategies make some of those older styles turn into something completely different. Such as Affinity, Threshold, and a myriad of other cards set into a format made for a specific set. Sometimes a new ability just makes those cards just plain better than the original by a long shot. It's still the same underneath though. It's a matter of working the numbers up behind the card.

Pat Chapin showed me how to play without sucking by doing this. He made up a full draft set with only casting costs and power/toughness on it and a random ability. Then taught me what each ability should be worth in terms of numbers. First Strike = 1 mana = 2 life so on.. We played with this and later he would sort out what was actually a real card and what was just made up. You could see what made cards good after that with ease. You just put them in math terms. Thanks Pat for that. It made me a damned good deck builder. I still stink as a player though. lol I never could memorize entire card pools like he could.


Anyway, netdecking is just a matter of tuning a single strategy into a viable deck again. It's just a lot easier now that you have advice to remind you of older cards forgotten or to point out new ones that have a new interaction with an older one. Just goes to show Time Vault will never die.

So I guess technically, we all do in a way.

[Cavius The Great]

It's extremely rare to see something innovative that can win anymore. You really only see it in standard nowadays. Mainly due to the ever changing card pool.


I have to disagree with this comment. I have 4 innovative Vintage decklists and around 7 innovative Legacy decklists that I've been tweaking and fine tuning to perfection (minus the 80 other decklists I jotted down on paper). I'm pretty confident that all 11 of these decks can win tournaments. The only problem is, I don't have the funds to purchase all of these decks, so I don't have any means of proving myself. That's sort of the dilemma I'm in right now, but I digress, my main point being, there are alot of talented deckbuilders out there that are capable of braking the format, in an instance, with something innovative.

[mujadaddy]

I'm pretty confident that all 11 of these decks can win tournaments. The only problem is, I don't have the funds to purchase all of these decks, so I don't have any means of proving myself.
Yeah, nice armchair quarterbacking, Dr. Evil.

[Bovinious]

I have to disagree with this comment. I have 4 innovative Vintage decklists and around 7 innovative Legacy decklists that I've been tweaking and fine tuning to perfection (minus the 80 other decklists I jotted down on paper). I'm pretty confident that all 11 of these decks can win tournaments. The only problem is, I don't have the funds to purchase all of these decks, so I don't have any means of proving myself. That's sort of the dilemma I'm in right now, but I digress, my main point being, there are alot of talented deckbuilders out there that are capable of braking the format, in an instance, with something innovative.

Hell yeah man, remember when Pitch World stormed up Worlds? And by stormed up, I mean some pros almost tricked another pro into playing a deck for which I have witnessed only a single victory, as the creator no less :wink:

[JDunkin00]

Yeah Netdecking as term is so stupid in todays age of internet rampage. Every deck or idea is on the net or will be soon. Shareing ideas keeps the environment healthy and advancing. The people who complain are usually the ones who can't win even with a good deck. I "netdeck" to a point but rarely card for card as I like to adjust to my metagame and add occassional pet cards like goon in goblins or stifle in thresh and madness before it became known to be a powerhouse.

[thelfj]

This is all especially true for legacy. For what ever reasons, this format is driven primarily by theory. This forum plays a vital role in moveing the format forward. Because of this, especially in legacy, netdecking is inevitable.

[Janos_Wuryon]

I think that the use of "netdecking" or "netdecker" in todays magic world is different than originaly intended. Much of the archtypes for competitive play are known and accepted. Someone builds a deck and it fits into an archtype period, playing anything less then the best cards available is just 1)ignorance or 2)stubborness. Thus playing at a competative level means you are using preexisting test and play data. nothing wrong with that, people dont try to reinvent concreate when they build bridges. so on to the modern use of the terms. They are used currently to refer to a few people/attitudes and treat them in a derogatory manner. when someone changes 1 card and claims its not a copy of some deck they are a "Netdecker" or when someone plays a pro's deck, swears its the best ever and scrubs because they cant play then they are a "netdecker"

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This post is delayed as shit, but I've been in training, so bite it.



This is all well and good for people who have tournaments. It's an even better scenario to have people at those tournaments able to drum up the talk to anyone outside of that store. And while it's getting better around the world, most of us still don't have any of that. None. I advocate shit all the time. Virtually nobody on this forum knows me personally, so you have to take me at my word when it performs well in testing. We all know how that goes over. So what avenue do I have to push an archetype? Performance at tournaments. Oh but there are none. So I could push it on the forums...round and round...

Guy, when the Froggers first started getting into the bigger 1.5 scene, as in, outside of our store, we were driving six or seven hours each way to play in tournaments with thirty-five fucking people. And we kept doing it. Why? Love of the game. The complaint that you have no big tournaments for Legacy around doesn't fly with me because those only came around the East coast once the community had grown and advocated long enough that other people took notice and decided that, hey, if all these guys are spending so much time and energy on something that's so clearly not financially rewarding, maybe there's really something to it.

[kabal]

This is all well and good for people who have tournaments. It's an even better scenario to have people at those tournaments able to drum up the talk to anyone outside of that store. And while it's getting better around the world, most of us still don't have any of that. None. I advocate shit all the time.

A little off topic:

I know that south Florida isn't exactly that close to Alpharetta, GA but there are weekly Legacy tournaments (http://www.supergamesinc.com) that have on an average 15-25 people. 2 weeks ago we had 28, so if you are ever in the neighborhood stop by.


1/9 @ SuperGames Inc.
Alpharreta, GA

28 people, 4 rounds, top 8

Top 2 Split
--------------
Ugw CB Threshold (me)
Ugw CB Threshold (Anusien)

Rest of Top 8
--------------
3/4 Spring Tide
3/4 Belcher
Cephalid Breakfast (2)
Dragon Stompy
Burn

[SpikeyMikey]

You'll be lucky if one out of one hundred unique decks you come up with actually perform well in tournament play, so don't feel guilty if you decide to play something good (even if it isn't your creation); you certainly won't be the only one playing an established archetype.

QFT.

I consider myself to be an excellent deck designer, and I've had a whopping two decks that became accepted and saw some wider levels of play than just locals copying it. Which is not to say there haven't been more that were tournament worthy, but I'd say maybe 1 out of every 5 deck ideas I come up with is Tier 2 or better. Some of them sound good in my head and look alright on paper, and then blow so badly in testing that I want to hide my face in shame at having created such a monstrosity.

That having been said, I think that netdecking, in the sense of grabbing a listing off the internet and playing it, is a bad idea. I'm not suggesting that every deck you play should be a unique creation, but at a minimum, any metagame is highly reflexive, and if deck X won at a tournament, you can bet a lot of people are going to be gearing up with anti-X cards. Building and playing X card-for-card is just asking to get smacked around. Apply some common sense to your use of pre-existing decks.

[Cavius The Great]

QFT.

I consider myself to be an excellent deck designer, and I've had a whopping two decks that became accepted and saw some wider levels of play than just locals copying it. Which is not to say there haven't been more that were tournament worthy, but I'd say maybe 1 out of every 5 deck ideas I come up with is Tier 2 or better. Some of them sound good in my head and look alright on paper, and then blow so badly in testing that I want to hide my face in shame at having created such a monstrosity.

That having been said, I think that netdecking, in the sense of grabbing a listing off the internet and playing it, is a bad idea. I'm not suggesting that every deck you play should be a unique creation, but at a minimum, any metagame is highly reflexive, and if deck X won at a tournament, you can bet a lot of people are going to be gearing up with anti-X cards. Building and playing X card-for-card is just asking to get smacked around. Apply some common sense to your use of pre-existing decks.

Just out of curiousity Spikey, what exactly are the decks you claim to have established as an archetype? I'm just curious.

[Finn]

Guy, when the Froggers first started getting into the bigger 1.5 scene, as in, outside of our store, we were driving six or seven hours each way to play in tournaments with thirty-five fucking people. And we kept doing it. Why? Love of the game. The complaint that you have no big tournaments for Legacy around doesn't fly with me because those only came around the East coast once the community had grown and advocated long enough that other people took notice and decided that, hey, if all these guys are spending so much time and energy on something that's so clearly not financially rewarding, maybe there's really something to it.Maybe I wasn't clear about this. I did not mean that there were no big tournaments. There are "no tournaments". I would gladly drive a few hours every weekend. The last two tournaments I have had any opportunity to attend were in October, a 1.5 hour drive (8 ppl) and November, 3 hour plane flight to Mass (6 ppl). Before that, I got two tournaments started last summer by donating a Grim Tutor (yes, I donated first prize for a tournament I participated in). I won it back, so I donated it again to populate another tournament. Those affairs had 26 and 15 people respectively. And they were both 1.5 hours from my house.

yada yada...whatever. The bottom line is that there really is nothing available. I would give anything to have the option to travel 6 hours for a 35-person tournament. I have to seriously consider Kabal's offer to do 10 hours to Apharetta for something smaller.

Getting real tournament info is at a premium.