"I'm going to cut you off because I'm American and I like to hear my self talk!" As an American who interacts with non-Americans on a regular basis, this is so true
@@dbptwg Totally agree! They are a great duo, a perfect mix! One thing that could be super cool to see if mtg goldfish crew dies to removal mix. On similar topics to add more debate and discussions. Plus I would like to see a mocking between Sef and PK :D
Some Trivia on the card mechanics mentioned in this episode: R&D designed Skulk with the hope of it being an evergreen keyword. However, once put into practice, they found the design space and gameplay weren't as good as they'd hoped, so it never made it past Shadows Over Innistrad. Prowess isn't evergreen anymore. Although it worked well at first, it presented too many minor problems that, when taken together, meant it couldn't be evergreen. Protection & Landwalk were both removed because they were too "swingy" (ie. in the right matchup, they're too strong, in any other matchup, they are effectively blank text.). The return of protection was requested by Play Design (the playtesting and power-level part of R&D) to act as a safety valve on standard and limited. Testing found that the majority of players treated Shroud as if it was one-sided. They changed it to Hexproof because all attempts to fight this misunderstanding failed. For what it's worth, Mark Rosewater thinks Shroud is a better mechanic, but ensuring player comprehension is more important.
I had a buddy in college who had a mulldrifter commander deck. It was his favorite card and he really wanted it to be the commander so we were like "sure, why not."
I agree with Pleasant Kanobi. fetches without fetchable duals will be fine. hell, next core set could have them, there we go we just solved the core set problem. if we printed a full 10 land cycle of relitive value and importance to all MTG formats in each core set we could have far better mana prices. I am ok with huge combo pieces being expensive, but mana should be no more than a few bucks
It isn’t even fetchable duals that makes a problem for Standard, it’s fetchable untapped duals. Fetches and the Amonkhet bicycle lands would have been perfectly fine.
I disagree with the Prof here regarding the rules committee. I've seen multiple play groups that just can't come to a consensus on certain issues/cards and I think being able to fall back on the actual rules set forth by Sheldon and friends is a huge plus for these kinds of groups. My group recently did this with the London Mulligan change. Half of us wanted it, the other half didn't. The rules committee was the tie breaker and everyone has accepted it and everything is fine as a result. No resentment, no endless debates.
Yeah, the presumption of good faith on the community's ability to moderate a format is just nonsense. I've met far too many assholes that would bully people to "agree" to ban cards they don't like or harm their strategies if commander was only playgroup moderated. The counter argument of "don't play with those people," is fine, as long as you're willing to argue that no commander is better than bad commander, since some people don't have the option of finding new playgroups (I certainly didn't); but in making that argument, you've invented the Rules Committee (or a similar overseeing body) as necessary to the format's existence, since if no commander is better than bad commander, the format should logically die outside of close circles of friends that can all come to an agreement on new cards and issues, and some external structure is needed to prevent that collapse.
@@TP_Rockstar I hadn't even considered that. It would be a nightmare to go to a new lgs or sit in with a new group without the rules committee/ban list.
It really does comes off weird from the professor every time he talks about the rules committee being this otherwise garbage part of magic but does have its usefulness to make the game more palatable for himself
so you agree, not disagree. you're basically just repeating what the professor said. if the playgroup can agree, its fine. if they don't, they have official rules to fall back on.
i actually had a conversation about land being important but often too expensive, and had an idea on what might help. the idea was a land booster. it would just be a small booster that contains 5 full art basic land, 5 common lands, (gates, panorama, etc), 3 uncommon lands (scry, bounce, etc.), 1 rare/mythic land (shocks, fetch, thes, depth, etc.), and 1 foil. if not made too expensive to buy (around 4-5 bucks), i think it could help keep the prices of certain lands out of the 50 - 100 bucks range.
This is the kind of product that has goods and bads. It's great for helping people to get into modern and commander and have more powerful magic decks with better mana bases. It's actually a terrible idea however. Consider this, people who play modern B/R. 4 scalding tarns. Anyone who plays modern with powerful manabases RN would lose so much money on this product even existing that they would probably drop the game. Not everyone will, but enough people will that the game will have another risk of dying due to the outflux of players this would create. As someone who traded up and traded up and saved money to buy a set of 1 of each fetch, this product would have wasted all that time and money and honestly, if I buy a card for $100 and it drops to $35, and this happens to all my money lands, I would sell out and quit cause at that point, what's the point of every buying magic cards cause they'll never retain value cause this product says that they can just print anything whenever they want so spending any money on the game becomes throwing it away.
@@thedoctor559 so, making cards cheap will make people quit? sorry for that but I would be extremely happy if that happened. People that like the cards being expensive are a cancer to the game. There is no reason for a card being over $20, as richard gardfield said. If you would quit because reprints would lower the price, let me.point you to the door
@@xChikyx It's not cause the game is cheaper, it would be cause it would be a sudden drop in value. I don't want the cards to be worth a lot. But the fact still remains that if this kind of thing happens, than the people who would leave, would do so because they would love hundreds or even thousands in a game. Good for you for being more of a casual and not spending money on the game or saving for a card.
I think the controversy around Netdecking is actually misplaced anger towards the existence of the established meta itself. I often find most people aren't upset that the opponent copied a Top 8 deck, they are upset that they are playing against the exact same decks over and over again. "Oh look, they're playing Izzet Drakes just like the last 3 guys. How original of them..." Part of the reason Commander is the most popular format is because of the variety in each game (full disclosure I'm for the banning of ubiquitous cards like Sol Ring). I recognize that is harder to design in Standard, but in my opinion the Johnny/Timmy players don't like seeing the same play patterns over and over again, whereas I feel Spikes enjoy being able to read/predict the meta.
Would you ban duals? Command tower, commanders sphere? Those are in almost all decks. And a bunch more WOULD be if they were less like the manaliths and crypts. Ban them too? Should we just ban any card that is popular? Ban cultivate because most green deck run it? Thats not a good stradegy.
@@gordonross3270 According to EDHREC Sol Ring is in 76% of all commander decks. For a format with access to 16k+ unique cards, that is a problem. Whether or not the card is powerful is irrelevant, if 3/4th of all decks play it then it is too ubiquitous. It's the Smuggler's Copter problem (it's too efficient not to use, colorless so every deck could use it, and stifles deck building creativity).
In order to have meta game you need net decking douche bags first. Remember that those decks are the most expensive ones. Sometimes "meta" looks a lot like PAY TO WIN...
@@buggy65x and? Again, the only reason the vaults and manliths arent in just as many is because the price, they are objectively better. So should we ban them too? Or should we not ban them because they cost more?
... and so, with a clever introduction to a podcast, the MidAtlantic accent was rediscovered for the internet age, seventy years after it's popularity in radio and film, with each host thinking he was doing the other's accent, but both really just meeting somewhere in the middle.
Going on the basis of Commander it's literally one of the few tools that white has to be a contender in the game. You can ramp as much as you want you can card draw as much as you want but if you have a protection from a certain color it's not going to matter. But this is me basing on Commander. standard is a whole nother Beast
To be fair, Mark Rosewater made it clear on his blog that after Magic Origins, protection moved from evergreen to deciduous, admittedly very deciduous. So protection was never "gone", and now its future is a little unclear.
people only get sick of the meta when they lose to it. you aren't going to hear someone complain that they get to beat esper control for the 10th time in a day. (that sh*& never gets old)
I used to have a HUGE problem with net decking. I hated constantly losing to people who just looked up all the best meta cards and slapped them into a deck without putting any thought into it themselves. But I realized after years what I actually hated wasn't the net decking, it was that at standard events I would consistently lose against players that I was a measurably better player than (for example, I performed extremely well in draft compared to standard events) because they had significant disposable income and I was a high school student in a lower middle class family who had to seriously weigh cost of a card when deciding if it should go in a deck, and other than the few good cards I pulled from packs I couldn't play anything worth more than a dollar or two.
Proxies. I think this is going to be more and more a heated topic in casual formats. Especially for reserved list cards IE duals and mana rocks It would be interesting to hear both of your takes on them
This podcast is an easy listen. Great way to understand mtg culture better- I’m a casual in terms of financial commitment. Also thank you Prof for bringing up fetches again. But you guys shouldn’t be so hesitant to share strong opinions or take control of the conversation for a few minutes. Talk more ‘Merican no british politeness here!
On netdecking: It reminds me of one of my favorite adage's, you have to learn the rules before you can break them. I believe this was respect with to art, but the point is you have to learn how good decks are built and why they are built that way before you shove 49 6cmc creatures in an 80 card deck.
in the intro thing with the doomblade, the dies to removal title thing always goes on what usually would be too long, but i love it bc it feels like it's kinda trying to shove itself in your face, and that fits perfectly(in a good way)
"So I should get crap for having taste" OOOOOOOF. Oh god I felt that and I'm not even a fan/anti fan. As for netdecking... as I understand it, using the baking a cookie metaphor you used, the anti netdeckers are not necessarily deriving pleasure from producing the tastiest cookie, but from the process of making *a* cookie at all. It is less about winning the game with an optimized version of whatever deck they are going for and more about the unique ways in which the individual games play out - and playing against the same deck archetype over and over again often results in samey games that doesn't scratch the kind of fun that they are looking for. ... And I can sort of see that. If I entered a tournament and had to play against Tron literally 100 times in a row without being able to change my deck or sideboard, I'd get bored, too, even if I was winning my matches. But I think most of these people have less tolerance for that sort of thing than I do. .... And for commander... I have an Unscythe deck that intentionally doesn't use any creatures. ... I'm fine with it if there's an interesting gimmick or just for fun, but I do raise concerns over several planeswalkers that would need to be outright banned from the format if it was opened up (as opposed to being usable as one of the 99)
There would be dramatic legal consequences if those could be provably connected to Wizards of the Coast. It's illegal to intentionally mislead customers about a product being sold, so they'd be screwed if those fake leaks could be linked back to them.
The card stock quality is so easy to address. It baffles me that it is still an issue. 22 years of great card stock, and then 4 years of sub-par product shows WOTC has the means and ability to address this issue.
I used to hate net decking. I was like " why wouldn't you just figure out decks yourself, craft it and perfect it through building and trial and error" but eventually I realized not everyone enjoys that aspect of magic. I love building and testing decks, coming up with ideas and putting it together, but some people don't enjoy that part of magic in the same way that some people don't enjoy painting Warhammer models but like to play Warhammer. And that's okay. It doesn't make them a worse player or less real player, they know what they enjoy and they do it.
Honestly, I figure we should still talk about the Reserve List every so often. It helps to remind people why things are the way they are. Plus, keeps the pressure on WotC. The reserve list is a battle of attrition.
So glad you guys put this podcast idea together and are doing it regularly. I hotly anticipate these videos and they are my go-to when I see a new one while at work :). Rock on Kenobi and Prof!
For netdecking: I agree with the prof that simply isolating yourself from information is just willful ignorance, but that's only if it's treated as a virtue to be always followed Personally, I feel like for learning, it's best to first brew your own deck THEN compare it to the meta decks rather than the other way around. Since that way, instead of just trying to walk the same road a pro brewer is, you'd be on your own while getting insights and improving your perspective through the expertise of others This is unless you just started and are clueless to what the general game philosophies are. Netdecking is a great way to build a basic foundation Tl;dr: I believe netdecking should be for learning rather than copying as copying destroys perspective and creativity, yet learning nourishes it
I agree with that, but I believe the net deck controversy always has a resurgence whenever there is a toxic top tier deck (*cough* *cough* esper control) and it is running rampant because new and old players are running toxic decks and you can’t have fun in standard.
A way to go around duals in the reserved list is to print a better cycle, e.g., Hotter Volcanic Island - "Whenever you play Hotter Volcanic Island scry 1" :)
About the net decking thing: when you brew you’re own deck there is just a better version out there most the time. I brewed this mono green deck for modern than could pretty consistently get 6 mana on turn 3. Then my friend was like why not play Tron?
I still feel that hexproof never should've been made and that shroud should've never been retired. Shroud was balanced because not only could your opponents not target it, but neither could you and thus you couldn't buff it up. Meanwhile, hexproof makes a creature untouchable by your opponents yet still allows the controller (and their teammates, when applicable) to buff the creature to be an even larger threat.
Thing is that there are no instants or activated abilities or flash in hearthstone, and those cards that have "shroud" in Hearthstone can still be targetted by battlecries.
I feel like the issue with 'netdecking' is that most people do not correctly define the term. 'Netdecking' is when a player simply finds an entire deck list online and purchases it on a whim. It does not, in any way, imply that the player has done research on the deck, tried to consider strategy for other decks in their own meta, or are trying to find better replacements for cards in their own decks. The term is meant to shame people who do not even attempt to put the time into researching what cards ARE best for their decks, or try to adjust their own decks for their current meta, or try to develop sound strategies. 'Netdeckers" are people that, while not 'unhealthy' for the game, are just boring or inexperienced. Netdecking is also a habit that is more common for players who are newer to the game. The lack of experience relative to the other players at an LGS or among a group of friends may lead a player to netdeck. When a player shows up with a well-built standard/modern/commander deck, most people would make the assumption that the player knows what they are doing, and that they have game experience. However, for those that netdeck, this is often not the case. I have seen a trend with players I've encountered over the years; those with a tendency to netdeck are often lesser experienced, and therefore, are not likely to understand their deck mechanics or play that deck to it's fullest (because they are not the creator of the deck/have little experience playing the game overall). They might end up disliking the way the deck plays and end up regretting their purchase (not every mechanic/color is for everyone). I believe that netdecking is most dangerous to the person who is doing it. Players should take the time to learn the game and get some match experience under their belt BEFORE purchasing decklists they see on the internet. Once a player has a fair amount of general knowledge about the game mechanically, purchasing cards or decklists that seem good (because you put the time and research into the game yourself) is not a bad thing to do. If anything, benefiting off of the shared knowledge pool of the internet is the next step towards improving yourself as a magic player (you can only learn so much on your own; even the pros make plays based off of each other).
Prof If your local game stores were flooded with people that only play you after finding out what your playing then look up the top deck to counter. If you get their deck into a bind they throw a fit and leave and can't let anyone beat them. If they heckle everyone for the cards they need and they always play with cheap black and white proxies print outs. And if you have to explain rules and they can only makes plays as they have been explained on TH-cam videos. And all of the bs from that overtakes literally every format the stores offer officially or otherwise and runs off the local deck brewers that were making the game worthwhile.... I think you'd understand why some people hate net decking so much. It kills the fun. I always wanted to know why people have to net deck, like it's an addiction and the game is impossible to play without it. The game isn't that hard to figure out.
If they reprint duals and remove them from the reserve list then there’s basically no reserve list because the reserve list makes collectors and investors go oh ok cool my card will stay expensive forever but then remove one and there’s basically no reserve list left. I also think that they should just reprint the collectors edition sets and make them commander legal, people who play legacy and vintage already have made their decision whether or not they want them in the deck, also the market will soften up as commander players no longer need OG’s and will buy the new collectors edition, it would keep CEDH cheap and 5c more fun and less pay to win (or pay to die last). It would have less feels bad as removing things from the reserve list while making them much more accessible to collectors, also reprinting or printing new ICE sets and selling them for like £50 a box they’d make loads of money while avoiding a lot of the controversy
But edh is the place that least needs dual lands because there is so much stuff to compensate for them and it's mostly a casual format. Also if you're saying that they should not reprint duals because people who play legacy and vintage already have theirs or decided to play decks that don't use them, I must tell you that majority of competitive players in those formats don't play with their own cards and are sponsored by someone. Only thing that reserved list does is making rich people richer and preventing new players to enter the format, which will eventually make the format die in paper and move to digital services which is already happening and at that point reserved list will be pointless because no one will need those cards to play anymore and collectors are maybe 1% of the whole community.
Ok, but why does it matter if the investors start being more hesitant to buy in? Oh no, now the cards are going to players instead of idiots who want free money for doing literally nothing. What a tragedy. Keep in mind as well, Wizards isn't making money from the secondary market. In fact, it could easily be argued that they're *losing* money because of it. It's more beneficial to the player base and to Wizards to entirely get rid of the reserve list. The only ones negatively affected are the people causing the most harm to the community in the first place. Everyone else benefits tremendously, and Wizards most of all.
@@Zion661 Commander is like Legacy that actually draws a crowd--and it desperately wants more original duals. I probably see 3 proxied duals per game, but there are definitely people among those proxying who would prefer to use an actual dual.
None of these things are really controversial. Should've talked about charging judges money for background checks, promoting cheaters and banning meme lords.
The thing with protection is that it just shuts down mono colored decks completely. I have a really fun mono red commander deck, but if anyone gets protection from red, I become their punching bag and I can’t do anything about it unless I go super wide or politic perfectly and get the other two at the table to try and get rid of the protect from red stuff. Shout out to the guy who pulled out his equipment Tron deck that gets protect from red like 12 different ways after I said I was playing mono red goblins and just beat me into the ground with commander damage because I couldn’t interact with him
Demonic Tutor getting reprinted happened after it got off the Reserve List. In March 2002 they got rid of everything from ABUR that was below Rare (that, Sinkhole, Juggernaut, Psionic Blast, Basalt Monolith, Regrowth...) as well as Feroz’s Ban, which somehow got reprinted despite being on the Reserve List. And then they never removed any cards again and it was dumb.
Listened to this podcast at work, then came back just to see the skit at the beginning. Laughed hard both times! Loved it. Makes me wonder how my friends would imitate me, lol.
You should remove the ability to see through the coffee table; seeing the light in the corner through the table reduces the effect you are adding to the video/room.
Net decking helped me learn how to make decks. I would net deck, play it,, then change it to the mechanics and cards that I would prefer. Eventually building my own deck. My modern goblins started as a net decked pioneer build. I've never met anyone with the same deck as me. I get consistent wins, and It wouldn't have been possible without first net decking. Same with my modern white auras, started standard and I made it playable and winnable in modern. Now I can build decks and tweak them.
The irritation with Netdecking is primarily from two things. The first being that many times the meta is so inherently broken that a netdeck allows someone to win via [Tap icon] their wallet instead of actually learning to play, which results in players who either play to have fun, or just *can't* afford to buy the greatest and most powerful cards losing to people who have no stake in the game and just bought something big and expensive because they want to win, regardless of if anyone else has fun playing, and usually actively seeking to make sure that other people do NOT have fun while playing to make themselves feel superior [or perhaps to justify the purchase]. The other qualm mostly comes from when a format gets 'solved' and now there is just... one to three decks you see in play with nobody taking the risk to play anything else except the players who play something janky in the hopes of having fun only to get dogpiled by the optimized decks as though being punished for daring to enjoy a game. (Also known as the Magic the Gathering: Arena experience). Gonna be honest, that's honestly just me guessing based on the psychological knowledge I have of other players, though. I don't even like standard so I played Arena for the first couple months hoping they'd add some modified versions of, Commander or the like, until just giving up when I realized it probably wouldn't happen. And I don't run the tournament scene so the opportunity for me to run into netdecks is lower than other players.
the only problem Protection has is that if a "Damage Can't Be Prevented" effect happens, it actually negates part of protection. that poor Kor Firewalker never knew what would happen when he blocked that Monistary Swiftspear only for me to Skullcrack his owner.
Great comment about letting us engineer fun, Professor! I am not a fan of preconstructed decks. Two comments: 1. WotC should create Commander sets that feature one artist in foil; 2. We need a Legendary Bogle and Squirrel.
one of the most entertaining channels on the tube in my opinion! im a old school playa that stopped paper playing 10 years ago, and now im spending 10+hours in Arena each day! Magic is such a gem of a gem, and trust me ive tried em all... Even if im only arena atm i find your discussions so entertaining im (jokes on u) in considering paper again.... BUT i have questions about this... ONE Question: Where is MTG in 20 years? Do you think paper will survive the digitalism? personally i cant understand why i should... for example ive spent about 200$ on Arena and that gave me 5 complete T1 meta decks and (excluding some duo lands) at least 15 other decks, not to mention all the fantastically fun Jank decks! in paper format i would have to pay a lot more for this, not to mention online i have unlimited friends quing up at any time, even middle of night! regards from a more then normal interested person from Norway that has loved magic since revised, keep up the interesting discussions!
I'm against PWs as Commanders purely on a gameplay perspective. The games my group have tried are SO much slower paced and just less fun. It also just does make it a different format.
Agreed. Technically, all colours have access to PW removal in the form of creatures which makes them different from enchantments and the like where removal is colour-gated, making them problematic for a format with colour-based restrictions. However, that merely incentivises PW-based decks to reduce others' ability to interact with their commanders through mass removal and attack prevention. While such strategies are available even with non-PW commanders, they are considerably less incentivised which limits their impact on the format.
Planeswalker should'nt be allowed as commander simply because unlike creature it's a card type that cannot be interact as easily as creature and I'm not only talking about removing. Creature is the most interactive card type for all colors. Whenever a planeswalker is used as a commander destroying all "creatures, artifacts and lands"'s never far.
Non-planeswalker boardwipes is not a great argument for no planeswalker commanders. Indestructible commanders like Zurgo Helmsmasher will run those boardwipes also, since they can benefit from them just as much as a planeswalker, plus they can kill your opponents with commander damage. Also, while creature is the most interactable card type, planeswalker is easily the second most interactable. Kill spells, burn spells, attacking them with creatures, negating abilities with stifle effects or pithing needle effects.
@@connorhamilton5707 There's a difference between some creatures whose deckbuilding will revolve around abusing their keywords and an entire card type that can abuse old cards that didn't bother about planeswalkers. Then it's not only about removing creature or planeswalker. Stealing, enchanting, copying or even targeting. Can you swap the power and toughness of a planeswalker ? Can you fight a planeswalker ? Can you -x/-x a planeswalker ? Simply can you "target creature" a planeswalker ? Yes there's cards who deals with planeswalker but not nearly as much as creatures. You can't play 4 copies of hero dawnfall, bedevil, In garruk's wake, bolas clutch....
@@byotip First off, "Can you "target creature" a planeswalker"? That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Of course you can't do that since they are different permanent types. Even taking the idea you meant to get across, it is ridiculous to compare the amount of removal for creatures and the amount of removal for planeswalkers. Creatures have been a major focus of the game since the beginning so there has been removal being made for the type for much longer. In contrast, planeswalkers aren't nearly as common as creatures, even when they are the focus of a set. That is because creatures are the main removal tool against planeswalkers, along with being able to actually win you the game in a direct manner. Also, as a parallel to -x/-x effects killing creatures, Vampire Hexmage effects where you remove all counters from a permanent, kill all planeswalkers. Creatures and planeswalkers are different card types so don't try to compare them as if they are the same. On the subject of older boardwipes, there isn't a difference between abusing indestructibility and using boardwipes that don't affect certain permanents, since both are unaffected by specific boardwipes. In fact, indestructible is even more powerful in that respect than being a planeswalker or other unaffected card, as it makes you immune to almost all boardwipes rather than just some of them. At that point you need to exile the card to actually get rid of it, and playable permanent exile effects aren't that common. Personally I don't really care if planeswalkers are allowed to be commanders or not. Oathbreaker has been fun for me, but if Commander allows planeswalkers to be commanders than that takes away from some of the charm of Oathbreaker which would be bad for one format I like while good for another. I just don't want poor arguments against the idea spread around. Edit: mistakenly said Hexdrinker when I meant Vampire Hexmage.
@@connorhamilton5707 You said it multiple time, it's ridiculous to compare creatures and planeswalkers (then why would they be commanders?). What I want to compare are ways to interact. Yes planeswalkers might be the second most interactive permanent, but still far from creatures. Your own example of Indestructible creature, as a creature, you still have so many "common" ways around it, black has loss of toughness and edit effect, red has treason effects and remove indestructible, white has exile and auras, green has trample to past through, blue has auras. All my encounters with planeswalker commanders (Daretti, windgrace, aminatou, estrid) were lock focused, abusing the lack of interactions, so I'm not fond of them.
Okay netdecking would be okay if all it was used for was learning the game, but especially on Arena it has devolved to the point where all it does is neuter the variety of the game down to the three or four best strategies of the day. It makes things unoriginal and repetitive.
Well when you offer prizes of any kind, the motivation of the players changes, which in turn changes the decks. Even very small prizes will encourage people to play to win over playing to have fun. Its why I enjoy commander more often (though commander is far from free of players that care more about winning than anything else)
I think the issue comes from a disparity of goals of the paired players; some have fun through competition and winning, some have fun through discovery and experimentation, and I argue that formats like MTGA is naturally competitive due to the rewards and rating structure which tends to dictate the majority of decks present. So how do we make pairings based on which of these philosophies our two players have? I don't really know, but maybe just better pairing algorithms that accurately measure the "meta-ness" or relative strength of decks. Personally, I disagree with you in that I don't feel that net decking should be (philosophically) capped at learning; in a strategic environment, it should be expected that all available information will and should be used towards the goal. However, I do agree that it is detrimental to force players into top meta games with little variety when that is not what they are looking for, and it does appear that this is happening. For what it's worth, I am a brewer myself and never play meta decks, but I defend the practice of net decking in any philosophical capacity because of the aforementioned reasons. Just my thoughts, some may disagree which is fine. TL;DR: The problem comes from matching a players with opposing philosophies (i.e. competitive vs experimental)
@@thedarkemissary Neither of those is great because the power of your deck is not related to how you earn the deck. For example, you can dump 1000 dollars into the game and only play jank decks, or put no money into the game and only play competitive decks. In both those cases they probably want to play against similar levels of power rather than similar budgets (though a competitive player probably wouldn't mind getting easy wins for rewards).
@@8MetalMike8 I agree that it shouldn't be capped at learning, but I think the most fun games of Magic out there are the ones where you're playing your own deck, not just the same white-black lifegain or elemental tribal as everyone else. I know it's not as competitive as other things in the meta, but I get a lot more fun out of my mono-green giant monster machine than my other more polished, more researched decks. The thing is, I still win just about as much as with the other decks, but I get to feel clever- as if I've earned each win from the ground up. There's that philosophical difference creeping in there. I see net decking as filling the same role as pre-con planeswalker decks, just at the other end of the spectrum. It's a deck someone else has balanced and refined, and it's good at playing off other decks at its level, but it reflects no originality, no individuality, no personalized fun- at least, not for me. I guess I'd say net decking works best for learning the ropes or being a pro and playing to win. If you want to play and enjoy Magic from somewhere in the middle, though, I would recommend sailing toward uncertainty in your deck building.
I like Protection because you can make ridiculous cards like Progenitus, which has protection from *everything.* That's just awesome. Fetchlands were a mistake. Too many actions per minute to achieve basic gameplay elements. New players don't like the life loss. I *loved* the section about netdecking at 23:00.
Hexdrinker was an amazing use of protection. I never thought the card would see any play in modern. But the topdeck of doom in jund just seems so fitting
Landwalk was removed because the player shouldn't be punished for playing his favorite colors. I think is the same thing as protection, but except by the ceratops every creature from the protection cycle from m20 is a 1/1
I think the issue(s) I used to have with netdecking was not the act itself, but rather: 1) When I started playing, I found that all the players who ran decks from the latest PT/GP top-8 universally played decks that were way too expensive for me. 2) Many of those same players seemed to have the attitude that those were the only decks that were worth being played. My attitude basically changed as I noticed that budget decks started becoming more viable, so I copied a Pummeler deck around the time of Aether Revolt's release, and as sets released and rotated, and the meta shifted, I slowly made it my own to great success. My mono blue deck doesn't get the same longevity, but it is none the less a solid deck that I've gotten a lot of fun (and wins) out of with relatively little money invested.
My theory for fetches (or expensive staples) is the same for a potential loophole in the reserved list: Wizards should sell “no art”(just a white box), tournament legal versions directly, but you have to order from an lgs and have your dci linked to the purchase. The lgs you order from gets a cut, and each dci is limited to a playset. For example, wizards stops reprinting the fetches, but has the no art versions for sale via a registered lgs for $20 each. They are print to order, and you’d receive them when the store gets their weekly/monthly restock from their distributor. You could even print the associated dci # on the card to prevent resale etc. I’m sure there are issues, but I think it’s an interesting idea that preserves the value of the original “with art” versions, but allows more accessibility to older formats.
It literally meant that on each player's turn, you basically got a turn. I used to run sultai that could reliably by turn 4(at latest, usually turn 3) have PoK and next turn have a card(there are multiple) that allow me to draw every time I play a creature, so I basically got a turn every time my opponents got a turn. In a multiplayer format, it is blatantly unfair even without combo pieces. Excepting two games, keeping 1 land hands, I never lost a game and never was in danger. I took apart the deck and soon after, we learned about the ban list.
@@J24-k8f I had a friend in college who upgraded his Mimeoplasm precon with PoK, and he had a similar experience (though I don't think he chose to disassemble his deck); every time PoK resolved, he easily ran away with the game, even when facing another friend's Ghave combo & Slivers decks, both of which were highly tuned at the time.
@@zachevans2220 Yep. The value is just too good, and you become the archenemy. Basically, if you didn't have PoK in your deck and Simic was in your colors, you were doing it wrong.
It's weird that you compared netdecking to being a doctor or cooking. It's not as if those are competition driven fields. It's much more comparable to any other professional sports, be it football or basketball or baseball or other e-sports for that matter. It's equivalent to scouting reports and information gathering on opponents strategies and strengths. For me, the only problem is the loss of personal creativity. Essentially, netdecking is the same as buying a pre-con.
A precon tailor made for a particular competitive meta. So what's the problem? If the pilot becomes skilled enough with that particular build then they may get bored of it and pilot a new build. Repeat ad nauseum until they eventually decide they're confident enough to tackle deck building and boom, competitive magic player.
I think the issue with netdecking doesn't come from players using decks they found on the internet to learn how to play the game, build their own decks, or learn the current metagame. I believe that the issue with it comes from players buying lists that won recent competitive tournaments just so that they can win casual events like FNM to get prizes, rather than playing for fun. When a large number of players are using these winning competitive lists, it decreases the variety of decks at FNM and other casual events, makes it more difficult for newer players to have a chance of winning such events, and drives up the prices of core cards used in theses winning lists; making it more expensive for casual players to use these cards in their own unique decks, or even outright preventing them from building a deck or playing a particular format. TL;DR Netdecking is used less often to improve at the game and learn the current meta. Instead, more players are copying winning decks to the letter so they can win prizes at casual events with newer players, which creates less variety and increases the price to play the game.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 84 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องศึก vs เมืองไทย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3kuzsAIDf1c/mqdefault.jpg)
Dude, that intro with mirrored roasts of each other was hilarious.
Rips card sleeve ''A PLUSSSSSSSS'' :p
"I'm going to cut you off because I'm American and I like to hear my self talk!"
As an American who interacts with non-Americans on a regular basis, this is so true
@@dbptwg Totally agree! They are a great duo, a perfect mix! One thing that could be super cool to see if mtg goldfish crew dies to removal mix. On similar topics to add more debate and discussions. Plus I would like to see a mocking between Sef and PK :D
Sic burn
Omg yes I went immediately to the comments to post this thank you.
Lol I shouldn't have laughed that hard at the A rated sleeve tear
same
That was killer!
It was a good goof
They need a more extreme rarity for reserve list reprints
🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂 I died
Some Trivia on the card mechanics mentioned in this episode:
R&D designed Skulk with the hope of it being an evergreen keyword. However, once put into practice, they found the design space and gameplay weren't as good as they'd hoped, so it never made it past Shadows Over Innistrad.
Prowess isn't evergreen anymore. Although it worked well at first, it presented too many minor problems that, when taken together, meant it couldn't be evergreen.
Protection & Landwalk were both removed because they were too "swingy" (ie. in the right matchup, they're too strong, in any other matchup, they are effectively blank text.). The return of protection was requested by Play Design (the playtesting and power-level part of R&D) to act as a safety valve on standard and limited.
Testing found that the majority of players treated Shroud as if it was one-sided. They changed it to Hexproof because all attempts to fight this misunderstanding failed. For what it's worth, Mark Rosewater thinks Shroud is a better mechanic, but ensuring player comprehension is more important.
You sir... Deserve props!
Kudos
And also shame, i liked skulk
I always enjoyed shroud.
@@Racker26 shroud is nice but you cant pump creatures with shroud
@@netahamiel4304 that's the point
Fact: PleasantKenobi should wear suits at all times
That boy cleans up nice!
sadly i feel like he would suffocate in a suit.
He looks stunning!
A Kenobi should really only wear Jedi robes.
He looked sharp as heck in his blazer when he was on the coverage team
I had a buddy in college who had a mulldrifter commander deck. It was his favorite card and he really wanted it to be the commander so we were like "sure, why not."
That’s incredible
most based and wholesome magic player
I agree with Pleasant Kanobi. fetches without fetchable duals will be fine. hell, next core set could have them, there we go we just solved the core set problem. if we printed a full 10 land cycle of relitive value and importance to all MTG formats in each core set we could have far better mana prices.
I am ok with huge combo pieces being expensive, but mana should be no more than a few bucks
No.
That would ruin Historic right from its birth.
I think what could be good for standard are the slow fetchlands which come into play tap
It isn’t even fetchable duals that makes a problem for Standard, it’s fetchable untapped duals. Fetches and the Amonkhet bicycle lands would have been perfectly fine.
Prismatic Vista is a thing
@@alexanderkaufman3575 see the difference with that is it goes for a basic land
Prof: What do you think about protection?
Vince: You should use it sparingly...
Wanted to like this but the likes are perfect
Nice
@@TimStamper89 Jesus two years is a long time
A few years ago tarmogoyf was at 200. I remember trading my 4 for a heavy play tabernacle.
I also remember almost not doing that trade
Hm. Worth it then
I disagree with the Prof here regarding the rules committee. I've seen multiple play groups that just can't come to a consensus on certain issues/cards and I think being able to fall back on the actual rules set forth by Sheldon and friends is a huge plus for these kinds of groups. My group recently did this with the London Mulligan change. Half of us wanted it, the other half didn't. The rules committee was the tie breaker and everyone has accepted it and everything is fine as a result. No resentment, no endless debates.
Yeah, the presumption of good faith on the community's ability to moderate a format is just nonsense. I've met far too many assholes that would bully people to "agree" to ban cards they don't like or harm their strategies if commander was only playgroup moderated. The counter argument of "don't play with those people," is fine, as long as you're willing to argue that no commander is better than bad commander, since some people don't have the option of finding new playgroups (I certainly didn't); but in making that argument, you've invented the Rules Committee (or a similar overseeing body) as necessary to the format's existence, since if no commander is better than bad commander, the format should logically die outside of close circles of friends that can all come to an agreement on new cards and issues, and some external structure is needed to prevent that collapse.
Couldnt agree more
@@TP_Rockstar I hadn't even considered that. It would be a nightmare to go to a new lgs or sit in with a new group without the rules committee/ban list.
It really does comes off weird from the professor every time he talks about the rules committee being this otherwise garbage part of magic but does have its usefulness to make the game more palatable for himself
so you agree, not disagree. you're basically just repeating what the professor said. if the playgroup can agree, its fine. if they don't, they have official rules to fall back on.
i actually had a conversation about land being important but often too expensive, and had an idea on what might help. the idea was a land booster. it would just be a small booster that contains 5 full art basic land, 5 common lands, (gates, panorama, etc), 3 uncommon lands (scry, bounce, etc.), 1 rare/mythic land (shocks, fetch, thes, depth, etc.), and 1 foil. if not made too expensive to buy (around 4-5 bucks), i think it could help keep the prices of certain lands out of the 50 - 100 bucks range.
I love this idea!!!!!!!
+1
This is the kind of product that has goods and bads. It's great for helping people to get into modern and commander and have more powerful magic decks with better mana bases.
It's actually a terrible idea however. Consider this, people who play modern B/R. 4 scalding tarns. Anyone who plays modern with powerful manabases RN would lose so much money on this product even existing that they would probably drop the game. Not everyone will, but enough people will that the game will have another risk of dying due to the outflux of players this would create. As someone who traded up and traded up and saved money to buy a set of 1 of each fetch, this product would have wasted all that time and money and honestly, if I buy a card for $100 and it drops to $35, and this happens to all my money lands, I would sell out and quit cause at that point, what's the point of every buying magic cards cause they'll never retain value cause this product says that they can just print anything whenever they want so spending any money on the game becomes throwing it away.
@@thedoctor559 so, making cards cheap will make people quit? sorry for that but I would be extremely happy if that happened. People that like the cards being expensive are a cancer to the game. There is no reason for a card being over $20, as richard gardfield said. If you would quit because reprints would lower the price, let me.point you to the door
@@xChikyx It's not cause the game is cheaper, it would be cause it would be a sudden drop in value. I don't want the cards to be worth a lot. But the fact still remains that if this kind of thing happens, than the people who would leave, would do so because they would love hundreds or even thousands in a game. Good for you for being more of a casual and not spending money on the game or saving for a card.
Am I the only one who wants that return to kamigawa legendary challenger event deck?
Kamigawa was awesome. The lore, the art, the flavor. It ain't the plane's fault WotC dumped a bunch of trash mechanics into it.
i dislike kamigawagiwa so much I refuse to call it by its true name.
I would love that. Return to Kamigawa for the win!
Shut up and take my money!
ray ciannello *tiny leaders
The chemistry between Vince and Brian is amazing. This program feels like they've been friends for decades. Great show!
I think the controversy around Netdecking is actually misplaced anger towards the existence of the established meta itself. I often find most people aren't upset that the opponent copied a Top 8 deck, they are upset that they are playing against the exact same decks over and over again. "Oh look, they're playing Izzet Drakes just like the last 3 guys. How original of them..."
Part of the reason Commander is the most popular format is because of the variety in each game (full disclosure I'm for the banning of ubiquitous cards like Sol Ring). I recognize that is harder to design in Standard, but in my opinion the Johnny/Timmy players don't like seeing the same play patterns over and over again, whereas I feel Spikes enjoy being able to read/predict the meta.
Would you ban duals? Command tower, commanders sphere? Those are in almost all decks. And a bunch more WOULD be if they were less like the manaliths and crypts. Ban them too? Should we just ban any card that is popular? Ban cultivate because most green deck run it? Thats not a good stradegy.
@@gordonross3270 According to EDHREC Sol Ring is in 76% of all commander decks. For a format with access to 16k+ unique cards, that is a problem. Whether or not the card is powerful is irrelevant, if 3/4th of all decks play it then it is too ubiquitous. It's the Smuggler's Copter problem (it's too efficient not to use, colorless so every deck could use it, and stifles deck building creativity).
In order to have meta game you need net decking douche bags first. Remember that those decks are the most expensive ones. Sometimes "meta" looks a lot like PAY TO WIN...
@@gordonross3270 How would you solve the problem of *EVERY* commander deck running the same 60/100 cards?
@@buggy65x and? Again, the only reason the vaults and manliths arent in just as many is because the price, they are objectively better. So should we ban them too? Or should we not ban them because they cost more?
... and so, with a clever introduction to a podcast, the MidAtlantic accent was rediscovered for the internet age, seventy years after it's popularity in radio and film, with each host thinking he was doing the other's accent, but both really just meeting somewhere in the middle.
Landwalk becomes an issue when it comes on things like Lords and become a blanket effect given to an army.
ECPracticeSquad exactly what I was thinking
This is hands-down THE BEST intro so far! Twas laughing my arse off the whole time! Top quality stuff xD
Literally the BEST TCC opening in the history of EVER.
Makes me so happy to see all the D&D books on the shelf
i was a big fan of greyhawk the justicar is my hero, and escella is amazing. they killed lloth : ) the b###
1:23 So it turns out you _can_ swear on TCC as long as the professor doesn't know what it means lol
(according to the FCC anyway)
The problem with protection is not just power level, it's also that protection bundles together a bunch of effects and rules, that are not intuitive.
Going on the basis of Commander it's literally one of the few tools that white has to be a contender in the game. You can ramp as much as you want you can card draw as much as you want but if you have a protection from a certain color it's not going to matter. But this is me basing on Commander. standard is a whole nother Beast
To be fair, Mark Rosewater made it clear on his blog that after Magic Origins, protection moved from evergreen to deciduous, admittedly very deciduous. So protection was never "gone", and now its future is a little unclear.
Nobody believes MR anymore.
"Your going to give me crap for having taste.."
**CANCELED**
people only get sick of the meta when they lose to it. you aren't going to hear someone complain that they get to beat esper control for the 10th time in a day.
(that sh*& never gets old)
@@westmjwm I think you meant to put this in the main comment thread
The professor should have sang:"let's keep stoneforge mistic banned... in modern" gingle
gingle? you mean jingle?
@@coltonsmith9524 eh... is a word that i never wrote (english is not my first language) if mean like short (and usually) stupid song than yes😅
I used to have a HUGE problem with net decking. I hated constantly losing to people who just looked up all the best meta cards and slapped them into a deck without putting any thought into it themselves. But I realized after years what I actually hated wasn't the net decking, it was that at standard events I would consistently lose against players that I was a measurably better player than (for example, I performed extremely well in draft compared to standard events) because they had significant disposable income and I was a high school student in a lower middle class family who had to seriously weigh cost of a card when deciding if it should go in a deck, and other than the few good cards I pulled from packs I couldn't play anything worth more than a dollar or two.
Proxies. I think this is going to be more and more a heated topic in casual formats.
Especially for reserved list cards IE duals and mana rocks
It would be interesting to hear both of your takes on them
Smiling One proxies should be allowed in all casual settings. If you can only win because you have more money, you aren’t good at magic.
Casual is casual.proxies are legal.
@@leonard9624 I'll proxy beta basics in my commander deck say i won't
Proxies are legal in our place in any format!
It's awesome being casual where most of this stuff doesn't directly impact me but it's nice to keep up with it all
I'm so glad Vince called them "tango lands" because that is what I have always called them and therefore it is correct.
This podcast is an easy listen. Great way to understand mtg culture better- I’m a casual in terms of financial commitment. Also thank you Prof for bringing up fetches again.
But you guys shouldn’t be so hesitant to share strong opinions or take control of the conversation for a few minutes. Talk more ‘Merican no british politeness here!
"The poor man's saffron olive 🤣"
On netdecking: It reminds me of one of my favorite adage's, you have to learn the rules before you can break them. I believe this was respect with to art, but the point is you have to learn how good decks are built and why they are built that way before you shove 49 6cmc creatures in an 80 card deck.
Did not expect to see an alternate universe where Kenobi is a professor and prof is a hipster.
It's a personal fanfic of mine that I keep to myself.
You think Vince is a hipster??
@@Brando88Kern Yeah.. kinda
@@kittredge5167 Stop! Blasphemer!
@@kittredge5167 wowza
in the intro thing with the doomblade, the dies to removal title thing always goes on what usually would be too long, but i love it bc it feels like it's kinda trying to shove itself in your face, and that fits perfectly(in a good way)
I want Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth as my commander
Funny thing about urborg is it would be a colourless deck because it has no mana symbol on it 😂
imagine having to pay commander tax to make a land drop...
I run Karma in my mono-white EDH deck because of how prevalent Urborg is, it catches people off guard all the time. Love it
This may be one of your best shows. Excellent humor, topics and socks!
I think my question for planeswalkers as commanders vs only legends is:
what makes Karn a more valid choice than Karn?
planeswalkers ARE legends...
"So I should get crap for having taste"
OOOOOOOF. Oh god I felt that and I'm not even a fan/anti fan.
As for netdecking... as I understand it, using the baking a cookie metaphor you used, the anti netdeckers are not necessarily deriving pleasure from producing the tastiest cookie, but from the process of making *a* cookie at all.
It is less about winning the game with an optimized version of whatever deck they are going for and more about the unique ways in which the individual games play out - and playing against the same deck archetype over and over again often results in samey games that doesn't scratch the kind of fun that they are looking for.
...
And I can sort of see that. If I entered a tournament and had to play against Tron literally 100 times in a row without being able to change my deck or sideboard, I'd get bored, too, even if I was winning my matches. But I think most of these people have less tolerance for that sort of thing than I do.
....
And for commander... I have an Unscythe deck that intentionally doesn't use any creatures.
...
I'm fine with it if there's an interesting gimmick or just for fun, but I do raise concerns over several planeswalkers that would need to be outright banned from the format if it was opened up (as opposed to being usable as one of the 99)
"But not as poor as post-brexit England!"
OOF.
"Your accent is worse than David Tennant." I really died at this moment... no seriously... I am dead. :(
Sorry for your game loss on Arena.
@@rustythedeli-master6861 Thank you? I do not play Arena.
So, I subscribed to @PleasantKenobi for about 5:05
Savage xD
"YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!" I'm dead 😂
I think WOTC should leak fake cards. If they did that for a few sets every now and then, no one would be able to trust leaks.
There would be dramatic legal consequences if those could be provably connected to Wizards of the Coast. It's illegal to intentionally mislead customers about a product being sold, so they'd be screwed if those fake leaks could be linked back to them.
The card stock quality is so easy to address. It baffles me that it is still an issue. 22 years of great card stock, and then 4 years of sub-par product shows WOTC has the means and ability to address this issue.
I feel there is never enough time to talk about all these subjects in depth and it's hard to cover half of them fairly. Loves the video today!
I used to hate net decking. I was like " why wouldn't you just figure out decks yourself, craft it and perfect it through building and trial and error" but eventually I realized not everyone enjoys that aspect of magic. I love building and testing decks, coming up with ideas and putting it together, but some people don't enjoy that part of magic in the same way that some people don't enjoy painting Warhammer models but like to play Warhammer. And that's okay. It doesn't make them a worse player or less real player, they know what they enjoy and they do it.
I'm 30 minutes in and just realized that they aren't wearing shoes and now I can't stop staring the professors loud ass socks.
Vince needs to work on his California accent. May I suggest watching The Californians on SNL.
Star Wars is above and beyond Doctor Who.
That was actually the only time in the entire video in which he sounded comprehensible.
Honestly, I figure we should still talk about the Reserve List every so often. It helps to remind people why things are the way they are. Plus, keeps the pressure on WotC. The reserve list is a battle of attrition.
Alllowing True Name Nemesis, card which has a mechanic designed for commander, into Legacy was a mistake.
So glad you guys put this podcast idea together and are doing it regularly. I hotly anticipate these videos and they are my go-to when I see a new one while at work :). Rock on Kenobi and Prof!
"If you're not gonna reprint them, ban them!". And that's ho Pioneer was born.
That intro was absolutly beautiful, 10/10, would recommend
For netdecking: I agree with the prof that simply isolating yourself from information is just willful ignorance, but that's only if it's treated as a virtue to be always followed
Personally, I feel like for learning, it's best to first brew your own deck THEN compare it to the meta decks rather than the other way around. Since that way, instead of just trying to walk the same road a pro brewer is, you'd be on your own while getting insights and improving your perspective through the expertise of others
This is unless you just started and are clueless to what the general game philosophies are. Netdecking is a great way to build a basic foundation
Tl;dr:
I believe netdecking should be for learning rather than copying as copying destroys perspective and creativity, yet learning nourishes it
I agree with that, but I believe the net deck controversy always has a resurgence whenever there is a toxic top tier deck (*cough* *cough* esper control) and it is running rampant because new and old players are running toxic decks and you can’t have fun in standard.
“Does he take the ring to Mordor” hahaha yes, with his creepy sidekick Yoda, to take down the evil Egg Doctor Man
I thought it was Pesant Kenobi when I first heard the name. lol. I mean it matches being the poor man Safron Olive
A way to go around duals in the reserved list is to print a better cycle, e.g., Hotter Volcanic Island - "Whenever you play Hotter Volcanic Island scry 1" :)
About the net decking thing: when you brew you’re own deck there is just a better version out there most the time. I brewed this mono green deck for modern than could pretty consistently get 6 mana on turn 3. Then my friend was like why not play Tron?
Camal on Crack Yeah ramp decks don’t always have to be designed to cast colorless stuff
omg kenobi fighting his accent is wholesome. such a fun opening bit.
Didn't watch it yet, hope the fact that Professor got a common spoiler while Vince got a rare spoiler in CM19 is referenced somewhere
Edit: Well, rip
Commons are underrated.
This might have been recorded before they got their preview cards.
I mean, in the context of commander decks, Commons and rares are just colors on the symbol.
@@crash3398 I think they might somewhat represent complexity.
Crash Complexity and power level changes, and also, it was not only a common, but also a reprint
You two are too good together.
These collabs are gold.
I still feel that hexproof never should've been made and that shroud should've never been retired.
Shroud was balanced because not only could your opponents not target it, but neither could you and thus you couldn't buff it up.
Meanwhile, hexproof makes a creature untouchable by your opponents yet still allows the controller (and their teammates, when applicable) to buff the creature to be an even larger threat.
Hearthstone only has a shroud equivalent and none of those creatures have been percieved as overpowered.
Thing is that there are no instants or activated abilities or flash in hearthstone, and those cards that have "shroud" in Hearthstone can still be targetted by battlecries.
@@LadyTsunade777 Oh, right. So it's even weaker than shroud.
@@LadyTsunade777 But there are cards with shroud, and cards that can get shroud more than once
I absolutely love the two of you together as a pair. Best. Collaboration. Ever. My two favorite channels combined. Love it.
I feel like the issue with 'netdecking' is that most people do not correctly define the term.
'Netdecking' is when a player simply finds an entire deck list online and purchases it on a whim.
It does not, in any way, imply that the player has done research on the deck, tried to consider strategy for other decks in their own meta, or are trying to find better replacements for cards in their own decks.
The term is meant to shame people who do not even attempt to put the time into researching what cards ARE best for their decks, or try to adjust their own decks for their current meta, or try to develop sound strategies. 'Netdeckers" are people that, while not 'unhealthy' for the game, are just boring or inexperienced.
Netdecking is also a habit that is more common for players who are newer to the game. The lack of experience relative to the other players at an LGS or among a group of friends may lead a player to netdeck. When a player shows up with a well-built standard/modern/commander deck, most people would make the assumption that the player knows what they are doing, and that they have game experience. However, for those that netdeck, this is often not the case. I have seen a trend with players I've encountered over the years; those with a tendency to netdeck are often lesser experienced, and therefore, are not likely to understand their deck mechanics or play that deck to it's fullest (because they are not the creator of the deck/have little experience playing the game overall). They might end up disliking the way the deck plays and end up regretting their purchase (not every mechanic/color is for everyone).
I believe that netdecking is most dangerous to the person who is doing it. Players should take the time to learn the game and get some match experience under their belt BEFORE purchasing decklists they see on the internet. Once a player has a fair amount of general knowledge about the game mechanically, purchasing cards or decklists that seem good (because you put the time and research into the game yourself) is not a bad thing to do. If anything, benefiting off of the shared knowledge pool of the internet is the next step towards improving yourself as a magic player (you can only learn so much on your own; even the pros make plays based off of each other).
This is still my favorite intro. I'll see this video come up and just watch the first bit. GOLD.
Vince is the edgy Torchwood to the Profs wholesome Dr.Who
Prof If your local game stores were flooded with people that only play you after finding out what your playing then look up the top deck to counter. If you get their deck into a bind they throw a fit and leave and can't let anyone beat them. If they heckle everyone for the cards they need and they always play with cheap black and white proxies print outs. And if you have to explain rules and they can only makes plays as they have been explained on TH-cam videos.
And all of the bs from that overtakes literally every format the stores offer officially or otherwise and runs off the local deck brewers that were making the game worthwhile.... I think you'd understand why some people hate net decking so much.
It kills the fun.
I always wanted to know why people have to net deck, like it's an addiction and the game is impossible to play without it. The game isn't that hard to figure out.
If they reprint duals and remove them from the reserve list then there’s basically no reserve list because the reserve list makes collectors and investors go oh ok cool my card will stay expensive forever but then remove one and there’s basically no reserve list left. I also think that they should just reprint the collectors edition sets and make them commander legal, people who play legacy and vintage already have made their decision whether or not they want them in the deck, also the market will soften up as commander players no longer need OG’s and will buy the new collectors edition, it would keep CEDH cheap and 5c more fun and less pay to win (or pay to die last). It would have less feels bad as removing things from the reserve list while making them much more accessible to collectors, also reprinting or printing new ICE sets and selling them for like £50 a box they’d make loads of money while avoiding a lot of the controversy
But edh is the place that least needs dual lands because there is so much stuff to compensate for them and it's mostly a casual format. Also if you're saying that they should not reprint duals because people who play legacy and vintage already have theirs or decided to play decks that don't use them, I must tell you that majority of competitive players in those formats don't play with their own cards and are sponsored by someone. Only thing that reserved list does is making rich people richer and preventing new players to enter the format, which will eventually make the format die in paper and move to digital services which is already happening and at that point reserved list will be pointless because no one will need those cards to play anymore and collectors are maybe 1% of the whole community.
Ok, but why does it matter if the investors start being more hesitant to buy in? Oh no, now the cards are going to players instead of idiots who want free money for doing literally nothing. What a tragedy. Keep in mind as well, Wizards isn't making money from the secondary market. In fact, it could easily be argued that they're *losing* money because of it. It's more beneficial to the player base and to Wizards to entirely get rid of the reserve list. The only ones negatively affected are the people causing the most harm to the community in the first place. Everyone else benefits tremendously, and Wizards most of all.
@@Zion661 Commander is like Legacy that actually draws a crowd--and it desperately wants more original duals. I probably see 3 proxied duals per game, but there are definitely people among those proxying who would prefer to use an actual dual.
omg omg that card sleeve stretch and then "A plus" , hahahah
None of these things are really controversial. Should've talked about charging judges money for background checks, promoting cheaters and banning meme lords.
Yeah, but they filmed these videos before that happened, if i remember correctly.
They said they were gonna talk about the game, not on scandals
The thing with protection is that it just shuts down mono colored decks completely. I have a really fun mono red commander deck, but if anyone gets protection from red, I become their punching bag and I can’t do anything about it unless I go super wide or politic perfectly and get the other two at the table to try and get rid of the protect from red stuff.
Shout out to the guy who pulled out his equipment Tron deck that gets protect from red like 12 different ways after I said I was playing mono red goblins and just beat me into the ground with commander damage because I couldn’t interact with him
Hey, prof. What do you think about situation with judges and judge programm?
Demonic Tutor getting reprinted happened after it got off the Reserve List. In March 2002 they got rid of everything from ABUR that was below Rare (that, Sinkhole, Juggernaut, Psionic Blast, Basalt Monolith, Regrowth...) as well as Feroz’s Ban, which somehow got reprinted despite being on the Reserve List. And then they never removed any cards again and it was dumb.
Oh my sweet Kruphix the Prof looks so pale in that black T-shirt
Listened to this podcast at work, then came back just to see the skit at the beginning. Laughed hard both times! Loved it. Makes me wonder how my friends would imitate me, lol.
You should remove the ability to see through the coffee table; seeing the light in the corner through the table reduces the effect you are adding to the video/room.
Net decking helped me learn how to make decks. I would net deck, play it,, then change it to the mechanics and cards that I would prefer. Eventually building my own deck. My modern goblins started as a net decked pioneer build. I've never met anyone with the same deck as me. I get consistent wins, and It wouldn't have been possible without first net decking. Same with my modern white auras, started standard and I made it playable and winnable in modern. Now I can build decks and tweak them.
At this moment we knew that the Prof was a brit
When I saw the thumbnail of Kenobi in prof gear, I prayed for there would be some ruthless mocking. Thank you Jebus for answering my prayer.
The reason Vince can’t review:
“Many Magic: the Gathering players axe the question”
😂😂😂
Nothing wrong with it, just a different accent.
The irritation with Netdecking is primarily from two things. The first being that many times the meta is so inherently broken that a netdeck allows someone to win via [Tap icon] their wallet instead of actually learning to play, which results in players who either play to have fun, or just *can't* afford to buy the greatest and most powerful cards losing to people who have no stake in the game and just bought something big and expensive because they want to win, regardless of if anyone else has fun playing, and usually actively seeking to make sure that other people do NOT have fun while playing to make themselves feel superior [or perhaps to justify the purchase]. The other qualm mostly comes from when a format gets 'solved' and now there is just... one to three decks you see in play with nobody taking the risk to play anything else except the players who play something janky in the hopes of having fun only to get dogpiled by the optimized decks as though being punished for daring to enjoy a game. (Also known as the Magic the Gathering: Arena experience).
Gonna be honest, that's honestly just me guessing based on the psychological knowledge I have of other players, though. I don't even like standard so I played Arena for the first couple months hoping they'd add some modified versions of, Commander or the like, until just giving up when I realized it probably wouldn't happen. And I don't run the tournament scene so the opportunity for me to run into netdecks is lower than other players.
I'm watching this now and they've reprinted fetches in MH2 and the prices have only moved halfway through what they should be at :(
They’ve dropped to half! That’s amazing! Their around the same price as the other ones! I’m trying to pick em up ASAP!
the only problem Protection has is that if a "Damage Can't Be Prevented" effect happens, it actually negates part of protection.
that poor Kor Firewalker never knew what would happen when he blocked that Monistary Swiftspear only for me to Skullcrack his owner.
Captain Midnight is a TH-camr that does video essays, mostly about super hero movies.
Great comment about letting us engineer fun, Professor! I am not a fan of preconstructed decks. Two comments: 1. WotC should create Commander sets that feature one artist in foil; 2. We need a Legendary Bogle and Squirrel.
Tolarian Community College, great video! Enjoy your Thursday! 💯🙏🙌
one of the most entertaining channels on the tube in my opinion!
im a old school playa that stopped paper playing 10 years ago, and now im spending 10+hours in Arena each day! Magic is such a gem of a gem, and trust me ive tried em all...
Even if im only arena atm i find your discussions so entertaining im (jokes on u) in considering paper again....
BUT i have questions about this... ONE Question: Where is MTG in 20 years? Do you think paper will survive the digitalism?
personally i cant understand why i should... for example ive spent about 200$ on Arena and that gave me 5 complete T1 meta decks and (excluding some duo lands) at least 15 other decks, not to mention all the fantastically fun Jank decks! in paper format i would have to pay a lot more for this, not to mention online i have unlimited friends quing up at any time, even middle of night!
regards from a more then normal interested person from Norway that has loved magic since revised,
keep up the interesting discussions!
I'm against PWs as Commanders purely on a gameplay perspective. The games my group have tried are SO much slower paced and just less fun.
It also just does make it a different format.
Agreed. Technically, all colours have access to PW removal in the form of creatures which makes them different from enchantments and the like where removal is colour-gated, making them problematic for a format with colour-based restrictions. However, that merely incentivises PW-based decks to reduce others' ability to interact with their commanders through mass removal and attack prevention. While such strategies are available even with non-PW commanders, they are considerably less incentivised which limits their impact on the format.
Imagine damage by commander creatures against your PW commander counted towards commander damage against you. That would make them a bit weaker.
Everything in that room except the placement of those pictures is done so well. I wish they were symmetrical.
Planeswalker should'nt be allowed as commander simply because unlike creature it's a card type that cannot be interact as easily as creature and I'm not only talking about removing.
Creature is the most interactive card type for all colors.
Whenever a planeswalker is used as a commander destroying all "creatures, artifacts and lands"'s never far.
Commander is a vorthos format stop thinking of them as cards and start thinking of them as characters
Non-planeswalker boardwipes is not a great argument for no planeswalker commanders. Indestructible commanders like Zurgo Helmsmasher will run those boardwipes also, since they can benefit from them just as much as a planeswalker, plus they can kill your opponents with commander damage. Also, while creature is the most interactable card type, planeswalker is easily the second most interactable. Kill spells, burn spells, attacking them with creatures, negating abilities with stifle effects or pithing needle effects.
@@connorhamilton5707 There's a difference between some creatures whose deckbuilding will revolve around abusing their keywords and an entire card type that can abuse old cards that didn't bother about planeswalkers.
Then it's not only about removing creature or planeswalker. Stealing, enchanting, copying or even targeting. Can you swap the power and toughness of a planeswalker ? Can you fight a planeswalker ? Can you -x/-x a planeswalker ? Simply can you "target creature" a planeswalker ?
Yes there's cards who deals with planeswalker but not nearly as much as creatures. You can't play 4 copies of hero dawnfall, bedevil, In garruk's wake, bolas clutch....
@@byotip First off, "Can you "target creature" a planeswalker"? That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Of course you can't do that since they are different permanent types. Even taking the idea you meant to get across, it is ridiculous to compare the amount of removal for creatures and the amount of removal for planeswalkers. Creatures have been a major focus of the game since the beginning so there has been removal being made for the type for much longer. In contrast, planeswalkers aren't nearly as common as creatures, even when they are the focus of a set. That is because creatures are the main removal tool against planeswalkers, along with being able to actually win you the game in a direct manner.
Also, as a parallel to -x/-x effects killing creatures, Vampire Hexmage effects where you remove all counters from a permanent, kill all planeswalkers. Creatures and planeswalkers are different card types so don't try to compare them as if they are the same.
On the subject of older boardwipes, there isn't a difference between abusing indestructibility and using boardwipes that don't affect certain permanents, since both are unaffected by specific boardwipes. In fact, indestructible is even more powerful in that respect than being a planeswalker or other unaffected card, as it makes you immune to almost all boardwipes rather than just some of them. At that point you need to exile the card to actually get rid of it, and playable permanent exile effects aren't that common.
Personally I don't really care if planeswalkers are allowed to be commanders or not. Oathbreaker has been fun for me, but if Commander allows planeswalkers to be commanders than that takes away from some of the charm of Oathbreaker which would be bad for one format I like while good for another. I just don't want poor arguments against the idea spread around.
Edit: mistakenly said Hexdrinker when I meant Vampire Hexmage.
@@connorhamilton5707 You said it multiple time, it's ridiculous to compare creatures and planeswalkers (then why would they be commanders?). What I want to compare are ways to interact. Yes planeswalkers might be the second most interactive permanent, but still far from creatures. Your own example of Indestructible creature, as a creature, you still have so many "common" ways around it, black has loss of toughness and edit effect, red has treason effects and remove indestructible, white has exile and auras, green has trample to past through, blue has auras.
All my encounters with planeswalker commanders (Daretti, windgrace, aminatou, estrid) were lock focused, abusing the lack of interactions, so I'm not fond of them.
The roasting was absolutely stunning and on point. "Your accent is worse than David Tennant's". 😂😂😂
Okay netdecking would be okay if all it was used for was learning the game, but especially on Arena it has devolved to the point where all it does is neuter the variety of the game down to the three or four best strategies of the day. It makes things unoriginal and repetitive.
Well when you offer prizes of any kind, the motivation of the players changes, which in turn changes the decks. Even very small prizes will encourage people to play to win over playing to have fun. Its why I enjoy commander more often (though commander is far from free of players that care more about winning than anything else)
I think the issue comes from a disparity of goals of the paired players; some have fun through competition and winning, some have fun through discovery and experimentation, and I argue that formats like MTGA is naturally competitive due to the rewards and rating structure which tends to dictate the majority of decks present. So how do we make pairings based on which of these philosophies our two players have? I don't really know, but maybe just better pairing algorithms that accurately measure the "meta-ness" or relative strength of decks.
Personally, I disagree with you in that I don't feel that net decking should be (philosophically) capped at learning; in a strategic environment, it should be expected that all available information will and should be used towards the goal. However, I do agree that it is detrimental to force players into top meta games with little variety when that is not what they are looking for, and it does appear that this is happening. For what it's worth, I am a brewer myself and never play meta decks, but I defend the practice of net decking in any philosophical capacity because of the aforementioned reasons. Just my thoughts, some may disagree which is fine.
TL;DR: The problem comes from matching a players with opposing philosophies (i.e. competitive vs experimental)
@@8MetalMike8 They could always measure how many wildcards were used to build the deck or how much money has been spent on the account.
@@thedarkemissary Neither of those is great because the power of your deck is not related to how you earn the deck. For example, you can dump 1000 dollars into the game and only play jank decks, or put no money into the game and only play competitive decks. In both those cases they probably want to play against similar levels of power rather than similar budgets (though a competitive player probably wouldn't mind getting easy wins for rewards).
@@8MetalMike8 I agree that it shouldn't be capped at learning, but I think the most fun games of Magic out there are the ones where you're playing your own deck, not just the same white-black lifegain or elemental tribal as everyone else. I know it's not as competitive as other things in the meta, but I get a lot more fun out of my mono-green giant monster machine than my other more polished, more researched decks. The thing is, I still win just about as much as with the other decks, but I get to feel clever- as if I've earned each win from the ground up. There's that philosophical difference creeping in there. I see net decking as filling the same role as pre-con planeswalker decks, just at the other end of the spectrum. It's a deck someone else has balanced and refined, and it's good at playing off other decks at its level, but it reflects no originality, no individuality, no personalized fun- at least, not for me.
I guess I'd say net decking works best for learning the ropes or being a pro and playing to win. If you want to play and enjoy Magic from somewhere in the middle, though, I would recommend sailing toward uncertainty in your deck building.
I like Protection because you can make ridiculous cards like Progenitus, which has protection from *everything.* That's just awesome.
Fetchlands were a mistake. Too many actions per minute to achieve basic gameplay elements. New players don't like the life loss.
I *loved* the section about netdecking at 23:00.
Hexdrinker was an amazing use of protection. I never thought the card would see any play in modern. But the topdeck of doom in jund just seems so fitting
Landwalk was removed because the player shouldn't be punished for playing his favorite colors. I think is the same thing as protection, but except by the ceratops every creature from the protection cycle from m20 is a 1/1
I think the issue(s) I used to have with netdecking was not the act itself, but rather:
1) When I started playing, I found that all the players who ran decks from the latest PT/GP top-8 universally played decks that were way too expensive for me.
2) Many of those same players seemed to have the attitude that those were the only decks that were worth being played.
My attitude basically changed as I noticed that budget decks started becoming more viable, so I copied a Pummeler deck around the time of Aether Revolt's release, and as sets released and rotated, and the meta shifted, I slowly made it my own to great success.
My mono blue deck doesn't get the same longevity, but it is none the less a solid deck that I've gotten a lot of fun (and wins) out of with relatively little money invested.
Fix for True-Named Nemesis: "Name a player. While there are more than 2 players in this game, this creature has protection against named player."
My theory for fetches (or expensive staples) is the same for a potential loophole in the reserved list: Wizards should sell “no art”(just a white box), tournament legal versions directly, but you have to order from an lgs and have your dci linked to the purchase. The lgs you order from gets a cut, and each dci is limited to a playset. For example, wizards stops reprinting the fetches, but has the no art versions for sale via a registered lgs for $20 each. They are print to order, and you’d receive them when the store gets their weekly/monthly restock from their distributor. You could even print the associated dci # on the card to prevent resale etc. I’m sure there are issues, but I think it’s an interesting idea that preserves the value of the original “with art” versions, but allows more accessibility to older formats.
Prophet of kruphix did nothing wrong, it died for the sins of being simic and that's guildest.
It literally meant that on each player's turn, you basically got a turn. I used to run sultai that could reliably by turn 4(at latest, usually turn 3) have PoK and next turn have a card(there are multiple) that allow me to draw every time I play a creature, so I basically got a turn every time my opponents got a turn. In a multiplayer format, it is blatantly unfair even without combo pieces. Excepting two games, keeping 1 land hands, I never lost a game and never was in danger. I took apart the deck and soon after, we learned about the ban list.
@@J24-k8f I had a friend in college who upgraded his Mimeoplasm precon with PoK, and he had a similar experience (though I don't think he chose to disassemble his deck); every time PoK resolved, he easily ran away with the game, even when facing another friend's Ghave combo & Slivers decks, both of which were highly tuned at the time.
@@zachevans2220 Yep. The value is just too good, and you become the archenemy. Basically, if you didn't have PoK in your deck and Simic was in your colors, you were doing it wrong.
That opening will keep me open for a while, my goodness
It's weird that you compared netdecking to being a doctor or cooking. It's not as if those are competition driven fields. It's much more comparable to any other professional sports, be it football or basketball or baseball or other e-sports for that matter. It's equivalent to scouting reports and information gathering on opponents strategies and strengths.
For me, the only problem is the loss of personal creativity. Essentially, netdecking is the same as buying a pre-con.
A precon tailor made for a particular competitive meta. So what's the problem? If the pilot becomes skilled enough with that particular build then they may get bored of it and pilot a new build. Repeat ad nauseum until they eventually decide they're confident enough to tackle deck building and boom, competitive magic player.
OMG I've never seen the professor in a T shirt before, for some reason I'm totally tripping on it LOL
I think the issue with netdecking doesn't come from players using decks they found on the internet to learn how to play the game, build their own decks, or learn the current metagame. I believe that the issue with it comes from players buying lists that won recent competitive tournaments just so that they can win casual events like FNM to get prizes, rather than playing for fun.
When a large number of players are using these winning competitive lists, it decreases the variety of decks at FNM and other casual events, makes it more difficult for newer players to have a chance of winning such events, and drives up the prices of core cards used in theses winning lists; making it more expensive for casual players to use these cards in their own unique decks, or even outright preventing them from building a deck or playing a particular format.
TL;DR
Netdecking is used less often to improve at the game and learn the current meta. Instead, more players are copying winning decks to the letter so they can win prizes at casual events with newer players, which creates less variety and increases the price to play the game.