"Netdecking" - what qualifies one to be called this?

78 posts / 0 new
Last post
(I'd like to hear the opinions of people who play paper magic)

As a player who only plays online, in casual mode, I am wondering what qualifies to being called a "netdecker" (Someone who takes someone elses deck idea and uses it for themselves).

I, for instance, use Magic Gatherer when I look for potential cards to add to my deck, and I also heed the comments and their recommendations.

For example - I was looking at increasing savagery in Gatherer to see what the comments and ratings say about it, and if there are better alternatives. Lo and behold someone posts this gem that compliments the sorcery card very well - precursor Golem.  It's too good to pass up; I will add the golem to my deck now. Is this "netdecking"? 

In my defense, if I would have found the card on my own I still would have added it; the comments just save me time so I don't have to dig so much.

What do you think? 


I am Blue/Black
I am Blue/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
netdecking generally means "you built a better deck than mine, and I want to be a special little snowflake like everyone else, so I gonna whine about it"
proud member of the 2011 community team
When you copy someone elses deck card for card because you lack confidence in your own deckbuilding skills.
there's various schools on netdecking, in varying amounts of severity. but really, there's no one definition. to some, what you do might count. to most, it won't. more importantly, to most reasonable people it won't matter. netdecking is something that gets complained about primarily by worse players, who use it as a psychological defense against losing. your deck isn't "legitimate", and therefore the fact that you beat me doesn't count. it's the same school of thought that leads to people decrying your cards as "broken", which often just means "won the game this time." it's a means of rejecting responsibility for their own losses, so that the only thing that "counts" are their wins.

this isn't to say that there are people out there who would rather play a low-powered, unique deck, and they'd often rather play against something of similar power level, because then both decks have a chance to do their things, and you can get cool games where one person puts together their awesome five-card combo while the other tries to race them with their all-bears deck, which can be quite fun for those involved, but unfortunately MtGO's casual room is not a great place to find these games, because the definition of "casual" is quite mercurial, and therefore the odds of you being matched up against someone else at your specific power band is quite low. which means that mature people who actually just prefer to play others at weaker power levels will find other places, either the kitchen table or online with likeminded people they know, leaving for the random matches pretty much only the immature, unreasonable ones who will insist that if your deck is better than their that it's your responsibility to sink to their level.

 
120.6. Some effects replace card draws.
OP: You are not a net decker. Gaining wisdom and insight into deck construction should come from every available avenue: local players, personal experience, and on-line articles. If you're looking for inspiration for your own creations, you're not a netdecker. Even if it comes close to a netdeck, if you came about it by your own decisions, it's not netdecking.

Now, if you go out looking for a deck to use, instead of making one, then you are a netdecker. You don't care about making your own deck, you just want to win. Obviously, Spikes have no problems with this, but a Johnny would feel diminished by doing this.   

 
netdecking generally means "you built a better deck than mine, and I want to be a special little snowflake like everyone else, so I gonna whine about it"



Funny, I've always thought netdeckers were people who thought they were special snowflakes. They want success and respect immediately, and instead of earning it through trial and error, they buy the best deck on the market.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

its only netdecking if you copy a deck card for card and really the only people who do that dont care about haveing fun they care about wining
its only netdecking if you copy a deck card for card and really the only people who do that dont care about haveing fun they care about wining




This is a pretty good definition, however, it's one thing to copy a casual warp world decklist and another to copy the top deck in the format. If you're playing casually no one cares where you got your decklist from (although they generally appreciate creativity) but what they don't want to see is that finely tuned tournament caliber decklist that wins almost every game.

There will be times where you create a casual decklist that somehow exceeds your expectations and wins more than it should (maybe you stumble upon a tournament decklist independantly). In those cases recognize the situation and retire the decklist before you lose all of your playmates.
Don't be too smart to have fun
its only netdecking if you copy a deck card for card and really the only people who do that dont care about haveing fun they care about wining


bullshit.

players can find enjoyment from whatever things entertain them. I enjoy playing more than building decks, so I will often borrow a friend's deck to play against them, or quickly put together a list I find online when a friend wants a game. the assertion that I don't care about having fun, in purely casual games, is incorrect and, quite frankly, asinine.

 
120.6. Some effects replace card draws.
netdecking generally means "you built a better deck than mine, and I want to be a special little snowflake like everyone else, so I gonna whine about it"



its only netdecking if you copy a deck card for card and really the only people who do that dont care about haveing fun they care about wining



Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
The definition is VERY vague, but rest assured, you're very far from what most would consider netdecking, you didnt seek out a decklist to make your own, you gathered information on gatherer....... OHHHH!!!! Just like you could have gotten that same information from a friend or an adversary while playing a game.

Netdeckers in my opinions are people that play decks that they didnt put a single thought in, they just went on the internet, bought XYZ cards and now are playing it agaisnt you, usually winning more than you do since the deck was thought over by hundreds/thousands of players compared to your own creation that was made by you primary and maybe with advices from a few friends. The wits and knowledge of 1000 people is superior to the wit and knowledge of 1-5 people.
I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it

Here's how I see it netdecking.
First degree: Copy a list almost card for card.
Second degree: Copy most of a deck's choices.
Third degree: Copying a deck's basic concept.


Netdecking is not a bad thing though. Some people don't enjoy the deck building aspect of Magic, they just want to play. I enjoy the deckbuilding aspect so much that I play limited. In limited there is no ideal deck to have, since the card pool always changes. There are also a wider range of cards that are considered playable. Giving you a lot of personal freedom.


Criticizing someone for netdecking is stupid and childish, especially because you could be wrong. There are only so many playable decks in a constructed environment (at least in the case of non-Legacy formats). People are going to reach decks independently that would match up via the third degree criteria easily. Same goes for degree two, because after playtesting the ideal card choices become apparent. And most people can't accuse you of first degree netdecking. To do so they would have to see your deck card for card, and know the list you copied, and at that point they are pretty much obsessing.


The only time I think it is proper to point out that someone is netdecking is when their deck is weak because of it. Something like:


I see you're using Patrick Chapin's list. I think in our local meta there are a few changes that could improve your deck, especially in your sideboard. He built his deck that way because he expected to see many Blazing Wildcats decks at the pro tour, almost nobody plays Blazing Wildcats here though.

i dislike when you post a deck and the response is to look up Xdeck and copy it.

Magic the Drinking Game rules
here are the rules for MtDG: 1.at the beginning of each players turn that player takes a drink. 2.whenever a permanent you control is placed in a graveyard from play, drink. 3. whenever a spell you play is countered, drink. if the countered spells caster attempts to counter the counter, the loser of the counter battle must drink for a number of seconds for each counterspell that went on the stack. 4. whenever a player "loses life" that player must drink for a number of seconds equal to amount of life lost. (a) if a player would gain life, that player may make another player drink for a number of seconds equal to amount of life gained. 5. if a player puts a card from their library into their graveyard that player drinks for a number of seconds equal to the number of cards placed in graveyard. 6.if a player would discard a card that player drinks for a number of seconds equal to cards discarded. 7. on any coinflip the loser must drink. 8. at the end of each game all players must finish their drink. 9. loser must fetch all drinks/refills for the next game. if playing multiplayer use a**hole heirarchy(president,vp,secretary,treasurer,a**hole) 10. a player who wins 3 consecutive matches may add a "world effect" that affects all players and can not be removed without winning 3 consecutive matches and negating effect. multiple effects stack i.e if person wins 3 games then wins another 3 games both effects that player created stack. 11. ALL cards are legal, including ante cards.
 
Modern EldraziTron
[deck]

2x all is dust
1x blightsteel colossus
4x blinkmoth nexus
4x chromatic sphere
4x chromatic star
4x eldrazi conscription
1x emrakul, the aeons torn
4x expedition map
1x eye of ugin
4x inkmoth nexus
3x karn, liberated
1x kozilek, butcher of truth
2x mana confluence
2x oblivion stone
4x proteus staff
4x relic of progenitus
1x ulamog, the infinite gyre
4x urza's mine
4x urza's power plant
4x urza's tower
2x wurmcoil engine

[/deck]


Here's how I see it netdecking.
First degree: Copy a list almost card for card.
Second degree: Copy most of a deck's choices.
Third degree: Copying a deck's basic concept.


When sets are intentionally engineered so that the huge majority of the cards serve no useful purpose once a draft ends, it's simply inevitable that competitive Constructed decks trend towards looking very similar. 
The pool of "constructed playable" cards is pretty small, and that pool only has so many ways it can be mixed together.


Here's how I see it netdecking.
First degree: Copy a list almost card for card.
Second degree: Copy most of a deck's choices.
Third degree: Copying a deck's basic concept.




While I basically agree with you to the degree that if debating was a magic tournament, I would netdeck your argument :P, I think the third degree might be vague enough that it doesn't really serve any useful definitional purpose. Like, somebody else might see a deck and be like "I wanna do that too, but in a comepletely different way," but it's just as likely that they decided to make a Laboratory Maniac + Jace's Archivist deck on their own. I mean, the deck sort of builds itself already. But yeah, other than that, tots agree with you.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.

Here's how I see it netdecking.
First degree: Copy a list almost card for card.
Second degree: Copy most of a deck's choices.
Third degree: Copying a deck's basic concept.


When sets are intentionally engineered so that the huge majority of the cards serve no useful purpose once a draft ends, it's simply inevitable that competitive Constructed decks trend towards looking very similar. 
The pool of "constructed playable" cards is pretty small, and that pool only has so many ways it can be mixed together.




So you cut off the rest of my post only to repeat the part you cut off in your own words?...

Edit: So basically you second degree netdecked my post. How dare you. 
I believe that what he meant is that the 3rd degree doesnt really exist since it exist EVERYWHERE
I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it
I see net decking as: (in most to least)
Copying a winning deck card-for-card
Copying a winning deck's core IF the core is somewhat unique
Playing a deck you never would play otherwise just because it wins (as those decks are often found online)
Copying outside of core and sideboard 

Copying a winning deck card-for-card


Why does it matter if it's winning? Wouldn't copying a losing deck card for card or a casual deck for casual play be just as much netdecking?

Copying a winning deck's core IF the core is somewhat unique


What makes a unique core? This sounds like subjectivity land.

Playing a deck you never would play otherwise just because it wins (as those decks are often found online)


What does your reason for copying it have to do with anything? And would never play otherwise is a weird thing to say. You could say someone only plays their Ninja deck because they like Ninjas, they wouldn't play it otherwise. Similarly you could say someone only plays a winning deck because they want to play a deck that wins. Obviously you play a deck that fulfills your goals.

Copying outside of core and sideboard


Isn't copying a sideboard almost the biggest offender of netdecking? Because sideboards are supposed to be constructed to deal with the meta or matchups the deck has trouble with, they have almost nothing to do with the primary function and are therefor the last thing you should be copying.

Copying a winning deck card-for-card


Why does it matter if it's winning? Wouldn't copying a losing deck card for card or a casual deck for casual play be just as much netdecking?

Copying a winning deck's core IF the core is somewhat unique


What makes a unique core? This sounds like subjectivity land.

Playing a deck you never would play otherwise just because it wins (as those decks are often found online)


What does your reason for copying it have to do with anything? And would never play otherwise is a weird thing to say. You could say someone only plays their Ninja deck because they like Ninjas, they wouldn't play it otherwise. Similarly you could say someone only plays a winning deck because they want to play a deck that wins. Obviously you play a deck that fulfills your goals.

Copying outside of core and sideboard


Isn't copying a sideboard almost the biggest offender of netdecking? Because sideboards are supposed to be constructed to deal with the meta or matchups the deck has trouble with, they have almost nothing to do with the primary function and are therefor the last thing you should be copying.



1. I said winning because as it stands, though copying a deck at all can be considered netdecking; you have to admit that nobody will declare netdecking or at least care about it at all. I should have stated that I'm going by the "copying a deck to win" definition of netdecking.

2. I honestly was grasping at straws for a way to word that, I admit it. I wanted to express that it shouldn't be considered netdecking to use cards that are too easy to put in. IE, someone had to work at least somewhat hard to brew it.

3. This really is just me, and I made a point to say "to me". But I see people who play decks for the sole reason that said deck wins as netdecking. Again, I plea awkward wording, my bad. I just feel that going out of your way to play a deck that you don't even like just to win, it's netdecking. If you enjoy playing every deck ever, this does not apply to you, it's that simple.

4. At this point I was just talking about using the ideas of others, but you're right, I shouldn't have included sideboards in my definition of netdecking.
"Netdecking" is a word that was invented so that the losing side in a Magic game could feel better about themselves, much like "friend-zoning" is for people who can't get a date. I, personally, find both meaningless. Here's an example of why: A long time ago, I built my first Legacy deck. It was based on the archetype Zoo (RGW aggro). I collected the cards, played for a while. Then Green Sun's Zenith came out. This, of course, had to go in my deck. But I didn't have enough green cards to justify it. So I took out red entirely and made my deck more aggro-control, since I could now tutor up answers as long as they were green creatures. I played around with this for a while, and eventually figured that I had a pretty solid new deck, with only tangential relations to my old one. So I go to a forum, enter their Zoo thread and post my idea for a deck. I suggest a name, and someone responds with "Actually, this has a name already, it's called Maverick." Asking around, I realise that the deck is an emerging archetype and that I inadvertantly put most of the same cards in my deck as other players did for Maverick.

What's the point of that story? That there's only so many playable cards and deck ideas. I didn't "netdeck", but I might as well have. The result was the same. If you have a good idea, rest assured that someone, somewhere else has / had the same idea. This makes "netdecking", as something to look down upon, essentially meaningless. Some people like building, some like tweaking, some like playing, some like all three. I love trying out wacky ideas in established archetypes (They told me Moltensteel Dragon was a terrible idea...), but I also don't see the need to frown upon someone for copying a list card-for-card, perhaps switching out a bit for metagame purposes. There's only so many revolutionary new ideas to go around, and not everyone can be the inventor of said ideas. Even if you're trying to be original, like I was, you're eventually gonna find out that someone had the idea before you and you didn't even know. C'est la vie.
There's only so many revolutionary new ideas to go around, and not everyone can be the inventor of said ideas. Even if you're trying to be original, like I was, you're eventually gonna find out that someone had the idea before you and you didn't even know. C'est la vie.



I agree with this.
Beware !!!! There are Zombies even in Spaces !!!
I know this has already been said, but the problem with the term "net-decking" is that there really only are so many decks you can play. I want to make a combo deck that wins before t4, my choices are limited, because most combos and synergies have basically been fleshed out completely.
Woot! Go RED! I love red! Red is awesome! Did I mention I love red?
those personality things
Suprisingly enough, in that test, I'm not red I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg)

Boss smileys: Come check out the Expanded Multiverse Project for great stories and a great community
quotes
56778328 wrote:
Why did you post it here? "Hey, all you guys who play this game! I'm not gonna play it!" "Umm... Ok, dude."
Edit: So basically you second degree netdecked my post. How dare you. 

What? I just, uh, had an amazingly similar post idea!

"Netdecking" refers to the action of taking a decklist from the net and using it. Loosely used, it includes changing a couple of cards but keeping the core of the deck. That means that I netdeck when I look up a list on the net and use it.

That netdecking is unfair or perfectly reasonable is another debate entirely. The meaning of "netdecking" isn't "maliciously go over the most important part of play because you're an unfair coward". That some people consider netdecking evil doesn't mean that the use of the word refers to that opinion.

Coming up with a list that is almost exactly a winning one on your own isn't netdecking. Making up that same list by starting with the online deck is netdecking. Both are perfectly legit ways of getting a deck.

Rules Advisor

Quotes
76783093 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
56945988 wrote:
Rancor dies to in-response removal.
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back. Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
58331438 wrote:
57461258 wrote:
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
57817638 wrote:
I think I wasn't direct enough in my last post. I'll try to fix it now. Ahem... NO ONE CARES there you have it.
57471038 wrote:
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
76973988 wrote:
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?

Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability.  If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat.  Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap.  If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player.  Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield.  Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has?  No freaking way.  Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
57817638 wrote:
The creation of praetors was worth it just because now amoeboid changeling is a praetor.
57140668 wrote:
1. cast frankie peanuts2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power
3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo
4. donate them a platinum angel
5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus, then play enchanted evening. play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever)
6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
82423538 wrote:
57471038 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
One part of the statement being true=/=the whole statement true.
Whatever. I'm still here about ten minutes away. Whenever you want to get destroyed in Magic, I'm available.
I would like to get destroyed in Magic, actually. Do you know anybody good enough?
57617478 wrote:
Please format your statements in a way that doesn't look like a baboon hit its face on your keyboard.
57140668 wrote:
why did Garruk Relentless lose a loyalty counter
Show
to get to the other side
89522235 wrote:
You're such an obvious troll that you have hexproof and : Regenerate.
56957928 wrote:
56776038 wrote:
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
79035425 wrote:
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
97610188 wrote:
Yeah that (Content Removed) really annoys me. Moderated by MY_self right about naahowwww!
93446159 wrote:
Dilleux_Lepaire just won the thread.
57461258 wrote:
And, as usual, Dilleux wins the entire thread. Nice work, sir, nice work.
99113151 wrote:
They need to make 9 layers of zones where cards go when they "die". Much like Hell.
56778328 wrote:
Wow, holy doggy poop, kids, obvious statement is obvious.
56776038 wrote:
122053101 wrote:
i don't think your geting it WotC is trying to kill the comption to make it so that there shity app is the only one left.
I haven't tried the app. How is its use of English grammar? Cheers!
57471038 wrote:
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated. Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
56957928 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
If WotC started putting $100 bills in packs, the players would complain that they folded them wrong.
No, they just spam them with ban requests. That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
56957928 wrote:
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH. -First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20. And voila, now things are balanced.
89522235 wrote:
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
142055101 wrote:
But how to mark them without making the individual sleeve different! You could buy a skunk and slam it's butt on you deck (pardon the french) Then after the game just sniff at your opponent's pile of cards and you will know if any of your cards are there!!!
141434757 wrote:
In Soviet Russia, Sorin opens You
71235715 wrote:
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
57052258 wrote:
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates. Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block. No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
58232598 wrote:
88993869 wrote:
Torpor Orb is absolutely godawful against Vexing Devil.
whoever is playing vexing devil is probably losing anyways
56957928 wrote:
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
56957928 wrote:
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Albus Dumbledore, The Lord of the Rings.
89522235 wrote:
68978039 wrote:
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too. Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
Then we shall play in the shade.
89522235 wrote:
I'm sorry, this forum isn't for getting bad advice on mediocre decks, that's standard deck help. This forum is for starting ****storms.
97820278 wrote:
139359831 wrote:
Your advice would only lead me to make generic, boring, and unworthy content. It's of no use to me.
I just got this image of you as an architect, having finished a building suspended by only a small pole in its southwest corner, saying it's original. Then the building collapses.
56957928 wrote:
I for one love the flavor of legendary lands. "I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
56957928 wrote:
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so... "Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
57150868 wrote:
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
143211137 wrote:
57033358 wrote:
Tamiyo vs. Gideon
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
76783093 wrote:
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
191752181 wrote:
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
97820278 wrote:
192729031 wrote:
You open a booster pack, and staring back at you from the rare slot is a Lotleth Troll? At least I can stick him in my EDH deck and still have four for my standard constructed.
Because lol troll
56874518 wrote:
It helped that I more or less skipped most of GM_Champion's longer diatribes. I only have so many brain cells I'm willing to sacrifice each day.
192931349 wrote:
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
57023768 wrote:
Now show me on the Garruk doll where Zac Hill ruined your enjoyment of Magic...
63711769 wrote:
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use. From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin. 183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
147137503 wrote:
77120821 wrote:
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
196239043 wrote:
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.

 

JustTerrorIt wrote:

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

All I want to do is sit down and play magic, but when I walked in yesterday, (since I didn't talk to anyone) nobody talked to me and I silently bought what I wanted and walked out.


If you don't talk to anyone, that increases the odds that no one will talk to you.

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

So how do I just... introduce myself? "Hi, my name is Adam, wanna play magic with me?" Do I go to the counter and talk to the cashier?


Yeah. Talk to the cashier. Tell him/her that you want a Black Lotus, and if they don't have one tell them that the store isn't on par with what you expected.

 

Reach into your back left pocket. Pull out a deck list that you copied directly from some ChannelFireball top 8 Standard discussion, and ask for all the cards, as is, on that list. Then, ask for some random, probably terrible cards from whatever set is Standard legal. Say it's tech for the upcoming changes in the metagame.

 

Pull out a deck, and tell some random dude you wanna test (you have to use the term "test" for this to work) for Standard. Make sure that deck contains Kitchen Finks and Alluring Siren. Maybe throw in Nyxathid for good measure.

 

Finally, before you leave, spill (make it look like an accident) one hundred singleton, random cards onto the floor. Pick them up, put them in a pile, and say "EEE-DEE-AYCH".

 

I know this sounds dumb at first, but it will work. With the method outlined above, you will draw the attention of players that play older formats by asking for cards that no one on Earth can reasonably afford. You will get the attention of the wanna-be pro, Stomp-n00bz players by pulling out a well known decklist and declare that you have "tech" to make it better. You will get the attention of all the kind, helpful players by seemingly not knowing the most common format by having non-Standard legal cards in a deck that you claim is Standard legal. Finally, you catch all the rest of the Magic players by saying "EEE-DEE-AYCH" (EDH (or Commander)).

And there you have it. You will be talking to more people than you would have wanted to talk to in no time.

 

Smoke_Stack wrote:

EDH is the best format anyway


See, it's starting already.

 

Break the Card
What is Break the Card?
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
Week 1 : Xenograft
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft. Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1 Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad.
Week 2 : Mindlock Orb
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269 Winner : Axterix with his Maralen of the Mornsong deck. Honorable mentions : Void_Elemental.
Week 3 : Bludgeon Brawl
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797 Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
Week 4 : Followed Footsteps
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
Week 5 : Delaying Shield
This week's card was Delaying Shield : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27790101/Break_the_Card_:_Delaying_Shield Winner : Tevish_Szat. Finalist : Vampire_Bat. Honorable Mention : Zix200.
Week 6 : Painter's Servant
This week's card was Painter's Servant : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27940861/Break_the_Card_:_Painters_Servant?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Paint it Black deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his Tiger, Tiger Painted Bright deck.
Week 7 : Venser, the Sojourner
This week's card was Venser, the Sojourner : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27977489/Break_the_Card_:_Venser,_the_Sojourner Winner : Izzett with her "Venser, Trickster Trader" deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his "Tactical Sojourner Action" deck.
Week 8 : Personal Sanctuary
This week's card was Personal Sanctuary : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28005461/Break_the_card_:_Personal_Sanctuary Winner : MrQuizzles. Honorable mention : Vampire_Bat and UbberSheep
Week 9 : Sundial of the Infinite
This week's card was Sundial of the Infinite : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28038277/Break_the_card_:_Sundial_of_the_Infinite Finalist : Izzett with her "Afterlife Trespassers" deck. Winner : Xeromus with his "Fortune 500" deck.
Week 10 : Jace's Archivist
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist. Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
Week 11 : Search the City
This week's card was Search the City : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29518555/Break_the_Card_:_Search_the_City Finalist : Mown with "A Thousand Footsteps". Winner : Desolation_masticore with "Burn the City".
Week 12 : Fiend Hunter
This week's card was Fiend Hunter : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29530975/Break_the_Card_:_Fiend_Hunter Winner : Yuyu63 with "Carnival Hunting". Honorable mention : Dknowle's "Champion the Fiend".
Week 13 : Clock of Omens
This week's card was Clock of Omens : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29541549/Break_the_Card_:_Clock_of_Omens?pg=1 Winner : Dknowle's "The Myrs Go Marching".
Week 14 : Light of Sanction
This week's card was Light of Sanction : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29607219/Break_the_Card_:_Light_of_Sanction?pg=1 Winner : Zauzich's "Divine Plague".
Week 15 : Assemble the Legion
This week's card was Assemble the Legion : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29662307/Break_the_Card_:_Assemble_the_Legion Winner : JBTM's "Some Assembly Required".
Week 16 : High Tide
This week's cards were High Tide and/or Bubbling Muck : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29760427/Break_the_Card_:_High_Tide Winner : Mown's "Puppet Strings".
Week 17 : Illusionist's Bracers
This week's card was Illusionist's Bracers : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29776943/Break_the_Card_:_Illusionistss_Bracers Winner : Enigma256's "Tezzeret's Bracers"
Week 18 : Savor the Moment
This week's card was Savor the Moment : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29787235/Break_the_Card_:_Savor_the_Moment Winner : POSValkir's "A Savory Filibuster!"
Week 19 : Grinning Ignus
This week's card was Grinning Ignus : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29795547/Break_the_Card_:_Grinning_Ignus Winner : dknowle's "Luren' and Laughin'".
Week 20 : Transcendence
This week's card was Transcendence : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29806481/Break_the_Card_:_Transcendence Winners : Mown's "Transcending Timing Restrictions" and Dknowle's "Blinded by Greed", tied for the win.
Week 21 : Mortus Strider
This week's card was Mortus Strider : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29818471/Break_the_Card_:_Mortus_Strider Winner : SimonGlume's "Mortus Head".
Week 22 : High Priest of Penance
This week's card was High Priest of Penance : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29917231/Break_the_Card_High_Priest_of_Penance Winners : JBTM's "Two Clerics and a Goblin walk into a (Bom)bar(dment)..." and POSValkir1's "Choke Their Rivers with Our Dead!".
Week 23 : False Cure
This week's card was False Cure :http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29964239/Break_the_Card_:_False_Cure Winner : Dknowle's "When Hippos Fly".

Week 24 : Akroan Horse

This week's card was Akroan Horse : http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4024821.

Winner : Dknowle's "Indian Giver".

Week 25 : Leylines

This week saw multiple cards being in the contest : all of the Leylines! http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4067621

Winner : POSValkir1's "Laying the Battle Lines".

"netdecking" (also known as babies crying) is a way for bad players to find a reason they are bad without blaming themselves. Part of becoming a good player is knowing what you're bad at so you can actively improve on your flaws. Aimlessly say it's unfair that some guy has a better deck than you because he was smart enough to play a better deck says more about you than your opponent. 
i dislike when you post a deck and the response is to look up Xdeck and copy it.


Worse is when you post a deck and the response is to toss that deck in the trash in exchange for copying whatever won the most recent PTQ or what have you.

Or when suggestions are basically to take out half the deck and replace it with cards that erntirely change it's theme, goals and function to some popular archetype.
"netdecking" (also known as babies crying) is a way for bad players to find a reason they are bad without blaming themselves. Part of becoming a good player is knowing what you're bad at so you can actively improve on your flaws. Aimlessly say it's unfair that some guy has a better deck than you because he was smart enough to play a better deck says more about you than your opponent. 


I don't get this arguement. Are you saying copying a deck card for card will make you a better player? Isn't that like saying copying someones test results will make you smarter?
"netdecking" (also known as babies crying) is a way for bad players to find a reason they are bad without blaming themselves. Part of becoming a good player is knowing what you're bad at so you can actively improve on your flaws. Aimlessly say it's unfair that some guy has a better deck than you because he was smart enough to play a better deck says more about you than your opponent. 


I don't get this arguement. Are you saying copying a deck card for card will make you a better player? Isn't that like saying copying someones test results will make you smarter?


depending on the test, it could, because it would let you get into a better school/class, so you'd learn more. it's the same here. I'll get more chances to win if I have a better deck, but I still have to play it right.

playing the game and building the deck are two complimentary but separate things. one does not have to be good at one to be good at the other, or to enjoy the other.

 
120.6. Some effects replace card draws.

depending on the test, it could, because it would let you get into a better school/class, so you'd learn more.



There you have it folks. Cheating on tests makes you smarter by getting you into better schools.

And an architecht who takes all his designs from another architecht is surely a great architecht.

I don't really care if someone netdecks. I just hate the undue and silly amount of elitism from netdeckers.
Personally I consider net decking to be looking a list of recent top 8 decks, exactly copying the already tuned deck, and playing it.  And thats really only a bad thing if you don't give credit to the person whose list you copied.

However based on usage, I believe the current definition is: "your opponent lost and atleast one card in your deck has been used by anyone ever"

Current decks
Comments or suggestions are always welcome

Modern
nothing at the moment

Webster's dictionary: To copy a decklist. It's acceptable, though many players will mock you for it. (Never mind that a good deck in the hands of an imbecile is a bad deck.)
Devil's dictionary: You built a deck that beats mine! Baww...

139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
The purpose of a tournament is to win the tournament.
When any given netdeck won a good percentage of past tournaments, that's what gets played in the next tournament.
Cheating on a test is wrong, because the test is supposed to measure your knowledge of the subject and cheating lets you get a good grade without having that knowledge. It's also forbidden, and if you're found to be cheating, you'll get penalized.

You win a Magic tournament by winning matches. This tests your skill at playing the game (and all the entails) as well as your ability to bring a good deck to the tournament. A constructed tournament doesn't at all test deck-building, and it's completely irrelevant how you got that deck; only the end result matters. There isn't any rule against copying another player's deck, and there isn't any penalty if they discover you've done that. It's zero bad. Indeed, given how frequently decklists are posted on the main site, and given that they now sell ready-to-use event decks, I'd say it's even encouraged.

If you insist on making making the test analogy, it's more like a person who uses their own home-made pencil to the test and then accuses everyone who just bought theirs at the store of cheating. It's true that you do often require a pencil for test-taking, but the test isn't actually supposed to test your pencil-making skills. As long as you somehow acquired a pencil that works, that's good enough.
rofl @ all the netdeckers here

since you guys love the school analogies, here's one that's most accurate

netdecking is like using a teacher's note to study for an exam compared to using your own notes to study for that same exam.
I love trolls Dont hate me because I'm blunt and you cannot handle it
To me it's taking a deck card-for-card and using it. Doesn't matter if it wins or loses. There is no creativity in this process and that's where the problem lies.

Magic is a lot like Lego blocks. You have a set of pieces to build with and virtually limitless possibilities. You can use someone else's design, but it defeats the "spirit" of the system. 
I'm a netdecker because I build my own decks based on what I learn from internet forums and theory websites. 

"Netdecker" is a term thrown about by people who don't have the confidence to compete with decks designed for PT play, or the skill to honestly evaluate and improve their creations. Building your own deck (as I do) entitles you to no free wins, and disrespecting the nature of competitive play is just giving you rope to hang yourself with. Being an innovator doesn't make you a genius, being creative doesn't make you a winner.   
IMAGE(http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af108/acatan/sigwynzermancopy.png) Signature by IMAGE(http://www.poke-amph.com/heartgoldsoulsilver/sprites/258.png)
When you copy someone else's deck card for card or almost card for card.

Its fine to look at other decks for ideas and strategies. Copying them shows you have no creativity, deckbuilding skill or trust in yourself. I don't care if people want to net deck but it does make the game boring when every deck is the same. Its better to think for yourself and your metagame than just saying "this wins a lot" and playing that.

Also, take into consideration that a good deck isn't all you need to win. If you don't understand the strategy you cannot play well. Sure you can have all the fancy cards and combos but if you don't know how to use them you probably won't be winning.

Haha, people complaining about the spirit of the game and netdecking being boring. It's constructed, that's what you signed up for baby. All the official Wizards constructed formats are about being able to bring a good deck, and being able to pilot that deck well against other decks. Any component involving unique expression of deckbuilding capabilities has absolutely nothing to do with constructed unless it is a means to reach a good deck. It's like you guys are playing Tic Tac Toe and complaining that someone isn't using ψ and λ instead of X and O. Oh, "They aren't as pretty!" you say. But the win condition of Tic Tac Toe was never about making pretty symbols.


Play something else. Constructed does not sound like it's for you. At least Standard, Modern, Legacy, etc. There's this format that is like a constructed sealed, where everyone gets a fresh card pool that they have never seen before, and everyone has the same card pool. The people build their decks and play rounds with them. This tests your deck building skills intensively. Unlike sealed you can't win on the back of sheer luck opening the right cards. Instinctively you need to not only know what cards are good, but what strategies are good and how the meta will look so you can decide a strategy and sideboard that beats those strategies before you have seen a single deck belonging to any opponent. Problem is, I don't really know who plays this format, and playing it you would have your entire perceptions about deck building flipped as many of the better players arrived at fairly similar results.


Just play casually, you'll see a lot more decks that way. Play limited, fresh decks every time. There are options. I'm pretty sure EDH is supposed to be about expression. Although EDH still suffers from the fact that there is a predefined win condition, and the implication for anything like that is that you are supposed to try to fulfill that condition.



All the official Wizards constructed formats are about being able to bring a good deck, and being able to pilot that deck well against other decks. Any component involving unique expression of deckbuilding capabilities has absolutely nothing to do with constructed unless it is a means to reach a good deck.




And that's the netdecker's greatest weakness: being reliant on tournament results to know what is good. Netdecking is only a viable strategy if the format is stable enough for a decklist to be worthwhile for at least two weeks.

Professional Magic players (IE. the people who make the decklists whom the netdeckers take inspiration from) are the ones who are constantly testing the limits of formats. A netdecker can walk into a tournament with the best MTG deck money can buy, but if true innovators bring some new tech to play (and didn't announce it on the Internet beforehand), the netdecker is at a grave disadvantage.

Everytime a netdecker enters a major tournament, he has to hope that the format is too stagnant for someone to beat him with a deck out of left field. Choices as minor as choosing what and when to sideboard can mean the difference between success and failure, and no decklist can teach you how to outwit players who have equal tech as yours, but are superior players. 

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick


Haha, people complaining about the spirit of the game and netdecking being boring. It's constructed, that's what you signed up for baby. All the official Wizards constructed formats are about being able to bring a good deck, and being able to pilot that deck well against other decks. Any component involving unique expression of deckbuilding capabilities has absolutely nothing to do with constructed unless it is a means to reach a good deck. It's like you guys are playing Tic Tac Toe and complaining that someone isn't using ψ and λ instead of X and O. Oh, "They aren't as pretty!" you say. But the win condition of Tic Tac Toe was never about making pretty symbols.


Play something else. Constructed does not sound like it's for you. At least Standard, Modern, Legacy, etc. There's this format that is like a constructed sealed, where everyone gets a fresh card pool that they have never seen before, and everyone has the same card pool. The people build their decks and play rounds with them. This tests your deck building skills intensively. Unlike sealed you can't win on the back of sheer luck opening the right cards. Instinctively you need to not only know what cards are good, but what strategies are good and how the meta will look so you can decide a strategy and sideboard that beats those strategies before you have seen a single deck belonging to any opponent. Problem is, I don't really know who plays this format, and playing it you would have your entire perceptions about deck building flipped as many of the better players arrived at fairly similar results.


Just play casually, you'll see a lot more decks that way. Play limited, fresh decks every time. There are options. I'm pretty sure EDH is supposed to be about expression. Although EDH still suffers from the fact that there is a predefined win condition, and the implication for anything like that is that you are supposed to try to fulfill that condition.






Different things motivate different players. Some people aren't worried as much about their final win total as long as they can stun at least one player with some janky combo.

As much fun as I have winning a game, there is nothing that beats the fun of winning with the cards I enjoy playing. It only adds to the fun when I get a little creative to personalize my decklist. If it is competitive at FNM awesome, but if not then I'll have no problem finding out when the appropriate time is to play that decklist. I've got competitive decklists for competitive environments and casual decklists for casual environments.

I enjoy personalizing my decks but there have also been competitive environments that don't really allow for much personalization. I know what you're talking about when you say that there isn't a whole lot of room for personalization in the world of competitive MtG. Still I think that even in competitve MtG there is often an intersection between a personal decklist and playing competitively. Last week Jacob Van Lunen talked about pyromancer's swath (or was it pyromancer ascension) which as we know from his past articles is a personal favorite of his cards to build around. He was able to create a decklist with the card that stands a chance to be highly competitive. I'm sure he's been to many tournaments where he copied someone elses decklist but that week he brought something unique and he probably has more fond memories of that decklist than he would one that he copied.

I guess I agree with you for the most part (that there isn't much you can do to avoid netdecking if you want to remain competitive) but I think there is a brighter outlook than you seem to allow for (that creativity is welcome in tournaments, it brings risk of a failed tournament if you misjudge the capabilities of the decklist, but also can reward you for bringing an unknown entity).
Don't be too smart to have fun
Yooo, I love these netdecking threads so much! I like how some of you just want to feel better when y'all say theres nothing wrong with netdecking and twist any kind of argument justifying netdecking or netdeckers, like some sort of low self-esteem therapy group.

Cracks me up everytime!

"Just put +1/+1 counters!" -Wizards new motto