To netdeck or not to netdeck... "where is the line" is the question.

[Mostlynotgay]

Let me start this off by saying I play modern... pretty much exclusively. 

Now, I play as my primary deck (in paper and MTGO) a Variation of Lantern Control.  It's been around since 2009 (at least), and had some successful showing somwehere semi-important.  I love the concept of LC.  I've loved it since it was thought up on a forum, I've loved it since it was debated for years, and I still love it.  I love control decks.  Parents wouldn't allow me to play back then.  Now i'm older and living on my own and have disposable income, so I built an online deck and a paper copy of it. 

I have been accused of just net-decking.  Copying a deck 1:1 and pretending I did it myself.  The question I posit to you, the community, is: Where do you draw the line? 

As a modern player, I have to accept that everything has been done already.  There's really not a whole lot of "never seen before" stuff out there.  I mean, I have a few decks (check them out XD) that I like to think are unique, but most every deck is, essentially, somehow copied from a deck previous.  when you have a deck that has 2 or 3 cards for a combo, that's not that big of a deal.  But LC has, like, 28 cards that HAVE to be in it, otherwise it doesn't work (i've tried). 

How do you look at the issue?  I can understand somebody copying a Channel Fireball deck 1:1 is frustrating.  I get it.  but is taking the core combo and altering the rest of the cards considered a net-deck?  Is a person who finds another way to do Kiki-Jiki guilty of just copying it?  is a person who puts through the breach and grisslebrand guilty of being uncreative?  Is a person who plays a Jeskai Ascendancy combo deck not only a horrible human being, but a copy-cat? 

Where do you draw the line? 

[G. Moto]

     My feelings on net decking are like this: People get ideas and inspiration from other people which usually leads to new ideas. Copying a deck card for card is a strict NO WAY for me because even if two people play the same deck differently you're essentially borrowing someone else's deck. 1 or 2 card combos I would not consider too bad because with the way certain sets are released SPECIFIC SET DESIGNED COMBINATIONS are inevitable. For instance; Korozda gorgon with corpsejack menace and any creature that has scavenge would probably be inevitable for any person who reads those cards and sees the combo. Now say If there was a 1st place tournament winning deck where the person used that exact same card combo and then added hardened scales for mass +1/+1 counter production then it would be original. After the deck list is released It would really be considered net decking (as in taking it too far) if a person did the deck card for card. Sure if the combo works then go for it, but if a ROOM FULL of people are running the same deck then there's gotta be a problem there. Decks are popular because they win but they should not be what stunts the creative growth of another individual. Make something not because it won 4 or 5 consecutive tournaments, run a deck because you made it yourself and you have confidence that it will play well. You really can't improve yourself if you're playing from someone else's game plans.

[DelverMage]

As much as I am not a fan of netdecks, it really is to each their own.

I have, on many occasions, created a deck on my own that I later discovered was the core of something from some time past, or even recently. 

Upon discovery, I see what they did different, and that usually includes a few 'Oh, I missed that card' moments and a few times where I refuse to spend the money for some cards that finish breaking the idea.

Some folks are more about the competition and winning and less about building their own deck.  Kind of like singers.  Many famous singers don't write their own music, they sing other peoples songs.  There are also a ton of song writers who don't sing, or at least not famous for doing so......  and once in a while the remake of an old song is better than the original (but not often!!!)

Play lanterns and who cares what people think.

[G. Moto]

     I gotta agree with DelverMage, there's thousands of cards and Its not like strategies have not been tried before. Actually most people are surprised when they see the decks I build because they think that someone actually played them in a tournament. All of my decks are constructed from what ever cards I can get a hold of and I usually build WITHIN the blocks (helps with organizing and boosts my creativity). If anyone asks who made your deck or played it in a tournament tell 'em: "It's a not gay original".

[robort]

Net decking to me, is like using someone elses playbook. Granted the plays are great and work, but they
aren't my plays. I want to create, be creative and make my own plays. Also if I am using someone elses
playbook then I have to execute those plays correctly. However if I chose to use my red infect deck and
made some upgrades on it, the obvious net deck choice would be to make it as fast as possible.
Then like the op people would say I'd be copying/net decking. I made that deck when I first started
playing. I didn't know much about the pros or top 10 decks, stratagies, what were or weren't good
cards, and what titles were given to decks such as now like esper, and abzan. I figured dealing 10
poison was much easier no matter how much life you had.

Then you have the pros saying "you can't beat them, then join them". Reminds of the story I read
about a rich guy, started playing mtg. Realizing he could buy his way to the top and any card he
wanted. He does this, but doesn't or can't execute from the playbook very well. In essence he didn't
play, play, play, play the game to learn.

So do I believe in net decking? no  Do I believe net decking can be a learning tool? Yes
Is it wrong to net deck? No  Is it right to constantly learn, no matter how many times I have
seen the same thing? Yes

[EBWonder]

To be all honest, if somebody wants to netdeck and spend the money, I feel that it's their prerogative. I personally never look them up unless I'm really in a bind on how to bridge a gap (aka figure out how somebody else did what i was planning to do already). I rarely care if somebody accuses me of netdecking because, well, my decks are rarely that good and could probably benefit from being netdecked.

That being said, sometimes some decks just happen to come out similar. it's not like you're trying to be somebody else and, honestly, there aren't many variations to most decks. So I say, good for you and the other person can just sit and be jealous.

Just my two cents.

[dakkaknight]

To me net decking is different from copying a decklist. After all, taking a look at Scapeshift and Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle tell's you immediately what the combo is. There's nothing wrong with seeing a fun idea and wanting to try it out yourself. And replicating a deck isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some strategies are just so obvious, and some cards so good in them, that most players will reach similar conclusions.

On the other hand, copying the list from the latest GP winner every week for FNM is just being lazy. If you just copy and paste the deck isn't really yours and you won't have the same understanding that you would if you'd tuned it yourself.

[G. Moto]

Solid point, that's why i try to build my decks from mostly commons and uncommon cards. It's the one method for getting the least amount of copy cat duelists. Mostly everyone is dropping 100s of dollars on decks but the creativity is lost.