In most MTG playgroups, there are the typical WoTC pushed psychographics we’re all so familiar with by now-Timmy, Johnny, and Spike-and then there are the more non-traditional, community created ones-the dealer, the “wannabe” pro player/grinder, and the casual.  As I’ve neither the patience for play testing or the basic math skills to be a salesmen, I’ve found a comfortable niche being the go-to guy for upcoming news due to my podcast connections, as well as a resource for what’s going on in the world of Commander. This naturally means I get constant requests to look over deck lists, polled on the current card pool, and just generally pelted with inquiries of all forms. I always answer with a smile and a sip of whiskey, but always feel a slight cringe as well. Unlike other formats, EDH/Commander isn’t wholly mechanically and mathematically predictable, and in my experience, is a format of personal, subjective choices and self expression. If you don’t believe me, take a look at your local league or personal playgroup and count how many people are vocally proclaiming themselves to be on a quest to foil out an entire list, or are showing their altered cards to everyone . Commander isn’t just about the cards-it’s about the people who’ve chosen this medium to show themselves to the world.

If just making a few suggestions makes me uneasy, you can only imagine what having to brew an entire list from scratch for someone does to me. But for the right people, it’s still something I’ll attempt.

Jake Humphries, the “dealer” of my playgroup, recently asked me to send him a list for [card]Damia, Sage of Stone[/card]. A bit apprehensive, I attempted to gleam what exactly it was Jake was trying to accomplish with a few non-specific questions about his play style, which was met with a few vague answers about wanting to control the game. I’ve been around Jake enough to know that if you give him a deck and a brief explanation, chances are more than likely he can play anything he sets his mind to. But that’s a skill useful to a very specific kind of meta (read: a predictable, established one), and not to the realm of casual Magic where literally every single meta, opponent, group, and strategy can change week to week, and region to region. Building a “strong” list is entirely possible, and skilled politicians can survive with a mediocre list through cunning manipulation of their play mates. But to have a list that fits like a glove, plays exactly the way you want it to, and succeeds in being effective takes a personal touch-this was something Jake was going to have to do on his own.

Needless to say, I’ve still not got the list cooked up for Jake. I don’t know if I ever will have one suitable enough. And it’s not for lack of trying-I actually came up with several ideas, even a few lists that were nearly finished. Yet, I always reeled back at the last moment, knowing that in some small fashion, they were imperfect. That something was wrong, even when there weren’t any mechanical kinks, it curved out perfectly, and the deck approached what seemed to be a suitable win percentage. The lists simply lacked soul, and character. While spitting out 75 pieces of cardboard is a natural behavior for constructed, competitive formats, that same behavior feels so strange and alien to Commander that I usually shy as far away as possible from any sort of “resources” I might resort to in other formats. While I’m not going to get on a soap box and spout about the evils of net decking (or for that matter, having someone else create a list for you), I do wonder what sometimes drives people to do it in Commander, especially considering that there is very rarely anything on the line outside of bragging rights and ego fluffing.

The most obvious reason is of course because people desire to win, right?  But if we’re to say that, we have to define what “winning” actually means to us first on the individual level, and then compare it to the rest of our community. What defines “winning” is entirely subjective and shifts from player to player. Just using the word as an answer as to why people resort to others for deck lists shows that there’s a misunderstanding somewhere along the chain of communication about what EDH is all about. So if our definition of winning is so incredibly subjective, then we can either A) use this as the basis for what winning means to the entire community, showing that there are just as many different perspectives as there are archetypes, generals and more, or B) disregard it as a reason for why people net deck in commander due to the amount of variables present.

So now that we’ve dispelled “because I want to win” as a possible answer, our other options include the following:

1. Time Constraints: I’m listing this first and foremost because I think it affects a larger number of players than the community realizes. While I’m sure many of us would like to devote more hours to MTG, work, family and occasionally leaving the basement to feel the caress of the sun naturally takes priority. Many players simply don’t have hours to devote to perfecting a list, and so net decking is an easy way to get something constructed on the fly and ready for Commander night without any of the stress that deck construction can sometimes bring. If anything, I find this to be the most faultless reason for asking others to produce your deck for you. Piloting your own creation is obviously the desire of all players, but having a chance to play at all beats it outright.

2. Card Pool: Commander is freaking huge. It’s a format with a nigh-unlimited card pool, with the only true restrictions being a suggested ban list and the colors of your general. Many newer players are easily intimidated, and are often looking for an easy foothold until they drop their training wheels. While we yet again can’t fault anyone for taking the comfortable option, I think it’s important that these kinds of players get to know the community they’re in a bit more, as establishing connections with their fellow players not only gives them access to cards and concepts they didn’t have previously, but also shapes an idea of what their respective meta looks like-and subsequently, what they can get away with, what style of play works best, and how much of a douche bag they will or won’t look like for attempting as much.

3. Misrepresentation: I can’t count how many times I’ve had to explain the expense, depth, and core ideals of Commander to people, only to be met with a glazed over nod before they continue to ask about what deck performs best against [card]Vendillion Clique[/card]. There’s a huge disparity between the reality and the preconception of what Commander is all about, and the root cause rests just as much upon the shoulders of the community as the attitudes with which today’s MTG players bring towards deck construction. We’re now seeing a surge in popularity thanks to the pre-cons WoTC released, and while many players are beginning to experiment on their own in improving the decks, they’re still approaching construction in the same mechanical fashion that they would their Type 2 or Legacy builds. Couple this with the fact that many pilots take a zealous approach to crafting the oft-sought and mythical “perfect” list for whomever they choose as their Commander, and the result is a community that outwardly perpetuates a stereotype that simultaneously allures and alienates prospective others into their ranks. By far, this joint attitude is the most responsible for coercing players into the assumption that whipping up a net deck is an easy way to jump into commander, when in fact the complete opposite is true.

Of the above, all three can be remedied or cured outright with a bit of personal management, friendliness and networking, and education. Crafting a personal list takes time and open, honest discussion with your peers. While the format can be arduous and often frighteningly big, reading articles such as this one and others takes tens of minutes out of your day, and can go far towards improving your understanding of how Commander works, and why it’s important to construct a list that works for you individually as opposed to a player base collectively.

Again, I should emphasis I’m not trying to villainize the practice of net decking. I completely understand it’s application and why people resort to it in other formats, and I would even feel confidant in saying that it’s an extremely useful practice (if executed properly) for players who are attempting to learn more about what makes a winning deck work, and why it’s important to have a high skill average rather than a perfect list-players practically screamed over the reign of Caw-Blade in Standard and forgot that skill ultimately determined victory over birds and blades, for example. But that same practice simply does not have a bearing in a format where fun and aesthetics take precedence over winning for the majority. Yes, there are “perfect” (read: well tuned, great performing, but still flawed) lists out there, such as five color Hermit Druid. And yes, these lists can win a majority of the time, and consistently at that. But once we focus on what the true end game for a match of Commander is-social and personal fulfillment-then these lists become nothing more than petty, infrequent annoyances to be piloted a few times, and hopefully passed upon.

It’s all fun and games until you realize you’re just playing with yourself.

I’ve decided to give you guys some homework this week-I want you to go out and play a game at your LGS. Enjoy it as much as possible, with people who will do the same. And when someone wanders over and starts watching you guys, try to include them as well, and build their intrigue. And if they ask who’s winning, be sure to answer them with “everybody”. Have a great week everybody, and until next time, stay classy.