Beginner’s Luck: Innovation and Immolation

Posted on July 20, 2010 by Pete

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Beginner’s Luck: Innovation and Immolation”.

 

  1. I pretty much created my own deck like that from the cards I got in a draft. I didn’t make it with the land destruction way to it but still very similar decks.

  2. i think a major argument about netdecks, or at least the one I see the most come up in the casual room is when people bring the latest ptq Jund deck or whatever. I can see a point there since Im not sure what anyone gets out of playing a tournament deck in the casual room simply because the levels of skill are so varied. My only problem with netdecking especially in an online environment is that the metagame quickly gets very stale when its the same decks, over and over. Its not wrong Ive done it before myself just to have a decent chance at a ptq, but normally i try to avoid it. That said if I decide hey I want to play Monogreen, I will look at lists to see if there are cards or interactions i may have missed that would work in my build.

  3. It is interesting to see how other people think, and sometimes people like to write about certain decks and it can be both fun and insightful to read. the problem is, once you learn of something or are interested in something, it is impossible to just forget it. copying a deck 75/75 is different, but there are only so many interactions and color combinations possible that are competitive play worthy, so I see “netdecking” in general as an inevitable thing. and when people make a good deck, they want others to know and also once a deck becomes known as good, it fosters new thought when people try to build decks to beat that deck. and then it’s a cycle.

    i have another comment later on the deck you posted but it is very very long!

  4. Unlike my non net deck decks for pauper this one actually seems like it can win. I enjoy innovation a lot and noticed a few decks like this int he tournament practice rooms. Sadly netdecking will continue to happen over and over. But i mostly just like to see peoples ideas with magic more than actually play the game.

  5. Hi,

    Thank you all for the feedback! I’m glad the article got people talking.

    @Aznsilly and Shardfenix: Yes, that’s more or less the approach I was trying to encourage; it’s both inevitable and, I think, right, that people use the resources on the web, but that shouldn’t be the end of the story. There is a very big difference between taking inspiration from the decks PTQ winners are using, and just copying them outright.

    @Masterofbrine: I couldn’t agree more. Interesting decks make for interesting games!

  6. Anyway to continue,
    Interesting article! I’d like to say a few things about the list you posted, just my thoughts on certain things, like why people say you shouldn’t play scythe tiger, and also in what direction you should take the deck perhaps.

    First of all, since the deck is all commons, I definitely think you should develop it as a pauper (standard pauper PREs are available) deck. Of course you can add more expensive cards in the deck (the first of which would be bloodbraid elf most likely for these colors), but I think that would change the whole deck entirely. Assuming you play the deck as a normal standard deck, here are some weaknesses: in today’s standard, creatures are everywhere. Control decks run 1/3s or 0/4s in sea gate oracle and wall of omens. your turn 1 scythe tiger (which kills a land of yours and in a relatively land light deck with no 1CC spells other than more scythe tigers and 2 llanowar elves (also 4 bolts, but those require a different color and are not usually played on turn 1), you set yourself quite far behind. because you have no cards that provide card advantage except borderland ranger (in fact many of them are card disadvantage), you will probably run out of gas as soon as your opponent can stabilize. against different decks this happens at different times, but for example against jund a sprouting thrinax as early as turn 3 and its subsequent tokens pretty much stop your deck for a long time + the amount of removal the deck has means that the deck will stabilize fast. mythic can put down baneslayer on turn 3 which stops every creature in your deck or trades with it, aside from that knight of the reliquary often comes out at 4/4 or bigger which quickly becomes unstoppable for the deck. UW control has wall of omens, gideon, day of judgement, path etc. mono red has enough burn to kill all your creatures other than scythe tiger which trades with goblin guide at best or just gets stopped by opposing geopedes + fetchland in play. of course the deck might be fun as just a casual standard deck, but then i think you will still get outclassed by decks with bigger/more of the same sized guys. the highest costing spell in the deck is 3, but you have lots of ramp which serve only the purpose of pumping geopede or activating shrines. it seems only half effective to me.

    so if you look at the deck from a pauper point of view, the power level of the cards around it is much lower. however, pauper is much more of a creature based format (especially standard pauper) so your creatures that max out at 2 toughness are easily removed or traded with. i think scythe tiger might be a feasible sideboard option against creature light decks, but is quite poor against sweepers and only really good when it comes down early. since it has shroud but no evasion, you can’t even use pump spells on it to shorten your clock.

    i don’t exactly know where the deck should go to be really good, but as long as it’s fun…that’s pretty important too ;-)
    imo more burn spells and a little less ramp would make it perform better too

  8. I just deleted my whole ranting comment because it came off way too harsh, but let me say this:
    Pauper decks can be better for $3. Much better. And I mean no offense with that, but I do want to say it.
    I wouldn’t want prospective Pauper players scared off by your ‘the cheapest card in the pauper tournament practice room is $3′ line. That’s not even close to being sort of true, even in classic pauper!

    Going to a few “100 commons for 1 tix” bots would be a good start for any pauper deck, and I am convinced spending 3 tix there could build you 3-4 decks that are just as ‘competitive’ as this one (by which I mean not very competitive imo :( ).

  9. I like the idea of the deck, and I agree with the above that you should probably tailor it more for the Pauper Standard crowd than just as a sub-par Standard deck.
    Also, creating your own decks like this is all about the fun of it, it doesn’t matter if you are only winning 50/50 if your having fun and not aiming to be a magic god.

    And on the subject of netdecking, I have an uncanny ability to turn top 8 decks into bottom 8 decks simply by changing things around and trying out cards I like in that deck. I don’t think anyone minds this keep of netdecking…

  10. For the record, Zage, I meant that in the Standard practice room, there are decks that have very few cards below $3 (bit of an exaggeration, but not much, sadly). There is no way I would ever say that the cheapest good pauper card is $3; that would be an outright lie. Going to freebots is a good way to start, you’re right. And yes, I agree there are definitely better Pauper decks out there; I intended this as the basis for a deck, not the finished article. That’s the reason I kept it entirely to commons; I never set out to make it pauper-legal, but since it was, I thought it was worth mentioning. In retrospect, I agree that I should probably have emphasised that more; I’ll bear it in mind for the future. Having said that, I think this deck is fun to play and moderately competitive; it can win out of nowhere on turn 4 with a good hand, and consistently on turns 5-7. Standard seems pretty slow at the moment (at least, it was a few weeks ago, when I played this deck) and having such a big element of surprise is often enough to get around the defences of control decks. Anyway, sorry if I caused you any confusion!

  11. What i don’t like of netdecking is the way it warps some formats, remember Affinity? it gave you two options: play affinity or play affinity hate, leaving a lot of wasted potential from the cards of fifth dawn.